DRI Women Lawyers' Success Negotiation Seminar Part Three
1. Creating Value
• Compatibility (identifying issues for which
parties don’t have a conflict of interest)
• logrolling, or trading off concessions on low-
priority issues for gains on higher priority
issues
• Trading differential time
preferences, or allocating more initial
outcomes to the more impatient party and
greater profits over a longer period to the
more patient party
• Adding issues, or adding to the agreement
issues not inherent in the initial negotiation
framework
2. Cognitive Biases
Why do we care? Because your belief about your bargaining
partner’s bottom line and his belief about yours will exert a
disproportionate degree of influence on the deal eventually negotiated.
3. • Judges estimating
damages
• People estimating
The height, number,
Statistics duration
• Frame/spin
– $$$$
– Loss/gain
– Positional
weaknesses/strengths
– Characteristics
affecting value
5. Are they liars, cheats and
thieves or do they have
hidden interests.
– Personal (unrelated to
you or deal)
– Relational (related to you
but not to deal, i.e.,
“face”)
– Political, social, cultural
6. • Are they difficult or simply
uninformed
– Educate them about their true
interests, consequences of their
actions, our BATNA
– Help them understand what is in
their best interest
– Determine whether they’ve
misunderstood or ignored a crucial
piece of information
7. Are they irrational or are
they operating under
hidden constraints
– Institutional
– Precedential
– Promises to others
• Hidden
stakeholders
– Deadlines
12. • Demonstrate that
– you will not be victimized
– You will be reasonable
– You will not be driven by
emotion
• Solicit more information than
you give
• Tit for tat
– Open with cooperation
– Retaliate for lack of cooperation
• cooperation in face of non-
cooperation results in cycle of
victimization
• Refusal to forgive results in
escalating cycle of retalitation
– Be forgiving
– Return to Cooperation
13. • Be conscious
– Assume nothing
– Guard vs. cognitive bias
• Ask questions
– Be curious
– Be receptive
– Be skeptical
• Require cooperation
– Name concessions
– Demand reciprocity
• Problem solve
14. • Reiterate terms
• Or…recapture the main Close
points, what’s left to
resolve, and what’s needed
to do so.
• Set day/time to reconvene
• End on hopeful
note/congratulate both for
progress made
• Nibbling . . .
Editor's Notes
Negotiation outcome controlled by what each party thinks the other party is willing to settle uponThe party’s pre-negotiation belief about the other party’s bottom line is the reason the parties attempt to signal both their true and their false bottom linesSignaling a false bottom line is an attempt to obtain a better outcomeSignaling a true bottom line is an attempt to assure agreement will occur.
INFLUCENCE OF ANCHORS AND FRAMINGWhen asked to estimate damages in a hypothetical personal injury action, one group of trial judges were first asked to decide a motion described as frivolous to dismiss the action on the ground that Plaintiff could not meet the $75,000 jurisdictional limit. The other half were provided with no materials suggesting any amount in controversy. The judges given the $75,000 “anchor” awarded nearly $400,000 less to the Plaintiff than those forced to assess damages without a suggested damage figure. Guthrie, Rachlinski and Wistrich, Inside the Judicial Mind, 86 Cornell Law Review 777 (2001)Researches have found that random numbers also effect valuations.Framing: How long was the movie?199 minutesHow short was the movie?130 minutesHow tall was the basketball player79 inchesHow short was the basketball player?69 inches