Negotiation Skills – Group Assignment 1

Submitted to: Professor Prachi Bhatt

Submitted by: Group 7 – NEGO 2
Members:
1. Rohit Pratap Singh - 301001
2. Ankit Kumar Singh – 301012
3. Ayush Garg – 301016
4. P Maxwell Jubilton – 301033
5. Pallavi Lahiri - 301035
6. Sugandhi Pohani – 301053

i|Page
 Table of Contents

Q1: What are the key takeaways from reading Shadow Negotiations? ................. 1

Q2: Describe how individual differences would influence Anxiety &

Overconfidence. ........................................................................................................ 4

Q3: Discuss the implications of Snap Judgements and Anger on the different

moves in Shadow Negotiations. ................................................................................ 6

ii | P a g e
 Q1: What are the key takeaways from reading Shadow Negotiations?

Answer: Each firm that deals with customers, suppliers, or coworkers must engage in negotiation. It
has become commonplace to think of conventional negotiation as a zero-sum game in which one party
wins and the other loses. The authors contend that there is a superior strategy for approaching negotiations
that focuses on adding value for each party. The strategy in question is called "breakthrough negotiating."

One of the most fascinating features of the study is how it challenges the standard negotiating style, which
typically involves seeing the negotiations as a zero-sum game. Instead, the authors propose a cutting-edge
strategy that prioritises creating value for all parties involved. The significance of finding common ground,
being creative, building connections, cooperating to solve issues, and being patient are stressed in the
breakthrough negotiation approach.

As it requires a shift in viewpoint and the willingness to investigate novel and inventive solutions to
problems, this tactic is very appealing. Instead of viewing negotiation as a conflict between parties with
divergent interests, breakthrough negotiating places a strong emphasis on the need of working together to
find a solution that benefits both parties and creates new value. In the long term, this can result in better
outcomes for all parties involved and support the growth of more amiable and productive relationships.

During negotiations, businesspeople can negotiate the most complex parts of these partnerships by
employing three crucial techniques. Power plays can be used to convince both sides to engage in the
negotiation process by highlighting the disadvantages of maintaining the status quo when one party to a
negotiation has more negotiating leverage than the other. Process manoeuvres can be used to establish the
agenda and gain support for desired outcomes even if they are not part of the actual negotiation process
because they affect how both parties see the negotiating problems. By generating a more upbeat and
cooperative environment during negotiations, appreciative movements aim to encourage increased
dialogue and collaboration between the two sides. None of these strategies is a certain method to ensure
that everyone involved in the negotiation feels like they won, but they may all be useful for restarting stuck
negotiations and ensuring that all parties feel heard and engaged.

For individuals wishing to employ breakthrough bargaining in their talks, the authors provide many
important lessons:

1|Page
1. Find common ground: According to the writers, this is the first and most important stage in any
negotiation. When a customer and a supplier are negotiating a new contract, for instance, the buyer
can want lower pricing while the supply might demand a longer agreement. Nonetheless, it's
possible that both sides are motivated to raise the product's calibre. Negotiators may create a basis
for a more cooperative and fruitful dialogue by recognising these common objectives.

2. Be creative: Being inventive is important for breakthrough negotiations, according to the authors.
Negotiators should seek methods to increase the pie and generate new value for both sides rather
than just concentrating on splitting a set pie. For instance, during the course of negotiating a new
contract with a customer, a software provider can propose to provide the client's staff more training
in order to improve their proficiency with the programme. This method can foster a more
cooperative connection between the parties by generating fresh value for each.

3. Focus on building relationships: Building trust and rapport with the other side, according to the
authors, might make it simpler to speak honestly and openly and to come up with solutions that
benefit everyone. Negotiators may wish to spend some time getting to know one another outside of
the negotiation chamber when two businesses are negotiating a new collaboration. As a result, a
relationship of respect and trust may develop.

4. Use joint problem-solving: Breakthrough negotiating emphasises collaborative problem-solving

as opposed to viewing negotiation as a zero-sum game where one party wins and the other loses.
This entails collaborating to discover a solution that serves everyone's interests and satisfies the
needs of both parties. When a landlord and a tenant are negotiating a new lease, for instance, the
renter could propose making changes to the property that are advantageous to both sides.

5. Be patient: Compared to conventional negotiation, breakthrough bargaining might be more time-

and energy-consuming, but it can produce superior results for both sides. In adopting this strategy,
negotiators should be persistent and patient, as well as open to considering many options.
Negotiators may need to spend time looking at various choices for payment terms or delivery dates
when negotiating a new contract between a business and a vendor.

