1.1

Negotiation

MODULE ONE

4

Characteristics Common to All Negotiation Situations

• There are two or more parties.• There is a conflict of interest between them.• Parties negotiate because they think they can get a

better deal than by taking what the other side will give them.

• Parties prefer to search for agreement rather than:– Fight openly;– Capitulate; – Permanently break off contact;– Take their dispute to a third party.

• Hay dos o más partidos. • Hay un conflicto de intereses entre ellos. • Los partidos negocian porque piensan que pueden

conseguir un mejor trato que tomando lo que le dará el otro lado.

• Los partidos prefieren buscar para el acuerdo en vez de: – Lucha abiertamente; – Capitule; – Interrumpa contacto permanentemente; – Lleve su conflicto terceros.

5

Characteristics Common to All Negotiation Situations (cont.)

• Parties expect give and take. • They expect both sides will modify or give in

somewhat on their opening statements, requests, or demand.

• Successful negotiation involves:– The resolving of tangibles (e.g., the price or the

terms of agreement);– The resolution of intangibles (the underlying

psychological motivations).

• Los partidos cuentan con la concesión mútua. • Esperan que ambos lados se modifiquen o que den

adentro algo en sus declaraciones iniciales, peticiones, o demanda.

• La negociación acertada implica: – La resolución de los bienes materiales (e.g., el

precio o los términos del acuerdo); – La resolución de las cosas intangibles (las

motivaciones psicologicas subyacentes).

6

Negotiations• Negotiations occur for one of two

reasons: 1) To create something new that neither party could attain on his or

her own;2) To resolve a problem or dispute between the parties.

• Negotiations occur for one of two reasons: 1) To create something new that neither party could attain on his or

her own;2) To resolve a problem or dispute between the parties.

7

Getting to Yes: Principled Negotiation

Fisher & Ury, 1991• Negotiation is the process of back-and-forth

communication aimed at reaching agreement with others when some of your interests are shared and some are opposed;

• Principled negotiation uses joint problem-solving to attack the problem together;

• Principled negotiation is soft on the people and hard on the problem .

• La negociación es el proceso de la comunicación hacia adelante y hacia atrás dirigido alcanzando el acuerdo con otros cuando algunos de sus intereses se comparten y se oponen algunos; La negociación de principios utiliza solucion de problemas común para atacar el problema junta; La negociación de principios es suave en la gente y dura en el problema.

05/09/08

International Negotiation

• More complex than domestic negotiations.

• Differences in national cultures and differences in political, legal, and economic systems often separate potential business partners.

• Más compleja que la negociación doméstica.

• Las diferencias culturales y las diferencias en los sistemas políticos, legales y económicos a menudo separan a los socios potenciales.

05/09/08

9

Interdependence

• In negotiation, both parties need each other;• interlocking goals• Mutual dependency is called interdependence;• Interdependent goals are important within

negotiation:– Win-lose: I win, you lose;– Win-win: Opportunities for both parties to gain.

• En la negociación, necesidad de ambas partes;

• Metas conectado• Dependencia mutua se

llama interdependencia;

• Las objectivos interdependientes son importante dentro negociación: – Ganar-pierda:

Gano, usted pierdo;

– Ganar-Ganar: Oportunidades para que ambas partes ganen.

05/09/08

10

Interdependence

• One potential consequence of interdependent relationships is value creation.

• The other potential consequence of interdependent relationships is conflict.

• Una consecuencia potencial de relaciones interdependientes es creación de valor.

• La otra consecuencia potencial de relaciones interdependientes es conflicto.

05/09/08

11

Types of InterdependenceAffect Outcomes

• Interdependence and the structure of the situation shape processes and outcomes.– Zero-sum or

distributive. – one winner

– Non-zero-sum or integrative – mutual gains situation.

• La interdependencia y la estructura de la situación forman procesos y resultados. – Suma cero o

distributivo. – un ganador – No-cero-suma o

intagrativo - situación mutua de los aumentos.

12

Value Creation

• Synergy: the notion the "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".

• Negotiators should be aware that potential differences can be used to reach agreement:

– Possible to create value through shared interests and through scale (task too big for one party to accomplish alone).

• Sinergia: la noción el " el conjunto es mayor que la suma de su parts".

• Los negociadores deben ser conscientes que las diferencias potenciales se pueden utilizar para alcanzar el acuerdo:

– Posible crear valor con intereses compartidos y a través de la escala (tarea demasiado grande para que un partido logre solamente).

