Negotiation Skills Diary 2017 ESADE. Profesor Steven Guest

 

María Ríos Cerezo

Negotiation Skills 2017

NEGOTIATION SKILLS DIARY

Introduction. Firstly, I feel obliged to comment on my perspective of this assignment. In the following pages, I’m going talk about how my perspective about negotiation has changed from the beginning of the course until now, including realizations and thoughts that I have experienced inside and outside class. I’m not going to mention every session we have done, instead I’m going to point out those aspects that had a greater impact on my learning process. My preconceptions of negotiation as whole, has evolved from a theoretical point of view. However, I realized that I had truly interiorized what we worked in class, when I found myself thinking about it outside of the academic scope. Suddenly negotiation appeared in many daily situations. I even got to use some of the negotiation tactics at work. I have three brothers and all are older and stronger than me. Now, I clearly see, how my tthree hree beloved relatives have always pushed me to my full negotiation potential. I was surpassed in strength, age and number, so I had no chance but to outsmart them. I was living in an ongoing negotiation, sometimes I even had to bargain the amount of cereals I was allowed to poor on my milk. Nevertheless, looking back at this t his memorable moments, I think that what I was doing then had little to do with “negotiation” and more with “threatening “ threatening” ”. If we were to put it in legal negotiation terms, you could say that my most used tactic was “See you y ou at court”, because I always threatened them with my parent’s par ent’s authority in order to get my way. Before taking this course, I thought that a good negotiator is that one person who always gets what he wants out of the deal. I discovered that I was not wrong, in fact, I was partly right, but winning is not always the main goal. There is a much wider concept of it, a good negotiator knows that in order to create value out of a negotiation you need to share. I was marveled by the multiple aspects of our life’s that imply negotiation, but I could never imagin imagine e how far my understanding of it was going to go

DIARY In the first session, we got to hang around the class and talk with our colleagues. Then we had to put something we had in common with the person we talk on the black board. I felt like this exercise was more than just a way of braking the ice with our colleagues, it was a way of stablishing connections connections and kind of an internal networking within our group. Later on, negotiating with different classmates I remembered this first day, and how my negotiations where a lot smoother when I had the chance to negotiate with people I talked more during the first days, and how my relationship with them was always influencing the negotiations. The fact that I barely knew any of the people in class, made even more enriching this experience. It made me reflect on how intuition and social skills play a huge part on this field.

1

 

María Ríos Cerezo

Negotiation Skills 2017

In fact, we saw how negotiation was related with many different areas, all the way through mathematics, and of course law. Good negotiation skills will get you a good deal in different fields (Public sectors, communication academic, psychologist, political scientist or sociologist) Nevertheless, law is the main source of academic information about negotiation. There’s a technical aspect in law, but why is it that law ends e nds up using these skills? As a lawyer, not many of the clients end up going to court. Most cases are negotiated before going to court, of course it depends of the branch and the t he country we are in. The tru truth th is that law is particularly attached with negotiation, that’s that’s why  why law has contributed so much with academic information. information. Definition of negotiation: “ Assignment of scares (limited) resources between two or more  parties in a (or not) human behavior behavior process. By Hen Xu Xu (Time, money, natural resources.) resources.)” 

Auction theory is also a negotiation, setting it among a number of potential buyers. In terms of a definition you might jump into the conclusion that you live in a permanent negotiation, whatever it might be you are negotiating all the time. What does the usual negotiator have? good body language, confident, open minded, creative. As lawyers, we have to be able to deal people that what to win at all cause. So, by getting a common ground and understanding the other party we are likely l ikely to get a better response from them. When doing the simulations in class we have to t o think, how much info can I reveal to me collogue during a negotiation? This is the biggest dilemma we might face in a negotiation. How revealing your turn out to be can play for or against our goal. Not everyone feels comfortable with conflict, some rather just get along. al ong. I found myself more m ore comfortable with this idea. I tend to avoid conflict in other situations of my life and it was not going to be different I when it comes to negotiation.