The authors of "Breakthrough Bargaining" provide a novel and cooperative method of negotiating that
can increase value for all parties, to sum up. Negotiators may come up with solutions that satisfy the

2|Page
needs of both parties and provide additional value by searching for points of agreement, being
resourceful, developing connections, employing cooperative problem-solving, and exercising patience.

3|Page
 Q2: Describe how individual differences would influence Anxiety &
Overconfidence.

Answer: Negotiation is a critical business skill that involves finding common ground between two or
more parties to achieve a desired outcome. However, the negotiation process can be complex and
challenging, and individual differences can greatly impact a negotiator's ability to achieve their goals. The
article highlights how two states of mind namely, anxiety & overconfidence can greatly impact the outcome
of a negotiation, so it's important to understand how they can be affected by individual differences.

Anxiety is a common emotion experienced during negotiations, and it can negatively impact a negotiator's
performance. Anxiety can be influenced by individual differences such as personality traits and past
experiences with negotiation. For example, individuals who are high in neuroticism may be more prone to
anxiety in negotiation situations. High levels of neuroticism can lead to worry, stress, and negative
thinking, making it difficult for individuals to stay focused and engaged during a negotiation.

The author makes a strong claim that negotiators who were primed to believe in their negotiating skills and
entered the process with a calm state of mind would yield better gains than participants who would go in
more apprehensively. This phenomenon was experienced by us in the first negotiation exercise (Car
Owner-Garage Owner Case) where most of us felt quite nervous & edgy which was caused by numerous
factors ranging from the fear of not being in control, doubting one’s capabilities, interacting with parties
who could dabble in unfair practices, and the unpredictability of how the process could unravel. Past
experiences with negotiation can also influence anxiety as these negative experiences can create a fear of
failure or a sense of being outmatched, leading to anxiety and apprehension in negotiation situations.

To overcome anxiety in negotiation, participants should indulge in relaxation techniques and work on
developing a positive mindset. For example, negotiators can practice deep breathing, meditation, or
visualization exercises to calm their nerves and focus their attention. Additionally, they can work to shift
their mindset from a negative to a positive outlook, focusing on the potential benefits and opportunities of
the negotiation rather than the potential risks and pitfalls.

Overconfidence is another individual difference that can impact negotiation outcomes. The article suggests
that overconfidence can be influenced by factors such as experience, personality traits, and cognitive
biases.

4|Page
Individuals who are high in the extraversion dimension tend to be outgoing and assertive, which can be an
advantage in negotiation. However, high levels of confidence can sometimes lead to overconfidence,
causing individuals to spend too much time introspecting one’s strengths and weaknesses thereby
overestimating their abilities and spending very little time understanding the counter party’s position,
personality, and play which results in inadequate preparations.

Positive experiences can also lead to overconfidence in negotiation as they may feel that they have a better
understanding of the power dynamics at play, leading them to overestimate their leverage and failing to
factor in all possible scenarios. This overconfidence can lead to unrealistic expectations and suboptimal
outcomes.

Participants who achieved positive results in their first negotiation exercise, might have spent more time
introspecting on their strengths and giving little weightage to the counter party’s position, thereby resulting
in inadequate preparation for subsequent exercises. There were even cases where participants gave
ridiculous first offers in their second & third negotiation exercises (McEnrox case & HiPo Oil case).
One could very well argue that it was done to anchor the other party, but conversely, it could also sour the
negotiation process if the participant is unable to justify the said offer by facts and figures, which highlights
the importance of preparation by formulating the planning document.

Finally, cognitive biases such as the overconfidence bias and the confirmation bias can also contribute to
overconfidence in negotiation. The overconfidence bias occurs when individuals overestimate their
abilities and the accuracy of their beliefs, while the confirmation bias occurs when individuals seek out
information that confirms their existing beliefs and ignore information that contradicts them.

To overcome overconfidence in negotiation, participants should seek out feedback from others and engage
in more thorough preparation before a negotiation. For example, negotiators can work with a mentor or
coach to identify areas for improvement and develop strategies to overcome overconfidence. Additionally,
negotiators can engage in thorough research and analysis before a negotiation to ensure that they have a
realistic understanding of the power dynamics and potential outcomes. Understanding the counterparty’s
position, personality & play (alternatives) would help us in accepting mutually beneficial compromises.

5|Page
 Q3: Discuss the implications of Snap Judgements and Anger on the
different moves in Shadow Negotiations.

