Chapter Summary: Mythical Fixed Pie Negotiation
In chapter 11, the book expanded on the information from chapter 10. The focus was on the unanswered questions that chapter 10 left out there. People make cognitive mistakes when they are involved in negotiation. There are six areas that the chapter described, mythical fixed pie of negotiation, framing of negotiator judgement, nonrational escalation of conflict, overestimating one’s value, self-serving bias, and anchoring bias. These areas are a theoretical trap for negotiators, and they must be avoided in order to correctly negotiate.
Mythical fixed pie negotiation involves the thinking that each side is fighting for the largest piece of the pie. This means that they think their interests conflict with the other parties’ interests. Typically, these negotiators look for a trade off, and lose focus on what they were really after. Framing of negotiator judgment is when people frame in terms of losses over gains. An example of this is the negotiating unions do for their constituents. Typically, unions will say we need to raise the pay of the members to a certain level, and anything less would be considered a loss of wages. Each side frames this as they both have something to lose, that is flawed thinking. Escalation of conflict is very simple, the parties involved know what they want, and if they do not get it, they walk away. …show more content…
The overall message was to remain calm, structure the discussion in ways that you can win. There is no win-win in a negotiation. Someone must be on the losing side, even if they think they are not. We must stay ahead of the other person, and consider the outcomes that are possible. The traps that come with overthinking negotiation must be avoided at all costs. We must identify the errors in the process prior to entering into any negotiating. We must use descriptive models and anticipate every move in order to be
Mythical fixed pie negotiation involves the thinking that each side is fighting for the largest piece of the pie. This means that they think their interests conflict with the other parties’ interests. Typically, these negotiators look for a trade off, and lose focus on what they were really after. Framing of negotiator judgment is when people frame in terms of losses over gains. An example of this is the negotiating unions do for their constituents. Typically, unions will say we need to raise the pay of the members to a certain level, and anything less would be considered a loss of wages. Each side frames this as they both have something to lose, that is flawed thinking. Escalation of conflict is very simple, the parties involved know what they want, and if they do not get it, they walk away. …show more content…
The overall message was to remain calm, structure the discussion in ways that you can win. There is no win-win in a negotiation. Someone must be on the losing side, even if they think they are not. We must stay ahead of the other person, and consider the outcomes that are possible. The traps that come with overthinking negotiation must be avoided at all costs. We must identify the errors in the process prior to entering into any negotiating. We must use descriptive models and anticipate every move in order to be