05/09/08

13

Two Dilemmas in Mutual Adjustment

• Dilemma of honesty.– Concern about how

much of the truth to tell the other party.

• Dilemma of trust.– Concern about how

much negotiators should believe what the other party tells them.

• Dilema de la honestidad. – Preocupación por cuánto de la verdad para decir el otro

partido.

• Dilema de la confianza. – Preocupación por cuánto deben creer los negociadores

lo que le dice el otro partido.

14

Conflict

• May be defined as a:

• "sharp disagreement"

• and includes "the perceived divergence of interest, or a belief that the parties' current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously“.

• Puede ser definido como a:

• desacuerdo radical.

• e incluye “la divergencia percibida” del interés, o una creencia que las aspiraciones actuales de los partidos no se pueden alcanzar simultáneamente.

15

Levels of Conflict

• Intrapersonal or Intrapsychic Conflict:  – Conflict that occurs within an individual.– We want an ice cream cone badly, but we know

that ice cream is very fattening.• Interpersonal Conflict.  

– Conflict is between individual people.– Conflict between bosses and subordinates,

spouses, siblings, roommates etc.

• Conflicto intrapersonal o intrapsíquico: – Conflicto que ocurre dentro de un individuo. – Queremos un cono de helado gravemente, pero

sabemos que el helado muy está engorando.• Conflicto interpersonal.

– El conflicto está entre la gente individual. – Están en conflicto entre los jefes y los

subordinados, los esposos, los hermanos, los compañeros de cuarto etc.

16

Levels of Conflict (cont.)• Intragroup Conflict.  

– Within-group negotiation

– Among team and committee members within families, classes etc.

• Intergroup Conflict.  – Conflict can occur

within groups and among groups simultaneously.• Conflict between

unions and management, warring nations, or community groups and government authorities.

– These negotiations are the most complex.

• Conflicto intragrupo. – Negociación dentro del

grupo. – Entre miembros del

equipo y del comité dentro de las familias, de las clases etc.

• Conflicto de Intergroup. – El conflicto puede

ocurrir dentro de grupos y entre grupos simultáneamente.

– Están en conflicto entre las uniones y la gerencia, las naciones que guerrean, o los grupos y las autoridades gubernamentales de comunidad.

• Estas negociaciones son las más complejas.

17

Some of the Functions and Benefits of Conflict

• La discusión de conflicto hace a miembros de organización más consciente y capaces de hacer frente a problemas.

• Promete el cambio y la adaptación de organización. • Consolida relaciones y aumenta moral. • Promueve el conocimiento del uno mismo y de otros. • Anima el desarrollo personal y psicologico. • Puede ser estimulante y diversión.

• Discussing conflict makes organizational members more aware and able to cope with problems.

• It promises organizational change and adaptation.• It strengthens relationships and heightens morale.• It promotes awareness of self and others. • It encourages personal and psychological

development.• It can be stimulating and fun.

05/09/08

18

Dysfunctions of Conflict

• Competitive processes.– Parties compete because they believe that their goals are in

opposition and that they cannot both achieve their objectives.• Misperception and bias.

– As conflict intensifies:• Perceptions become distorted.• Thinking tends to become stereotypical and biased.

• Emotionality.– Parties may become increasingly emotional and irrational as

the conflict escalates.

• Procesos competitivos. – Los partidos compiten

porque creen que sus objetivos están en la oposición y que ambas partes alcanzan sus objetivos.

• Falsa percepción y sesgo. • Como el conflicto se

intensifica: – Las opiniones distorsionen. – El pensamiento tiende a

llegar a ser stereotypical y en sesgo.

• Emocionabilidad. – Los partidos pueden llegar

a ser cada vez más emocionales e irracionales mientras que el conflicto

19

Dysfunctions of Conflict (cont.)• Decreased communication.

– Parties communicate less with those who disagree with them, more with those who agree.

• Blurred issues.– The parties become less clear about:• How the dispute started. • What it is “really about” • What it will take to solve it.

• Rigid commitments.– Parties become more committed to their points of view and

less willing to back down from them for fear of losing face.

• Comunicación disminuida. – Los partidos comunican menos con los que discrepen con

ellos, más con los que convengan. • Ediciones borrosas.

– Los partidos se ponen menos claro a: – Cómo el conflicto comenzó. – Sobre cuál está “realmente” – Qué tomará para solucionarlo.

• Compromisos rígidas. – Los partidos llegan a estar confiados más a sus puntos de

vista y menos dispuestos a mover hacia atrás abajo desde ellos para el miedo de la cara perdidosa.