Answer: Shadow Negotiations, as discussed previously, refers to the tactics employed by negotiating
parties that precede the actual negotiation process and continue throughout it. They are often characterized
by high levels of emotion and tension.

Snap Judgements, relate to one’s stereotypes concerning other people’s warmth and competence which
often clouds rational behavior and decision-making process. This can have serious implications for any
negotiation, including shadow negotiations. Snap judgments, which are quick, instinctual assessments
made without extensive analysis or information gathering, can play a significant role in shadow
negotiations and power moves. In shadow negotiations, which typically occur behind the scenes and
involve the exercise of power and influence, snap judgments can be particularly influential because they
may be based on limited or incomplete information. The impact of snap judgments on the different moves
in shadow negotiation is as follows: -

1. Power Moves
In certain kinds of negotiations (such as informal ones), one party starts the negotiation process from a
“one-down position”, wherein the other party sees no visible advantage from negotiating. This can lead
to unnecessary stalling and delay in the negotiation. Hence, willingness to negotiate is an important
prerequisite that can arise only upon the presence of mutual need. This is where power moves come
into the picture, which urges the un-motivated bargainers to actually negotiate by making them realize
that they will be worse off if they don’t. There are 3 kinds of power moves: -
A. Offering incentives
B. Putting a price on the status quo
C. Enlisting support

The implication of snap judgments on power moves are as follows: -

I. Choosing the wrong strategy to influence the other negotiating party (Negative): Based on
one’s perception of the other party’s warmth and competence, a wrong power move might be
deployed which can lead to worsening the situation rather than any improvements. For example,
during a salary negotiation, the employee often perceives his/her boss as cold and competent
and opts for drastic measures, such as threatening to leave the organization by showing off

6|Page
 another lucrative employment opportunity. Thus, situations that could have been handled just
by talking it out, lead to otherwise unpleasant exchanges, often leading to the termination of the
employee.

II. Wrong perception about a given offer (Negative): In some cases, snap judgments can lead
negotiators to make power moves that are based on inaccurate or incomplete assessments of the
situation. For example, a negotiator may perceive a particular offer or demand as a sign of
weakness or strength, when in reality it may be an intentional or strategic move. In this case, a
snap judgment can lead to a miscalculation that ultimately undermines the negotiator's position.

III. Sensing the other party’s priorities (Positive): On the other hand, snap judgments can also
be useful in shadow negotiations if they are based on accurate assessments of the situation. For
example, if a negotiator has a strong sense of the other party's priorities or motivations, they
may be able to make a power move that takes advantage of this knowledge.

However, it is important to note that relying too heavily on snap judgments can be risky, as they may
not always be accurate or reliable. In summary, snap judgments can influence power moves in shadow
negotiations by shaping negotiators' perceptions of the situation and the other party. While they can be
useful in some cases, they can also lead to miscalculations and other strategic errors if they are not
based on accurate information and analysis. Therefore, it is important for negotiators to be aware of
their own biases and to gather as much information as possible before making strategic moves.

2. Process Moves
These moves are indirect and are incorporated to influence the negotiation process without addressing
the critical issues, affecting how such issues are heard and perceived. They are the strategic decisions
that negotiators make regarding the negotiation process itself, such as the timing and sequence of offers,
the use of specific negotiation tactics, and the overall structure of the negotiation. Process moves can
be particularly important in shadow negotiations because they can impact the power dynamics between
the negotiating parties and shape the course of the negotiation. There are 3 kinds of process moves: -
A. Seeding ideas early
B. Reframing the process
C. Building consensus

7|Page
 The implication of snap judgments on process moves are as follows: -
I. Inability to be heard (Negative): Based on snap judgments about a particular party,
negotiators simply shut down and don’t listen to their proposals. The individual is simply
ignored and screened out of the process based on stereotypes related to his/her ability and
attributes. For example, in the long-term strategic planning decisions within a company, the
voices of females (especially working mothers) are not considered as they are judged to be
warm and incompetent and hence not suitable for the role. It becomes very difficult for such
individuals to make people listen to their ideas or build consensus.

II. Leading to counterproductive process moves (Negative): Snap judgments can also lead to
process moves that are less effective or even counterproductive. For example, if a negotiator
forms a snap judgment that the other party is not serious about reaching a deal (by assessing
them as cold or incompetent or both), they may be more likely to make a process move that is
overly aggressive or confrontational, which could cause the negotiation to break down.