I also experienced in a simulated negotiation how can by starting 1 st or 2 nd the whole process changes. Determining who starts it is really important, so as the concession pattern. The simulation, we did in that session was determined by the initial price. Starting from an appropriated number would definitely play in our favor. For the seller, there was r eservation point (16) and for the buyer there’s a walk away point (35). The scope between those two points is what defined a good deal, is the area of potential agre agreement. ement. Someone winning slightly more than the other is what made the difference among deals in this exercise. So, through this exercise is how we defined ZOPA (Zone of potential agreement) During the exercise development, the term “a “anchoring nchoring” ” came up. By By throwing a number, the other part accepts it as a reference. I personally dislike this method, if you give a ridiculous number you might risk the deal because the other part might just walk away. A psychologist would suggest the anchoring tactic as the best tool in a negotiation whereas an economist will be more inclined to wait and recollect more information about the opponent in order to make any move. So after practicing, the teacher showed us the different tactics you can use when negotiating, (mentioned some above already): - 

Get famous: work on your reputation and you won’t need negotiation skills skills  

2

 

María Ríos Cerezo

Negotiation Skills 2017

- 

Brooklyn optician: like video games nowadays, where you keep adding extras.

- 

Limited authority: I’d I’d have to ask my boss  boss  

- 

Mother Hubbard: can’t can’t afford  afford it

- 

Noah’s ark: claim ark: claim to have a better price

- 

Shot gun similar to see you in Court

- 

Off limits: when you know your partner from a long time so you say I accept everything eve rything except this

- 

Mandate similar to limited authority

- 

Who’s your friend Emotional: you Emotional: you can refuse to give money to this company because it helps children.

- 

Information from heaven: important phone call in the middle of the negotiation

Among all we did so far in class, I think is important to mention: BATNA  (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement). What came clear out of this concept was that having an alternative to the negotiation always leaves you in a stronger position to negotiate. “

”

The tactics you use in a negotiation can also define what type of negotiator you are. For instance, if you use the “anchoring anchoring” ” tactic and tactic and you start with a certain number, make sure you y ou have a good reasoning behind that number. A good way of becoming a negotiation expert is learning from your own experiences. Therefore, when it comes to start with certain numbers, or determining if you came out victoriously from a negotiation, look back at other negotiations (previous ZOPAS in similar conditions). In that same session we saw how important is to keep things positive. By making affirmative sentences you give a more collaborative image. Handling a negotiation using repeatedly negative stamens will lead you nowhere. That does not mean we cannot can not use the word “NO”,  “NO”,   but it is always recommended to use it with moderation.

We were assigned to read The Art and Science of Negotiations and where do lawyers fit in”. To introduce this topic a story was told and analysed: “

  o  o  o  o 

o

Protagonist Catalyst Trials and tribulations Turning point Conclusion

What should be understood from this example is that, a negotiation is a story as well, and we must learn how to adapt to prior information. You need to adapt your position to fit what you have learned and influence the counterpart position by these means. In the Bullard House  case, it was important to know your ZOPA, and understand why your ambition can lead your negotiation to a negative ZOPA. Furthermore, the BATNA in this case was what determined the WAP (walk away point).

3

 