20

Dysfunctions of Conflict (cont.)• Magnified differences, minimized similarities.

– This distortion leads the parties to believe they are farther apart from each other than they really are.

• Escalation of the conflict.– Both parties attempt to win by:• Increasing their commitment to their position;• Increasing the resources they are willing to put up

to “win”; • Increasing their tenacity in holding their ground

under pressure.

• Diferencias magnificadas, paracidas reducidas al mínimo. – Esta distorsión lleva los

partidos a creer que son más lejanos aparte de uno a que están realmente.

• Escalada del conflicto. – Tentativa de ambas

partes de ganar cerca: – Aumento de su comisión

a su posición; – Aumentando los

recursos están dispuestos a poner hasta “triunfo”;

– Aumentando su tenacidad en llevar a cabo su tierra bajo presión.

21

Five Major Strategies for Conflict Management:

1 Contending. – Actors pursue own outcomes strongly, show little

concern for other party obtaining their desired outcomes.

2 Yielding.– Actors show little interest in whether they attain own

outcomes, are quite interested in whether the other party attains their outcomes.

3 Inaction. – Actors show little interest in whether they attain own

outcomes, little concern about whether the other party obtains their outcomes.

• 1 Afirmación. – Los agentes persiguen

para poseer resultados fuertemente, demuestran a poco la preocupación por el otro partido que obtiene sus resultados deseados.

• 2 Rendimiento. – Los agentes demuestran

poco interés adentro si logran para poseer resultados, están absolutamente interesados adentro si el otro partido logra sus resultados.

• 3 Inacción. – Los agentes demuestran

poco interés adentro si logran para poseer resultados, poco preocupación por si el otro partido obtiene sus resultados.

22

Five Major Strategies for Conflict Management:

4 Problem solving.– Actors show high concern in obtaining own

outcomes, as well as high concern for the other party obtaining their outcomes.

5 Compromising.– Actors show moderate concern in obtaining own

outcomes, as well as moderate concern for the other party obtaining their outcomes.

• 4 Solución de problemas. – Los agentes demuestran que la alta preocupación

en la obtención posee resultados, así como la alta preocupación por el otro partido que obtiene sus resultados.

• 5 Compromiso. – Los agentes demuestran que la preocupación

moderada en la obtención posee resultados, así como la preocupación moderada por el otro partido que obtiene sus resultados.

Functions of Conflict23

Makes organizational members more aware and able to cope with problems through discussion.

Promises organizational change and adaptation.

Strengthens relationships and heightens morale.

Promotes awareness of self and others.

Enhances personal development.

Encourages psychological development—it helps people become more accurate and realistic in their self-appraisals.

Can be stimulating and fun.

24

Dysfunctions of Conflict

1. Competitive, win-lose goals.2. Misperception and bias.3. Emotionality.4. Decreased communication.5. Blurred issues.6. Rigid commitments.7. Magnified differences, minimized similarities.8. Escalation of conflict.

1. Competitivo, ganar-pierda las metas. 2. Falsa valoración y diagonal. 3. Emocionabilidad. 4. Comunicación disminuida. 5. Hechos borrosas. 6. Comisiones rígidas. 7. Diferencias magnificadas, semejanzas reducidas

al mínimo. 8. Escalada del conflicto.

25

05/09/08

The Dual Concerns ModelEl modelo dual de las preocupaciones

Lewicki, Ch 1 Fisher and Ury, Part 1 and 2

CLASS 2

Class 1 Review

Dysfunctions Competitive processes. Misperception and bias. Emotionality Decreased

communication. Blurred issues. Rigid commitments. Magnified differences,

minimized similarities. Escalation of the

conflict.

29

The Dual Concerns Model

05/09/08

Discussion: Fisher Questions What are 2 standard negotiating strategies? According to Fisher, what is a wise agreement List 3 reasons and explain them why the author

rejects arguing over positions as a way to negotiate. How can the human element help or harm

negotiations? How will perception of the other side help in

negotiations? How can your own perceptions influence negotiations?

Why should you give your interests and reasoning first and your conclusions and proposals later?

31

Argumentation vs. Persuasion

• Argumentation.– Presenting facts and

data in logically sound ways in order to persuade someone to change belief or behavior.

• Persuasion.– A delicate mix Of:• Rational argument;• Social forces;• Psychological

forces;• Rhetoric.

• Argumentación. – Presentación de hechos y

de datos de maneras lógicamente sanas para persuadir alguien de cambiar creencia o comportamiento.

