Biographic Details: Watkins, Michael. Breakthrough Negotiation: Don't Leave It On the Table HBS Working Knowledge. 2012.

. Available at: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/2773.html. [Accessed 06 May 2012]. Notes Pg Comments Principle 2: Breakthrough negotiators organize to learn Skilled negotiators learn by doing the necessary preparation to negotiate: They diagnose the essential features of the situation, familiarize themselves with its history and context and with the record of prior negotiations, and probe the backgrounds and reputations of their counterparts. Principle 3: Breakthrough negotiators are masters of process design Control of the process yields control over outcomes. Skilled negotiators think hard about the impact of process on perceptions of interests and alternatives, on the part of their counterparts and those they represent, and on their own side. Then they work to fashionoften to negotiateprocesses likely to lead in favorable directions. Skilled negotiators know, for example, that one-on-one negotiations are suited to some issues and group negotiations to others. They are cognizant of the potential benefits and costs of setting up a secret channel. They understand that details as small as the timing of a meeting or the size and shape of the negotiating table can make a difference. Need force, skillful force. Principle 4: Breakthrough negotiators foster agreement Unskillful use of force such as when possible but employ force when necessary Breakthrough negotiators understand the delicate interplay threats has proven to be a great between negotiation and coercive power. Speaking of the U.S. cost in history such as the Gulf failure in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger said, "Treating force and War that cost thousands of Iraqis diplomacy as discrete phenomena caused our power to lack lives. purpose and our negotiations to lack force."2 This observation was echoed by Kofi Annan in his description of dealing with Iraq: "You can do a lot with diplomacy, but with diplomacy backed up by force you can get a lot more done."3 breakthrough negotiators are skilled at diagnosing potential I believe being able to foresee sources of conflict. They recognize the potential for escalation what conflicts may arise in the in zero-sum thinking, mutual perceptions of vulnerability, a negotiation requires much history of distrust or injury that has transformed perceptions, experience and thoughtful and cultural misunderstandings. planning. This equips one to craft strategies to overcome these obstacles, such as by reframing issues or setting up confidencebuilding mechanisms. Sometimes developing an attractive vision of a desirable I tried to persuade them by future pulls the other side forward toward agreement. outlining the benefits of not using a website for their business by making alternatives attractive such as using the argument that human contact is more valuable than cyber contact in gaining business presence.

Biographic Details: Lewicki, R.J. Saunders D.J and B. Barry (2010) Negotiation, 6th edition. McGraw Hill, New York. Notes Pg Spend a great deal of time familiarizing 387 themselves with the issues, absorbing info, and trying to understand one anothers interests Nominal Group Technique 393 Strive for a first agreement 395 The additional complexity of multiparty negotiations increases the complexity of the events, the likelihood of communication breakdown, and the likelihood that the parties will negotiate more positionally. Given these conditions, achieving true consensus becomes more difficult, even if true consensus exists. As a result, it is often better to set a more modest objective for these negns: to reach a preliminary agreement or a tentative consensus that can then be Comments on Info

Prioritized list of solutions, compiled then ranked Negotiators should not strive to achieve it all at once, rather, they should strive for a first agreement that can be revised, upgraded, and improved. set more modest objective reach preliminary agreement tentative consensus debrie BUT note! First agrents can make it set in stone and be difficult to change

Biographic Details: OConner, M. Kathleen (1997) Groups and Solos in Context: The Effects of Accountability on Team Negotiation, Vol. 72, No. 3, December, pp. 384-407, Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University. Notes Pg Studies of solo negotiators show that being 385 responsible for negotiated outcomes affect their motivations, behaviour, and outcomes. 386 Comments on Info This article analyses team negotiations by examining whether accountability affects teams and solos differently in a negotiation context A recent meta-analysis of competitive negotiation behaviour found that accountability affects agreement quality Accountable negotiators make fewer concessions and employ more contentious strategies. Hence accountability is important as it directly impacts processes and outcomes Accountable decision makers are more 402 aware of the determinants of their judgments (Hagafors & Brehmer, 1983), they process information in detail rather than rely on a general evaluation of the messages source (Chaiken, 1980) or rely on stereotypes (Bodenhausen, Kramer, & Susser, 1994), and they consider more information when making their decision (Weldon & Gargano, 1988).

Biographic Details: Sullivan, J. (2007) Negotiations: Listen More, Talk Less, New York Law Journal. Vol. 237; Issue 41. Notes Pg Comments on Info

Biographic Details: Trtschel, R., Hffmeier, J., Loschelder, D.D., Schwartz, K., Gollwitzer, P.M. Perspective Taking as a Means to Overcome Motivational Barriers in Negotiations: When Putting Oneself Into the Opponent's Shoes Helps to Walk Toward Agreements (2011) American Psychological Association Vol 101(4), p771790 Notes Pg Comments on Info This cognitive process of perspective taking This cognitive process of perspective taking helped the U.S. representatives to helped us to successfully conclude the successfully conclude the negotiations negotiations without unresolved issues. without unresolved issues.)