III. Responding to the other party’s process moves (Positive or negative depending upon the
situation): In addition to influencing process moves, snap judgments can also affect the way
negotiators interpret and respond to the other party's process moves. For example (negative), if
a negotiator forms a snap judgment that the other party is trying to gain an advantage through a
particular process move, they may respond in a way that is defensive or uncooperative. In
another example (positive), if a negotiator forms a snap judgment that the other party is being
dishonest or unreasonable, they may be more likely to make a process move that is intended to
force the other party to be more forthcoming or cooperative.

3. Appreciative Moves
These moves are directed towards breaking the cycles which negatively impact any negotiation such
as deterioration of communication, parties focusing only on their needs and ignoring those of others,
etc. These moves are highly effective since they hold the promise of opening the negotiation to different
perspectives held by a party while fostering open communication which helps in identifying the real
problem. There are 3 kinds of appreciative moves: -
A. Helping others save face
B. Keeping the dialogue going
C. Soliciting new perspectives

8|Page
The implication of snap judgments on appreciative moves are as follows: -
I. Hindering the continuity of a negotiation (Negative): As seen above, continuity of dialogue
among the bargaining parties is an important appreciative move often deployed in any
negotiation process. Such dialogue helps the parties on both ends to mull over the issues and
reverse course, changing decisions based on new information that might come to light in the
due course of the negotiation. However, snap judgments in the initial phase of the negotiation
can hinder the continuity of dialogue, bringing the entire process to an abrupt and undesirable
ending. For example, if a party to the negotiation is judged as incompetent for carrying out the
deal by the other party, no matter how much the former pushes for the dialogue to take place,
the latter will keep stalling till the deal is turned down.

II. Inability to consider alternate perspectives (Negative): Snap judgments can prevent
negotiating parties to solicit new perspectives which can break a stalemate in the process. Based
on their stereotypes, parties begin to think they are right while the other is wrong. They ignore
the proposals and objections put forth by the other party based on their conviction of being
justified in their actions. Hence, snap judgments hinder appreciative moves by eliminating the
opportunity to discover new and unexpected opportunities which can bring about a mutual
resolution of the problem/ conflict being negotiated.

In summary, snap judgments can influence different moves in shadow negotiations by shaping
negotiators' perceptions of the situation and the other party. While they can be useful in some cases,
they can also lead to miscalculations and other strategic errors if they are not based on accurate
information and analysis. Therefore, it is important for negotiators to be aware of their own biases and
to gather as much information as possible before making strategic moves.

Anger, a negative emotion, in most cases results in negative consequences. It stems from dejection or
agitation to the proposals of the other party and should be avoided as much as possible to promote a
better negotiation process. Anger can have a significant impact on shadow negotiation in several ways.
It can disrupt the communication and trust between parties, making it difficult to establish common
ground or make progress toward a mutually beneficial agreement. When people are angry, they may
be less likely to listen to the other party's perspective, which can lead to misunderstandings and

9|Page
escalation of tensions. The implications of anger on different moves in shadow negotiations are as
follows: -
1. Power Moves: The negative emotion of anger makes it more likely that a party will indulge in
belligerent behavior which makes it difficult to demonstrate a sense of mutual need. This
happens mainly because angry negotiators are highly likely to misjudge the interests of other
parties and wrongfully assess that of their own. In experiments conducted by Gonzalez, Moore,
Lerner, and Babcock (2004), it was found that lower outcomes were achieved in simulations
where angry negotiators were involved, which otherwise had high integrative potential. Hence,
anger as an emotion has the power to divert one’s attention and focus from the problem at hand
making it difficult for any power move to promote a mutual perception of the need to negotiate.

2. Process Moves: Anger can lead to irrational decision-making, which can cause negotiators to
make process moves that are not in their best interest or that are counterproductive to the
negotiation process. For example, anger can cause negotiators to use aggressive process moves,
such as making threats or ultimatums, which can cause the negotiation to become more
adversarial and less cooperative. When one or both parties are angry, it can create a negative
emotional atmosphere that can make it difficult to negotiate effectively. This negative emotional
atmosphere can cause negotiators to become defensive, less willing to compromise, and less
likely to be cooperative.

3. Appreciative Moves: Anger can negatively impact appreciative moves in several ways. It can
make it difficult to show appreciation because when one or both parties are angry, it can be
difficult to find anything positive to appreciate about the other party. Anger can cause
negotiators to become defensive, closed off, and less willing to acknowledge the other party's
perspective. It can also erode trust and rapport which is essential for appreciative moves to be
effective. Anger can cause appreciative moves to backfire, as they may be perceived as insincere
or disingenuous. This can lead to further escalation of tensions and conflict between the parties.

10 | P a g e