• Persuasión. – Una mezcla delicada de: – Discusión racional; – Fuerzas sociales; – Fuerzas psicologicas; – Retórico.

05/09/08

Ting Toomy

33

El modelo dual de las preocupaciones

05/09/08

Poco Mucho

Preocupación por yo mismo

Pre

ocu

paci

ón

por

otr

a

Poc

o

M

ucho

AccommodatingAdaptarse

Problem SolvingColaborador

ContendingCompetetivo

CompromisingCompromiso

Inaction/AvoidEvitar

34

Face (Cara)

• Saving face is avoiding embarrassment.

• You might work to save your own face.

• You might work to help save another’s face.

• Face is an important concept in conflict negotiations.

• La ahorra cara está evitando la verguenza.

• Usted puede ser que trabaje para ahorrar su propia cara.

• Usted puede ser que trabaje para ayudar excepto cara de otra persona.

• La cara es un concepto importante en negociaciones del conflicto.

05/09/08

35

Two Types of Cultures

• Collectivism. – “we” oriented

perspective that emphasizes relationships.

• Individualism– “I” oriented

perspective that emphasizes individualism.

• Different ways of defining self, goals and duty.

• Collectivism. – “nosotros"

orientamos la perspectiva que acentúa relaciones.

• Individualismo – "I" orientó la

perspectiva que acentúa individualismo.

• Diversas maneras de definir uno mismo, metas y deber.05/09/08

36

Facework

• “Face giving” is the facework strategy used to defend and support another’s need for inclusion (collectivism).

• “Face restoration” is the facework strategy used to stake out a unique place in life, preserve autonomy, and defend against loss of personal freedom (individualism).

• “Cara que da" es la estrategia del facework usada para defender y para apoyar la necesidad de otra persona de la inclusión (collectivism).

• “Cara de la restauración" es la estrategia del facework usada para estacar fuera de un lugar único en vida, para preservar la autonomía, y para defenderla contra pérdida de libertad personal (individualismo).

05/09/08

37

Revised Conflict Map

05/09/08

Negotiation Role Play

Ronaldo wants to start a nightclub in an old warehouse near the edge of a residential area with several apartment buildings. Ronaldo has purchased the property and has all of the necessary permits to begin construction on his nightclub. The representative of the residents of the apartments is concerned that a nightclub will play loud music and the patrons of the nightclub might drink too much and become a nuisance in the neighborhood. Ronaldo arranges a meeting with the representative of the residents of the apartments to negotiate terms of an agreement so that he can build his nightclub without causing problems with the residents.

Role 1: Ronaldo Role 2 Alfonso (Representative of Apartment)

39

Key Concepts

05/09/08

BATNA.

Reservation Price.

ZOPA.

Fixed Pie

Negation Frame

Perception

Subjective. Always check your views, opinions and analysis of your position

One’s view of fairness. (Barry Bond’s homerun).

Be very careful of your client's (and your own) perception of fairness.

Frames

Bias Perception: Fixed Pie

the erroneous belief that the other party’s interests are directly opposed to one’s own interests when, in fact, they are often not completely opposed.

Bias Perception: Thompson and Hastie

Explored the consequences for outcomes. They measured individual fixed-pie

perceptions after just five minutes of negotiation

They found fixed pie predicted individual and joint negotiation payoffs such that fixed-pie perceptions were associated with lower individual and joint profits.

Negotiators with strong fixed-pie perceptions failed to identify interests that could be profitably logrolled or that were completely compatible.

Bias Perception: Why does this occur?

Biased information search (negotiators’ faulty search for necessary

information) Biased information processing

(negotiators’ faulty processing of available information).

Bias Perception: Extremism

Partisan perceivers believe that their own perceptions map onto objective reality.

When they realize that the other side’s views differ from their own, they first attempt to “straighten out” the other side; when this does not work, they regard the other side as extremist.

partisan perceivers tend to view the other side as having interests that are more opposed to their own than is actually the case.

Bias Perception: Problems with Extremism

1. Exacerbates conflict1. Partisan perceivers ascribe more negative

traits to their negotiating partner even when partisanship has been randomly assigned right before the negotiation

2. Reduces the likelihood of reaching comprehensive integrative agreements during face-to-face negotiations

Bias Perception: Reactive Devaluation Bias

Negotiators discount or dismiss concessions made by the other party merely as a function of who is offering them

Bias Perception: Stillinger, Epelbaum, Kelter, and Ross (1990)

Experiment Participants negotiated with a confederate over the policy of their university

regarding a political issue. Constant

The antagonism of the negotiating confederate was held constant. During the negotiation, the confederate for a time adopted a stubborn

position. Concession

In two experimental conditions, however, the confederate ultimately made a concession; in the third (control) condition, no concession at all was made.