María Ríos Cerezo

Negotiation Skills 2017

Thankfully, during the course it was not all definition and theories. We got to play the X and Y payoff exercise. In this game, you had to take i n account other’s interests. While we were playing it I observed how parties a took an accommodating, (collaborative posture) or on the contrary were avoiding others (adopting a competitive posture). p osture). This defined compromise. You should use what your feel more comfortable with and what you think is going to bring you y ou the best result. You can reinforce your relationship with the other parties or you can obtain substantive outcome. The important thing is to ask yourself what is more valuable for you and from then on,strategy determine your strategy. In mymycase, both and it is obvious a collaborative would help me achieve goals. But matter, If the relationship was thethat most important thing to me, I should have opted for an accommodating posture. If what mattered to me was the substantive outcome, I should definitely have adopted a competitive strategy. Lastly If neither of the outcomes did matter to me, I should have used an avoiding strategy. I could not move on to the next thing without mentioning Thomas Kilman’s Conflict Mides. If you are only interested in yourself, you’ll be competitive. com petitive. Through this game what we learned is that we can be high collaborative and gain very big, but if we are all very competitive we would lose quite a lot. By playing this game and observing the strategies that my colleagues adopted, my conclusion were the following: If you’re all competitive, you’ll lose big; If you’re all collaborative, you’ll all win big.; If you’re competitive when others aren’t, you’ll win. Above all, what I realized real ized is that envy is not appropriate in a negotiation. You cannot be out to harm the other person because that t hat will ruin all chances of collaboration. collaboration. To sum it up, competition leads to sub-optimal results, while collaboration leads to optimal welfare for both parties. Thus, with the Prisoner’s Dilemma we learned that collaborating in negotiations and sticking sticking to what you say is the best tthing hing for all. We should not be blinded by our own short-term interest, we must also keep the other’s interests in mind as well.  well.   My conclusion was that in order to obtain the most value we should start preparing the negotiation by analysing what the other side wants and how we can incorporate incorporate it into our demands. de mands. Reputation plays a really important role when it comes to negotiating, being trustworthy is very important, create compliance by incentivizing things for the other party.

In the John and Susan case, we were facing a legal issue. It was a really particular case since the WAP was the BATNA and the BATNA implied going to Court. In this case, we had to calculate the BATNA based on what we thought we could get in Court. When we are considering whether to go to Court or not it relays on what we think we can get in Court. Nevertheless, the best option remains, with the possibility possibility of staying out of court, and gett getting ing a better agreement out of it. On the other hand, in the Pacific oil case, we found that Pacific had an agreement with Reliant that was about to expire. They needed to renegotiate this agreement before it ended, because be cause the market was changing and the number of suppliers is increasing. Pacific also wanted to start a new business interest in the t he manufacturing industry. Paci Pacific fic did not have a real strategy, no BATNA, and no walk-away point. Pleasantly we saw that Reliant’s strategy used multiple of the aforementioned negotiation tactics. Salami Authority Knew the market well

4

 

María Ríos Cerezo

Negotiation Skills 2017

Used the friendship card Competitive In my opinion, they they shouldn’t have made the last concessions. concessions . It did not start from a really good point since they they didn’t know their alternatives well, well , and to top it all they valued the relationship a lot more than they should have, because the final deal at the end of it was substantially the worst thing they could have agreed on. One obvious alternative is that they could use this chemical to make their own plastic and they could sell this plastic themselves: they could become a manufacturer of the plastic.

Among the mistakes one can make in a negotiation in the readings we had the following ones: 1)  Cognitive errors a) a)   Winner’s curse  curse – you agree to a price quick and feel you could have done better. b) b)   Myth of the Fixed Pie – that the deal is a zero-sum deal. This is not true as both parties can mutually benefit. c) c)   Information bias – what info you go for and how much you rely on it. d) d)   Framing – “….and I might get all defensive” What did he say?  say?   e) e)   Over-confidence – decisions based on limited information are often over-confident. f) f)   Ignoring Others’ Cognition  Cognition – we think that others’ opinions are not as valuable. v aluable. We devalue them. g) g)   Anchoring h) h)   Endowment effect – the tendency to think your property is worth more than it actually is. This is only because you feel it is yours. 2)  Source Dependence a) a)   When you are familiar with the source of an uncertain event (say a basketball league, or a market) you are more likely to take bigger risks, even though there might be no clear probabilistic reason for your confidence in an outcome. b) b)   This confidence comes from a feeling of familiarity with the source of the probability. 3)  Over-confidence a) a)   Thinking that you are better than you really are. b) b)   Quaker bought Gatorade and it was a success. They tried trie d to do the same with Snapple and failed. c) c)   You do not prepare enough. 4)  Positive Framing Framing and Loss aversion a) a)   Frame your proposals positively and with certainty.   b) When you lose 1 euro, you feel 10 points bad; but when you win 1 euro, you only feel 5 points good. c) c)   Say “200/600 people will be saved”; not “400 people will die”  die”   d) d)   Say 200 people will be saved; not 33% will be saved. e) e)   Certainty is valuable. 5)  Risk aversion and risk seeking a) a)   You are more willing to take larger large r risks with larger payoffs than take smaller risks with lesser pay-offs b) b)   Lottery tickets 6)  Escalation of commitm commitment ent a) a)   You keep escalating

your

commitment

without

rational

reason.

