It is typical for the negotiation procedure to be seen as a rational process where the parties strive for mutually beneficial results. However, chapter 11 of the book “Judgment in Managerial Decision Making” discloses the common cognitive biases that make the negotiators unaccountable in their decision-making. This essay explores six mentions made by Bazerman and Moore concerning negotiators’ behaviour and which trap is the widest spread and explains why negotiators utilize such strategies.
The Mythical Fixed Pie of Negotiation
The misconception about the fixed pie of negotiation results in a zero-sum mentality of those taking part in talks, framing every gain reached by one party as an analogous loss on behalf of the other. The failure issue of the adopted position is to capture a variety of options that may promote a consensual and beneficial outcome (Bazerman & Moore, 2013). Whereas cooperative practice dictates bargainers suggest creative solutions that encompass both sides, collaborators get locked in their positions, primarily pursuing maximization of shares of the allegedly fixed pie. Furthermore, the trade-off opportunities that arise through grappling with all the issues comprehensively are obscured, denying appropriate compromises and resulting in deadlock. Getting rid of this barrier requires a change of paradigm to use collaborative enterprise problem-solving as negotiators realize the opportunity of creating a more decadent pie and more added value for all the stakeholders. A hype of a fixed pie *frame of mind* can be overcome by the negotiators; thus, they may contextually form a procrastinating and productive negotiator frame of mind, required to achieve optimal agreements or outcomes.
The Framing of Negotiator Judgment
In negotiation, framing differs from the way negotiators evaluate gains and losses; besides, it can have an important impact on the decision-making processes of the negotiators as well. Using positive or negative frames, negotiators distort the same data to internalize the image of the negotiating sessions. The positive framing is critical for creating an atmosphere of negotiation that leaves room for compromise and collaboration. As a result, the parties can have a soft spot for offering concessions in their search for a joint deal. Nevertheless, lousy framing generally connects with loss aversion, so negotiators are likely to prioritise protecting their interests over agreements, which this cause slow progress. Consequently, framing competence is crucial to the proper negotiation process by adding value to the arising deals.
Escalation of Conflict
The movement of conflict through its different stages is shown by the 1994 MLB strike and other similar events, showcasing how parties become deeply entrenched in their positions, escalating their commitment to their initial stances. This localized perspective is an obstacle that makes negotiators row their thinking and sight, l,eading to a total cold war that turns out to be bodestruction on both sides The negotiators need the dynamics of escalation under control for future improvement and resolution of crises before irrational action may occur. The observers can detect the signs of “escalation” on time. They talk between the parties so that they will tidy things up and find an alternative of cooperation (Bazerman & Moore, 2013). By taking up preventive measures that hamper even the fuming conflicts, the mediating team can thus create the ways which would lead to compromise and opportunity regardless of the fact those dynamics might have overshadowed them since they began were as aggressive. Basically, gaining a sophistication in the escalation processes helps negotiators steer more efficiently in a tense environment and thereby produce an agreement which is agreeable to all parties involved.
Overestimating Your Value in Negotiation:
Research has shown that the narrative of Matt Harrington reminds of the subtleties of the situation when diplomacy fails and one decides to indulge overestimating own value. While on the outside the image seems to be that of the biggest baseball talent, the reality is that the result was the losing of the majority of the available openings and gaining lots of time in which discussions ceased from bringing about a positive outcome (Pérez-Yus et al., 2020). At the same time, the firmness of his stance demonstrated the overwhelming reproduction of these overconfidence traps, through which representatives, taking advantage of misperception, reinforce the rise of own power in a context where the actual situation dictates otherwise. The underestimation of our chances, though, which we do, results in not only compromises the chance of agreeing on something positive but also give us additional period of conflict. The tutorial that Harrington received depicted the significance of humbleness and having right mind in negotiation and stressed negotiators to steer clear of the mistake brought about by the excess of confidence and go for the realistic and sound approach of settling the agreement that is favorable to both parties.
Self-Serving Biases in Negotiation
In the gist of negotiation, self-serving biases weigh in heavily, conditioning the perceptions about fairness as well as ending in decide negotiations. This kind of discriminations makes the parties to receive data in the appropriate left to their favor, often leading to divergent ideas regarding the fair handling. It is then likely that the negotiators will be locked up in their separate sides undermining the capacity to compromise as well bring prolonging war conflicts (Pérez-Yus et al., 2020). Getting rid of in-group-out-group dynamics and able to create an environment where both parties are able to explore options for fair compromise is key to successful negotiation. Through ascertaining such biases and applying everything in order to minimize their impact, the negotiators may improve their capacity to locate where the points of commonality are and come up with agreements which do justice to all parties involved.
Anchoring Biases
The anchoring bias strongly influences the way negotiators make their decisions – they use these reference points as focal points for further thinking. The anchoring phenomenon commonly makes negotiators to locked into the extreme positions which restricts their flexibility to the negotiation and they become less receptive to the alternative methods (Bazerman & Moore, 2013). Yet, analyzing the anchoring biases prove as an excellent mechanism for negotiators showing how they can notice and withstand the urge of solidified postures. Through recognition of the anchoring biases, negotiators will perceive the way to achieve a compromise opting for a win-win environment where their mutual interests will be satisfied, and as a result, the constructed partnerships will be long-lasting and fruitful.
In conclusion, since negotiation is a profoundly cognitive demanding activity, the level of which makes negotiators more prone to irrational decision-making, negotiators may miss opportunities or even fail. All of the six reasons that have been demonstrated by Bazerman and Moore add to the abovementioned situation; however, probably the most prevalent one is the fixed pie assumption. It prevents thinking outside the box, develops win-lose attitudes, and aggravates conundrums of finding common challenges. Incorporating my personal experience, observations, and findings, I conclude that the theory of cognitive bias delivers one of the potential reasons for negotiators to lose rationality, and thus, hamper the possibility of having optimal agreements. Consequently, elimination of all these biases can be an important factor in engendering partnership in negotiations as well as resolving disputes.
References
Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2013). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. In Google Books. John Wiley & Sons.
Pérez-Yus, M. C., Ayllón-Negrillo, E., Delsignore, G., Magallón-Botaya, R., Aguilar-Latorre, A., & Oliván Blázquez, B. (2020). Variables associated with negotiation effectiveness: The role of mindfulness. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 1214. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01214/full.
write