Biographic Details: Negotiators Effectiveness with Mixed Agendas: An Empirical Exploration of Tasks, Decisions and Performance Criteria Source: Group Decision and Negotiation [0926-2644] Weiss, Stephen yr:2012 vol:21 iss:3 pg:255 -290 http://www.springerlink.com.wwwproxy0.library.unsw.edu.au/content/934076xqp35m 30v2/fulltext.pdf Notes Pg Comments on Info In most negotiations, however, individuals 284 - The high performers, in particular, remind do not know or discover how far they can us that negotiators cannot learn what is push their preferences and still conclude a attainable or excel as individuals unless they viable agreement. An answer to this reach beyond common or easy solutions question for the BB-PTA game lies largely such as compromises. outside the data at hand. No BB or PTA negotiator achieved his or her maximum individual total; that was evidently too much or any counterpart (even if 100% for one did not mean 0% for the other). That said, there is a huge zone of possible agreement in BB-PTA. The high performers, in particular, remind us that negotiators cannot learn what is attainable or excel as individuals unless they reach beyond common or easy solutions such as compromises.

Biographic Details: Chomsky, C. and Landsman, M. Introducing Negotiation and drafting into the Contracts Classroom (2000) Saint Louis University Law Journal. Vol. 44:1545 Notes Pg Comments on Info In most negotiations, however, individuals 284 - The high performers, in particular, remind do not know or discover how far they can us that negotiators cannot learn what is push their preferences and still conclude a attainable or excel as individuals unless they viable agreement. An answer to this reach beyond common or easy solutions question for the BB-PTA game lies largely such as compromises. outside the data at hand. No BB or PTA negotiator achieved his or her maximum individual total; that was evidently too much or any counterpart (even if 100% for one did not mean 0% for the other). That said, there is a huge zone of possible agreement in BB-PTA. The high performers, in particular, remind us that negotiators cannot learn what is attainable or excel as individuals unless they reach beyond common or easy solutions such as compromises.

Through clearly stating the concessions we made for them and restating them during the negotiation, we made sure our concessions did not go unnoticed. This approach is in keeping with the suggestions of Roy Lewicki, which have been extremely influential in contemporary negotiation discourse. I was placed in a team with two other members of different personalities and goals in the negotiation. The other team members were fierce advocates for our side, and I was somewhere in between, advocating for the school, but wanting to do so as cordially possible. Despite my natural tendency toward compromise and generosity, I should have questioned their positions and asked why? I learnt to that it is better to appreciate my own instinctive judgements in future negotiations.

- P158 para 1 If u care about others you become obliging, if u care about the results you become controlling. (Lewicki, 2010, p186) Accountability alone tends to heighten concerns about their own outcomes, which, in turn. Promotes competitiveness and yields poorer outcomes. If this was coupled with high concern for the other sides outcomes, negotiators seek problem-solving strategies that aim to allow both sides to do well. (Accountability p403)

Uncover differences in parties preferences and consequently use the integrative potential to increase their individual outcomes (perspective taking)

Questioning Title: Probing questions listen more, talk less Sullivan (2007, p20) claims that the trick of getting what you want from others is to figure out what the other side needs, and that the only way to figure out what the other side needs is to ask, and then to listen well. For this, I believe we satisfied the preparation as together as a team, we compiled a huge list of questions to ask from each category. I tried making difficult questions that would make the other team give away more information. However, I realised that I was making assumptions about their thoughts and motivations and only focused on the money. This is a perceptive bias (Lewicki, 2010, p139) that resolved itself in the actual negotiation more than I had expected. Sullivan (2007, p20) argues that while sometimes it is about the money, there are often more important issues at stake, such as the people you are representing and the larger context of our relationship with the other side. In our case, without a peaceful relationship with the union, we face high turnover costs, strikes and disruptions, so I wanted to take that into consideration as well as I constructed the problems. They could strike at any time so we must approach questioning without sounding hostile or unreasonable. (Lewicki, 2010, p174)

Extra Accountability * (OConner, M. Kathleen (1997) Groups and Solos in Context: The Effects of Accountability on Team Negotiation, Vol. 72, No. 3, December, pp. 384-407, Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University.) Although solo does better than teams, usually team negotiation is the format for formal, high stakes agreements. - Argues that people erroneously apply solo negotiation research to automatically mean the same for team negotiation. This article deals with team negotiations more specifically by comparing the two graphically. One must recognise interdependences between both intragroup and intergroup levels to accurately predict negotiation processes and outcomes.

o Title: Team negotiation: social, epistemic, economic, and psychological consequences of subgroup conflict. Source: Personality & social psychology bulletin [0146-1672] Halevy, Nir yr:2008 vol:34 iss:12 pg:1687 o Title: Team Negotiation: An Examination of Integrative and Distributive Bargaining Source: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Issue: Volume 70(1), January 1996, p 6678 - The results of both experiments indicated that the presence of a team at the bargaining table increases the likelihood of reaching integrative agreements.