Rating Subsequently, participants rated the attractiveness and significance of a

number of different proposals, including the ones that had been offered in their negotiation session.

Results Non-offered concessions were rated as more attractive and significant than

offered concessions: The very fact that their counterpart offered them a concession diminished its

value in the eyes of the participants.

Bias Perception: Fundamental Attribution Error

People tend to view A. their own behavior as largely determined by the

situation BUT B. regard other’s behavior as driven by chronic

dispositions

Larrick and Su (1999) Demonstrated this bias operated in negotiation. Negotiators erroneously attributed tough bargaining

behaviors to difficult personalities rather than to situational factors.

Fundamental attribution error often results from lack of sufficient information about the opponent’s situation.

Bias Perception: Coercion Bias

People erroneously believe that A. coercive tactics will be effective in generating concessions when dealing with opponentsBUT B. believe that these same tactics, when applied to the self, will have the opposite effect—that is, to increase their resolve not to concede.

Rothbart and Hallmark (1988) in-group and outgroup members differed in the judged efficacy of coercion and conciliation as social influence strategies.

Out-group members perceived coercion as more effective than conciliation when applied to others,

In-group members perceived coercion as less effective than conciliation when applied to their own social or categorical group members.

Perceptions: Framing

Framing: constructing and representing interpretations. Defining key issues and key problems. Perspective. Separates issue from other ideas. Aggregate and process information. Language we choose engage. notion of what

we are doing: discussion, argument, fight Frames persist as long as they are useful. When people hold to their frames, conflict can

occur. Frames can be transformative.

Change frame, change conversation. Frames can be shifted.

05/09/08 51

Modify the Other Party’s Perceptions• Make outcomes appear less attractive.• Make the cost of obtaining goals appear higher.• Make demands and positions appear more or less

attractive to the other party-whichever suits your needs.

• Haga que los resultados aparecen menos atractivos. Haga el coste de obtener metas para aparecer más arriba. Haga que las demandas y las posiciones aparecen más o menos atractivas a la otra partido-cualquiera se adapta a sus necesidades

05/09/08 52

Manipulate the Actual Costs of Delay or Termination

• Plan disruptive action:– Raise the costs of delay to the other party.

• Form an alliance with outsiders:– Involve (or threaten to involve) other parties that can

influence the outcome in your favor.• Manipulate the scheduling of negotiations:

– One party is usually more vulnerable to delaying than the other.

• Acción que disturba del plan: Levante los costes de esperar al otro partido. Forme una alianza con otras: Implique (o amenace implicar) otros partidos que puedan influenciar el resultado en su favor. Manipule la previsión de negociaciones: Un partido es generalmente más vulnerable al retraso que el otro.

05/09/08 53

Positions Taken During Negotiations• Opening Offer– Where will you start?

• Opening Stance– What is your attitude? Competitive?

Moderate?• Initial Concessions– Should any be made? If so, how large?

• Oferta de abertura ¿Donde usted comienzan? Postura de la abertura ¿Cuál es su actitud? ¿Competitivo? ¿Moderate? Concesiones iniciales ¿Deben cualesquiera ser hechas? ¿Si es así cómo grande?

Why Frames are Critical

Negotiators who understand framing may understand how to have more control over the negotiation process.

Frames may be malleable and, if so, can be shaped or reshaped during negotiation.

Frames shift and change as the negotiation evolves.

Los negociadores que entienden enmarcar pueden entender cómo tener más control sobre el proceso de la negociación.

Los Marcas pueden ser maleables y, si es así se pueden formar o formar de nuevo durante la negociación.

Los arcas cambian de puesto y cambian mientras que la negociación se desarrolla.

Perceptions: Three Views of Frames

Categories of experience

Interests, rights, power

Process of issue development

Language

Ohio negotiation. Environmentalist. Developers.

Environmentalists. Called polluters developers.

Conflict. Result of nonverbal looks and glances. Polarizing language.

Trust/Distrust Frame

Trust distrust different frames.

Main role of negotiator / mediator.

Decide which you are doing: Building trust. Managing distrust.

Marcos de la desconfianza de la confianza diversos.

Posicion principal del negociador/del mediador.