7)  7)  Anchoring by a random number  (roulette) a) a)   In the absence of other information, the anchor plays a HUGE part in the answers you get.

5

 

María Ríos Cerezo

Negotiation Skills 2017

I think the errors I’m more drowned to do, due to how I behaved during the simulations we did in class are “over confident” and “bias information”. Sometimes, I tend to read t hings superficially and not pay attention to details. The problem is that I completely rely on this wrongly understood information to negotiate. All of this probably leads me to devalue other convenient facts for me. When we did the simulated negotiation on the Kukui nut case we learned, that it had a similar solution to the Pakistan Prunse case. We faced the problem of the fixed win (that only one of you can Anotherthe obstacle, we found was aversion the risk of “So, framing”. ”. If we fall for framing we are win). committing cognitive error here of loss . “framing a lesson I learned in the abovementioned case is that if you are going to frame your proposals, do it positively. In addition, we saw that there is a connection between “risk taking”, and “loss aversion” aversion”. Hence, if the framing is positive, we should take greater risks. Continuing with the Pakistani and Kukui nuts case I would like to enhance a few things. The most important one would be “good communication communication” ”, and the second one is that having a good questioning plan can make or break your performance in a negotiation. After practicing and interiorizing the concepts this is the advice I would give to myself: Do not ask how much the other party wants, simply s imply ask what they want (Kukui nut case). Asking “how much” much” can take us to a combative direction and from then on “loss aversion” aversion” would start to play an important role in the whole process. Disclosing information information is probably one the aspects I have to work the most on. In the kukui nut case, I showed my weakness on a really early stage of the negotiation. I told the counterpart what we planned to do with the Kukui nuts (shampoo). All my team’s arguments were then easily refuted by the other party (Henry is a really good and tough negotiator). They wanted the Kukui nut to elaborate vaccines for people in developing countries. How were we supposed to take the Kukui nuts from someone with such an altruistic target? The reasoning behind the number we gave suddenly lost its sense and we were back to a pre-negotiation point. I wanted to earn their trust by disclosing information. In my opinion, this tactic turns to be useful, only when you have more information, and you trust the other party. Opening, and sharing your interest, can help out to reach the other party, get something in exchange and create a non-combative negotiation. However, we should have done more active listening and reacting in this exercise. Looking at the brighter side, I learned my lesson, and never committed the same mistake in any of the simulated negotiations that followed. In conclusion, instead of pursuing my goal by all means, I should have waited and listened to the other party. After all, the information disclosure at the beginning played against me, but later on helped the group. Thanks to it, we figured out that we wanted to use different parts of the Kukui nut. Moreover, further in the negotiation we also found that we could create and distribute value by combining our disparate interest. Our team te am should have listened more (“We have to eyes and two ears, but just one mouth”)  mouth”)   Quite often, when the negotiation is not just about price (price is just one single variable), you can create value by analyzing the differences between what you want and what the other party wants. This does not apply to all the cases for example, in the “ Sorenson Car accident” case both parties had the same information. When you are given just one part of data, you look for facts that support your side (information bias) and dismiss the other side’s information information (devaluing

6

 

María Ríos Cerezo

Negotiation Skills 2017

others cognition). Recurrently, it is convenient to see what the situation looks like from the other side. Under this circumstance we should have looked at all expected e xpected outcomes, and then we could have decided which was the best course of action.

