Define the contrast principle, its value in the negotiation setting, and how it can contribute to a win-win outcome.
Using the contrast principle, outline two potential negotiating tactics that you would recommend Sharon Slade use in the negotiation meeting with Alice Jones. The gambits should help reach an integrative (win-win) outcome. Include examples to illustrate each gambit.
Explain the value of each gambit to the negotiation process.
Provide the reasons why each gambit could increase the likelihood of a successful negotiation session. Include your thoughts on the importance of striving for a win-win outcome in any negotiation setting.
Reference at least three secondary sources that support your position.
Negotiation Advocacy
Full Answer Section
Win-Win Outcomes:
Negotiation is often portrayed as a win-lose situation. However, aiming for an integrative (win-win) outcome is generally more sustainable and beneficial in the long run. It fosters trust, encourages future collaboration, and creates a sense of fairness for both parties.
Negotiation Tactics Using Contrast Principle:
Tactic 1: The High-Ball / Low-Ball Gambit (Anchoring)
Example:
- Sharon: (Initial Offer) "Alice, given the current circumstances, we believe a severance package of two months' salary would be appropriate." (High-ball)
Rationale:
- This tactic starts with an extreme offer (high-ball) that is likely above Alice's expectations. This anchors the negotiation towards a higher value point compared to what Sharon might have initially planned (e.g., one month's salary).
- After Alice counters (likely requesting a higher amount), Sharon can negotiate down from the initial high offer, ultimately reaching a compromise that might still be more favorable for the company than the original lower offer she had in mind.
Value:
- This gambit sets the negotiation bar higher, influencing Alice's perception of value and making the eventual agreed-upon severance seem more reasonable.
Increased Likelihood of Success:
- This approach can create room for negotiation and compromise. Alice might feel she's "winning" concessions by negotiating down from a seemingly generous initial offer.
Tactic 2: The Bracketed Offer
Example:
- Sharon: "Alice, we understand this is a difficult situation. We'd like to offer a severance package that reflects your contributions. We're proposing a range of 3-6 months' salary, depending on your willingness to participate in outplacement services and the signing of a non-compete agreement." (Bracketed Offer)
Rationale:
- This tactic presents a range of options (bracketed offer) instead of a single number. This allows for flexibility and gives Alice a sense of control by choosing within the defined range.
Value:
- This approach acknowledges Alice's needs and allows her to prioritize her desired elements of the severance package (e.g., higher salary vs. shorter non-compete period). It personalizes the offer and demonstrates a willingness to find a mutually beneficial solution.
Increased Likelihood of Success:
- By offering a range, Sharon opens the door to a more collaborative negotiation where both parties can make concessions and reach a compromise within the defined parameters. This can lead to a more satisfying outcome for both sides.
Importance of Win-Win Outcomes:
Striving for a win-win outcome in negotiation is crucial for several reasons:
- Sustainability: Agreements built on mutual satisfaction are more likely to be upheld and create a positive long-term relationship, even if the parties no longer work together directly. (Bazerman, Neale, & Mannix, 2008)
- Reduced Resentment: A win-win outcome fosters goodwill and reduces feelings of resentment that can arise from feeling taken advantage of in a purely win-lose scenario. (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011)
- Future Collaboration: When both parties feel they have achieved their goals, they are more likely to be open to collaborating again in the future, potentially creating new opportunities. (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2015)
Sources:
- Bazerman, M. H., Neale, M. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2008). Negotiation. McGraw-Hill Education.
- Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
- Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in. Penguin Books.
- Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2015). Negotiation. McGraw-Hill Education.
Sample Answer
The Contrast Principle and Integrative Negotiation
The Contrast Principle:
The contrast principle, explored by Robert Cialdini in his book "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion," suggests that our perception of value is influenced by comparisons. When presented with two options, the second option appears more appealing if it significantly differs from the first.
Value in Negotiation:
In negotiation, the contrast principle can be a powerful tool to influence the other party's perception of value. By strategically structuring your offers, you can make your final desired outcome seem more reasonable compared to a seemingly less desirable initial proposal.