Decida cuál usted está haciendo: Confianza del edificio. Desconfianza de

manejo.

Trust/Distrust Frame

Trust Frame. Little step by step

process. Reliability. Competence.

Distrust Frame. Apologies. Reparation. Say vs Do.

Marco de la confianza. Marcos de la desconfianza

de la confianza diversos. Papel principal del

negociador. Poco proceso paso a paso. Confiabilidad. Capacidad.

Marco de la desconfianza. Apologías. Reparación. Diga contra hacen.

Managing Trust

Creating positive expectations.

Confident expectations about the other.

Shape them by: Language. Clear exceptions. Manage expectation.

Crear expectativas positivas.

Expectativas confidentes sobre la otra.

Fórmelas cerca: Lengua. Excepciones claras. Maneje la expectativa.

Managing distrust

Tools. Boarders. Boundaries. Processes. Not trust building.

Manages downside risk. Distrust binding. Prenuptial agreement.

Herramientas. Huéspedes. Límites. Procesos. No edificio de la

confianza. Maneja riesgo de

baja. Atascamiento de la

desconfianza. Acuerdo Prenuptial.

Frames as Categories of Experience

1 Substantive. What the conflict is about.

2 Outcome. The predispositions the

parties have to achieving a specific result.

3 Aspiration. Predispositions the parties

have towards satisfying a broader set of interests.

4 Conflict Management Process. How the parties will go

about resolving their dispute.

1. Substantivo. 1. Sobre cuál el conflicto está.

Resultado 2. Las predisposiciones

1. los partidos tienen que alcanzando un resultado específico.

3. Aspiración.1. Predisposiciones que los

partidos tienen hacia la satisfacción de un sistema más amplio de intereses.

4. Proceso de la gerencia del conflicto. 1. Cómo los partidos irán

alrededor a resolver su conflicto.

Frames as Categories of Experience (cont.)

5 Identity. How the parties define

“who they are”.6 Characterization

How one party defines the other party.

7 Loss-gain. How the parties view the

risks of particular outcomes.

5. Identidad. Cómo los partidos definen “quién son”.

6. Caracterización Cómo un partido define el otro partido.

7. Pérder-gane. Cómo los partidos ven los riesgos de resultados particulares.

Decision Trap: Frame Blindness

Understanding Frames.

Framing Traps. Boundaries. Reference Points . Yardsticks .

Metaphors. Thinking/Cultural

Frames. Dealing With

Frames.

Marcos de comprensión.

Trampas que enmarcan. Límites. Puntos de referencia. Criterios.

Metáforas. Pensamiento/marcos culturales. El ocuparse de los marcos.

Use of dialogue to reframe intractable conflicts

Reduce tension and manage the de-escalation of hostility: techniques such as

listening projects, study circles, and some forms of mediation.

Perspective taking: techniques such as

acknowledging critical identities, imaging of identities

Reduzca la tensión y maneje el decapado de la hostilidad: técnicas tales como

proyectos que escuchan, círculos de estudio, y algunas formas de mediación.

Tomar de la perspectiva: técnicas tales como

reconocimiento de las identidades críticas, proyección de imagen de identidades

Use of dialogue to reframe intractable conflicts

Establish a common ground as a basis for agreement: techniques such as search for

common ground and visioning/search processes enable reframing around a smaller set of issues. and characterizations, narrative forums, and listening circles allow disputants to understand the conflict and its dynamics.

Enhance the desirability of options and alternatives: Several approaches exist that

may enhance the desirability of alternative options when presented to parties with divergent frames.

Establezca un terreno común como base para el acuerdo: las técnicas tales como búsqueda

para los procesos del terreno común y el visioning/de la búsqueda permiten reframing alrededor de un sistema más pequeño de ediciones. y las caracterizaciones, los foros narrativos, y los círculos que escuchan permiten que los disputants entiendan el conflicto y su dinámica.

Realce la deseabilidad de opciones y de alternativas: Varios acercamientos existen que

pueden realzar la deseabilidad de opciones alternativas cuando están presentados a los partidos con los marcos divergentes.

Psychology Traps - Barriers to Resolution

• You see what you wantSelective Perception

• We over value our cases• we will win more than we

do

Optimistic Overconfiden

ce

• I already have 25 grand in legal fees… Lets just roll the dice

Loss Aversion

Escalation

Discovery makes us overconfident. We want to get more certainty.

Negotiator wants all the info (legal:depos) before theycan decide

We spend too much money on finding information (legal: discovery)

It increases “loss aversion”. Try to settle early.