Above I mentioned, how 90% of the legal cases stay out of court, therefore, to become a great lawyer, being a good negotiator is as important as being a good litigator. Consequently, when we have to decide the best option between going to court or settling for an extrajudicial agreement all the possible outcomes should be taken in account. The example that was given in class, illustrates how can we make this the decision:  

•

Decision Tree Tort Case o  Out of court – 50,000 o  Go to court ▪  Win – 80% -Chance of damages – 90% -Chance of no damages – 10% -Amount of damages – 80,000 ▪  Loss – 20% o  Lawyers’ fees – 5000 – 5000 in court; 0 if out of court

Once we get the result out of this decision tree, we should consider factors like: time; decision regret (worry (worry about whether you’ll win or not); not ); and preferred utility of money. Present value and future value equation FV = PV/(1 + discount rate)^number of years.

Consequently, after talking about legal disputes and how decide if we are going to court or not, not, we were wisely assigned to read “Negotiation “Ne gotiation Techniques: How to Keep Brier Rabbit out of the Briar Patch”. Patch”. I particularly enjoyed this reading and in order to reflect my whole learning process I need to reproduce some of the notes I took from it: Firstly, in order to set a visual example, the text begins with the Brier Rabbit tail. The rabbit got stuck somewhere, but then he sees the fox and tells him: “Do not not throw me in the patch”. The Fox does the exact opposite of what he was asked and ends up throwing him in the patch. The thing is, that was exactly what the Brier Rabbit wanted the Fox to do.  do.  So basically, this tale shows us how easy is to fall into reverse psychology. After introducing this first technique, the text categorizes the negotiation ne gotiation process in 3 phases; (i)Information phase; (ii) Competitive phase; (iii)Cooperative phase. For a better understanding, the text exposes the 3 phases development and gives us advice on what we should do in each one of them:

 

•

Information Phase Focus on the knowledge and desires of the other party. o  Use general information-seeking questions; not yes or no questions. o  Once you have general details, use specific questions to get the others to o  disclose suspected details. o  Learn the other side: ▪  Range of potential choices ▪  Preferences and their intensity ▪  ▪  Planned Strengthsstrategy and weaknesses.

7

 

María Ríos Cerezo  

•

Competitive Phase Principled offers and concessions – everything said must be supported by a o  concession Argument – make clear arguments. Surprise the receiving party – any o  argument that does not surprise is unlikely to increase their trust o  Threats and Promises – Remind the counterpart the consequences they might suffer if there is no agreement. Use affirmative sentences. Silence and patience – don’t talk too much. Use small sentences so that the o  info is absorbed. Keep quiet when you expect a reply. o

  o  o 

 

•

Negotiation Skills 2017

Brier Rabbitattitude – use reverse combative on yourpsychology. opponent Mostly when you appreciate a Mutt and Jeff – good cop/bad cop Belly Up – sheep in wolfskin. “I´m “I´m at your mercy for a fair deal.”  deal.” 

Cooperative Phase Multi-issue situations often have space for improvement of both parties after afte r o  the competitive phase. Achieve pareto-efficiency. o 

It was that session, when were separated in groups and we had to explain to the other groups our part of the readings. In my group, we had “When Contracts Destroy Trust”. Trust”. As a future lawyer, I am really thankful for this type information. In law, sometimes we are asked to t o write simulated contracts. After reading this text I realized how pushing and aggressive is my contract drafting is. In fact, I remember how that same day after class, I got home and I took a look to one of my old “contract drafting” exercise. It was really precise and detailed, and I could clearly see how that contract was not attractive to hypothetical third party. It left no room for discussion or dialogue. The following lines sum up what I learned from this text.  

•

 

•

 

•

 

•

Trust requires that parties see the other as well-intentioned and ethical. Excessive details in a contract show the exact opposite of that. When contracts are up for renewal, clients remember that one exceptional great/bad experience with you/your business. (That one day where the managers went beyond the scope of the contract to help them). Goodwill and loyalty loyal ty versus, short-term revenue. Rigid contracts also lead to disputes. Include loads of contingencies and can create a combative environment. Incentives can also signal mistrust. Clients might think you would not do your best if you do not have certain incentives.

