Negotiation Gambits Chart S Fabry

WCM 510 Negotiation Gambits Chart Two Potential Distributive Negotiating Gambits for Sharon Slade to Consider: Two Negotiating Gambits for Sharon Slade to Avoid: Specific Gambits That Would Advance Your Agenda: 1. Make Contingent Concessions (Shonk. 2019. para. 9) In order to alleviate any ambiguity in the negotiation, concessions should be put into writing and clearly state that concessions made on Netflix’s side will only be made if a certain concession is made by Ms. Jones. Contingent concessions help to secure commitments from both parties involved as well as allow for a more open discussion of other issues – this can potentially transform the negotiation from a distributive one to an integrative one. 1. Flinching (Coburn. 2017. para. 19) Physically responding to what someone else has said with either suddenly gasping for air or visible alarmed expression is considered fliching. Ms. Slade needs to be aware of her nonverbal responses as much as her verbal responses. Her “flinching” may make Ms. Jones believe that what she has to say is not valued by Ms. Slade. Therefore, the entire negotiation session may turn hostile and non-productive simply because of nonverbal communication. 1. Set & Stretch Your Goal (Reynolds. 2019. para.10). Via the “Set and Stretch Your Goal” tactic, both parties come to the negotiation table fully prepared with their goal or goals of what they want to achieve, their zone of possible agreement (ZOPA). Both parties must also “stretch” that goal to determine what their best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) will be. This way both parties may initially “shoot for the moon” in terms of their wants and demands, they both also know when it is time to walk away from the table with a win, even if it is not as big of a win as they had hoped 2. Be Comfortable with Silence (Shonk. 2019. para. 7) Sometimes, it is necessary to take a moment to take a breath and to reflect on what has been said, offered, and to more carefully consider what is on the table. However, there are times when the other party may use silence to their benefit – be mindful to not make rash decisions, such make undue concessions or retract an offer, simply because the other party is silent and considering their options. 2. Take it or Leave it (Coburn. 2017. para. 38) This tactic is typically considered to be highly confrontational and aggressive. In very few cases in negotiation discussions, will this type of gambit be effective. Ms. Slade needs to concentrate on the reasons behind Ms. Jones’ requests and then cooperatively work to find solutions that will result in integrative negotiation. 1. Show Your Cards (Reynolds. 2019. para. 7-8) Through the “Show Your Cards” tactic, both parties state what they want to achieve by the end of the bargaining process. This allows for a more open and honest conversation from the get-go as well as increase the opportunities for mutual benefit