Once we had learned negotiation tactics, and the mistakes that could be made through it, we were taught how to create and distribute value from them. Mr. Mnookin has solid and clear explanations on the topic. In his book, he illustrates this through the brother’s dilemma. The story concerns two siblings who had what they perceived as a purely distributive dispute over how to divide an orange. Each claimed the right to the entire orange, and af after ter much haggling they decided to compromise and cut the orange in two. Each went her separate way with half orange. Once ate the fruit of her half hal f and threw the peel in the trash. The other went home to the kitchen, peeled her half of the orange, used the peel to flavor a cake, and tossed the juicy pulp in the garbage. The point of this story is that when negotiators focus myopically on distributive issues and do not share any information, information, the may squander a lot l ot of value.

8

 

María Ríos Cerezo

Negotiation Skills 2017

Distributing value is possible when there is more than one variable. For instance, when there are a lot of variables we can use the Log-rolling tactic: you move (log-roll) from one variable to another and see which is most important and which is least important and which has scope for creating value for both sides. Above all, in order to distribute value, we need a balance between betwee n empathy and assertiveness Without being too accommodating or aggressive.

Even though I am a fan of the show, one of the assignment I disliked the most was the “Fraiser” case. It was hard for me to understand the reading. It took me a long time to process it al all, l, and this are some notes I took from it (I also got some help from my class mate Pranay, he is always willing to help others with the readings and unclear concepts): Reading notes Paramount’s demand in the press - $8m per episode and a 3-year term (24 episodes per season) NBC’s price to make a profit - $5m per episode. CBS

(Mark’s

former

employer)

is

also

interested

in

securing

this

show.  

How the industry works: Studios create shows and sell the rights to networks. But this license fees only makes about 70% of the production cost. A show must run long enough to sell rerun to make the studio money. Networks sell airtime (adverts) to companies. The higher a show is rated, the more the network can charge for commercials. The mutual interest is to make a highly rated show. Standard model: 4-year contract. 30-day negotiation period upon expiry for renewal. If network wanted to keep the show, they negotiate a deal with the studio. If no deal reached, studio makes final offer. If accepted, good. If rejected, studio must make same or more expensive offer to other networks. If a cheaper offer comes up, the first network has the right to match that cheaper offer. Change in 1993, Paramount (studio) created a new network United Paramount Network (UPN) and Viacom (owner of Paramount) bought CBS. In our deal, Paramount is selling Frasier to NBC. CBS is competing to get Frasier. So Paramount has the choice of keeping it in-house with CBS, or giving it to NBC. Now, NBC is the only network without a studio. The Show – Frasier. 5th most-honoured TV show ever. Loads of Emmys for best comedy in 1993. Show timing Used be right after Seinfeld. Thursdays 9:30PM. Great slot. NBC has a history of Thursday night dominance. Highly sought advertisement slots. Especially targeted for 18-49 years and by movie studios promoting weekend releases. Paid substantial premium. In an attempt to export Thursday’s success to other days and challenge  ABC’s dominance, Frasier was transferred to Tuesdays in its second season.

The show did well. In 1997, Seinfeld ended and left Thursdays T hursdays vulnerable. vulnerable. NBC tried to shift things around to maintain Thursday dominance.

.

Post-Seinfeld Frasier move to Seinfeld Thursday 9PM slot.

9

 

María Ríos Cerezo

Negotiation Skills 2017

Last 2 issues: Full cast or some cast may leave l eave (compared to price per episode) What happens if these people strike? (compared to number of shows) Final deal: License fee – less than 10% increase Development commitments Rating based increase/decrease NBC could show additional reruns Lower price if some left;ofcancel if main cast left If strike, reduce the cast number shows. What else could have been considered considered?? Number of episodes Number of seasons Length of episode Cut in advertising revenue for the studio (reduce cost per episode. Greater value  for both) Composition of the cast Merchandise?? Books? Merchandise Contingency on 3rd  year. What does the studio want? More money per episode. Tent Primepole timerevenue? slot? Special for sweep season

Here the known-knows, the known-unknowns, and the unknown-unknowns were introduced, and the problematic of basing a negotiation on them.

In the left leg case, I was paired with Shubhra and Pranay. First, I found out that I should take good care of my Diabetes, if I don’t want to get my leg removed. Then I found out how clever Pranay is. He played our cards really smartly: In the first he pretended to have weak cards. So, when Irene thought that all our best cards were played, he surprised her with the biggest cards, so when we got to court, we won big. With 7 rounds + appeal, 450,000 in fees; 250,000 in settlements.

Moving ahead, as the curse went on, I could feel how my negotiation abilities were improving. However, I was still waiting for professor Guest to talk about something that he mentioned in his very first class: Emotional Emotional Intelligence and psychology. In that session, we were shown different pictures of the same girl and describe in a piece of paper her emotions. I did not do well guessing her facial expressions. Nevertheless, the main things that I learned from that day were along these lines: We need a set of abilities/skills to be emotionally intelligent: a) a)   Know oneself. Be self-aware. b) b)   Know others. Have empathy and organizational organizational awareness. c) c)   Manage oneself – control and adapt. i) i)   Self-discipline (mange the amygdala). ii) ii)   Adaptability. iii)  Positivism.

10

 

María Ríos Cerezo

Negotiation Skills 2017

iv) iv)   Achievement orientation (always trying to improve things) d) d)   Manage others – social skills. i) i)   Conflict management ii) ii)   Teamwork iii) iii)   Influence iv) iv)   Developing others 2)  2)  Inspirationa Inspirationall leadership 3)  3)  Instead of focusing on every emotion that arises in a negotiation, we should focus of 5 core concerns: appreciation, autonomy, affiliation, and status.

The last week we did the Opera House case. I was really upset when the text said that “make up will do” about the Soprano, since for the Opera House, she was way too old. old.   Focussing on what the exercise implied, the criteria were about how much she would be paid. Similar to the case of the shopping mall (Hawkins case): both require the use of contingency, because the contingency is something that can define deals, as they protect both sides from future casualties. Specially, regarding the business model, something, that as lawyers we should have appreciated in order to get creative, coming up with contingencies and eliminating risks. These are the sorts of challenges that we face in deal-making, lawyers always need to make sure that the risks are allocated. Basically, contingency contracts tend to be useful. However, they are over-looked. People think, that base a contract on contingencies would be the same as gambling.Contingency alleviate risks that parties foresee and corrects cognitive erros such us: over-confidence and egocentrism. Contingencies can also help to solve the asymmetry in the information Finally, I get to talk about one of my favorites movies of all times, “12 Angry Man”. We were assigned to watch it, but I was disappointed, because we never got to discuss it in class. Here is a text fragment I found about the movie, which in my opinion captivates the essence of negotiation within this movie:

“The movie begins with lots of confusion and commotion where no one feels

responsible for the life at stake. They consensually decide guilty of the defendant without any further discussion except for one who thinks otherwise. They generalize the defendant and even criticize the juror 8 but he patiently listens to them and starts contradicting their statements. He gets into the shoes of the defendant and tries to analyze the options very logically. He slowly proposes the information gathered by him which brings him favor from most of the jury members. Juror 3 and juror 10 are the best b est examples of what should not be done during the process of negotiation. There is a lack of empathy in both the jurors and they even criticized who have changed their opinions. They have tried to inflict their opinions in a very agitated manner.

11

 

María Ríos Cerezo

Negotiation Skills 2017

This movie has given a wide perspective of the do s and don’ts of the negotiation” 

Conclusions: Negotiation serves as a special form of communication which engages reasoned discussion, problem solving process and understanding of the issue. It is a form of communication that involves two or more parties dealing with an issue with different opinions and different viewpoints. Negotiation is only the means to reach a mutual agreement but not the agreement itself. It is a process to reach a mutual beneficial solution. Negotiations occur almost everywhere today. Negotiation has become a way of life. There are two different approaches of negotiation  

Distributive

 

Integrative

•

•

The content of negotiation is  

Perception

 

Relationship

 

Issue

 

Information

 

Process

 

Outcome

 

Interests

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

.

12