Being an effective speaker by using #prismphilosophy http://www.prismphilosophy.com is considered a key executive competency, but it is also something of a dying art. People are relying more and more on digital communication, and studies show that listeners’ attention spans are getting shorter. Still, speaking is a more effective mode of communication than writing because vocal intonations help clarify meaning that gets lost when a message is written, and people focus their attention on the speaker.
McGowan finds there is a communications gender gap in the corporate world. Women have to walk a fine line between being seen as too empathetic or nice and being seen as bossy or inflexible. Men, on the other hand, do not have to deal with the same kinds of stereotypes. Women tend to back into their messages because they like to establish support for an idea before actually explaining it. Men tend to be less empathetic, so are often not as effective at explaining how an idea might help others.
But not all communication issues are gender based. People can be poor communicators because they focus too much on irrelevant details, make the same point over and over, rely on clichés, or continually edit what they just said, a habit called verbal backspacing. To help speakers overcome any quirks that keep them from being good communicators, McGowan recommends seven principles of persuasion:
1. The headline principle: Speakers should grab their audiences’ attention at the start.
2. The Scorsese principle: Speakers should create imagery with words to hold listeners’ attention
3. The pasta-sauce principle: Speakers should boil down their messages to make them strong and concise.
4. The no-tailgating principle: Speakers should talk slowly while thinking about what to say next.
5. The conviction principle: Speakers can show certainty with their words, tone, and eye contact.
6. The curiosity principle: Good conversationalists are interested in other people and what they have to say.
7. The Draper principle: Speakers should keep the conversation focused on their areas of strength.
To learn these principles and put them into practice, people can focus on learning and using one principle at a time. Individuals can study speakers on television to see how they display various principles, and they can evaluate their own use of the principles by reviewing recordings or videos of themselves speaking.
Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org, https://www.linkedin.com/in/prismworld or https://www.facebook.com/theprismphilosophy/
For Goal Setting by http://prismphilosophy.com/about/ we need to use active or passive question. Active questions are the possibility of choices to passive questions.
There is a huge difference between “Do you have clear goals?” and “Did you do your best to set clear goals for yourself?”
If you will observe and read carefully above statement, the former is trying to determine the employee’s state of mind; the latter challenges the employee to describe or defend a course of action. I, #AnubhaMauryaWalia challenge myself every day by answering 32 questions that represent behavior that I know is important, but that is easy for me to neglect given the pressures of daily life. It has helped me alter my behavior for the better in such a dramatic way that I now teach all of my clients /participants/ traines/ professional and students this method of self-reflection for positive behavioral change. My six active questions are:
- Did I do my best to increase my happiness?
- Did I do my best to find meaning?
- Did I do my best to be engaged?
- Did I do my best to build positive relationships?
- Did I do my best to set clear goals?
- Did I do my best to make progress toward goal achievement?
Happy Reading and Trust me ” SET GOALS and “https://prismphilosophy.wordpress.com/2018/04/01/dreams-goals/
You can reach out to me at email@example.com or connect with me at https://www.linkedin.com/in/anubha-maurya-walia-12850018/
Today, we will focus on Story telling in PUBLIC SPEAKING. Here are PRISM way of sharing a great story:
You don’t become great speaker / story teller over-night but have to work on it.Here are PRISM way of sharing a great story:
1. PREPARE with the end in mind. Every story is a journey. Where ? How ? What ? What ? you want to share. Focus on backgrounds, experiences, motivations, and (personal) agendas. Your job is to take audience from here to there – so always know what there is. A masterful storyteller creates a framework that allows the listener to fill in his or her own gaps. The goal is to unlock the leaders’ imaginations and allow them to turn your story into their story – that way each person can relate and engage on their own terms. There are a number of proven structures for stories with PRISM. A classic example is SOAR for business cases: S: Situation and problem O: Objectives A: Actions R: Results and Implications.
RESPECT audience own conclusions. Stories can unleash emotions and perspectives, whereas explaining the story in logical terms (think sharing “the moral of the story”) does the opposite. Leave the listener processing what you said. Then they can draw their own conclusions – and that will help them get a lot more from your stories.Who do people tend to care the most about? Themselves. RESPECT same. You could create instant rapport.
IMPLEMENT emotional roller coaster. Emotion almost always trumps logic. You can designed to take people through emotional sequence. Try telling a story where the main character goes through the some cycle: shock, anger, resistance, awareness,acceptance, action and finally achievement.
SHARE a character that provides a role model. Share the story of a person who has moved forward, sharing the key steps that allowed that person to succeed. That way the story – and the main character – provides a role model everyone can follow without having to ask.
MAINTAIN the power of metaphors. Aristotle saying, “The soul never thinks without a picture.” Using metaphors in stories makes it easier for the listener to grasp the concept of big ideas. Use metaphors to help listeners draw – and remember – those connections. Humour and playfulness increase rapport.
While listeners will take their own messages from your stories, you can still guide the direction. Always remember the context. ENJOY and SHARE with PRISM. Contact us at 919818446562, http://www.prismphilosophy.com, to book session with us.
Maxwell describes six characteristics associated with people who experience fulfillment as they pursue their dreams:
* Fulfilled people understand the difference between a dream and its realization. The idealized image of a dream that everyone carries in their head is usually not achievable because it depends on everything being perfect. The ideal vision can be helpful for establishing goals and stimulating internal motivation, but it also needs to be tempered with reality.
* Fulfilled people understand that the size of a dream determines the size of the gap. Large dreams are potentially more fulfilling than smaller ones. However, large dreams also come with a big gap between birth and completion.
* Fulfilled people keep dreaming while making the journey. People must continue dreaming in order to maintain inspiration, motivation, and fulfillment.
* Fulfilled people appreciate each step forward in the journey. Most dreams are achieved slowly, and sometimes the results emerge in subdued ways. As a result, it is important to take joy in the journey and find fulfillment in the small steps along the way.
* Fulfilled people make new discoveries while living in the gap. People have the potential to make many great discoveries while pursuing their dreams. Often, the greatest discoveries are the ones people make about themselves while pursuing a dream.
* Fulfilled people buy into the natural law of balance: life is both good and bad. To reach a dream and to find fulfillment in the process, people must be proactive in both good times and bad. Even when individuals do not feel like working toward their dream, they must persevere anyway.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2018
Social Styles Versatility: The Engine of Success
What if your company could learn a skill that will eliminate conflict, miscommunication, and slow decisions? And what if I told you that the mechanics team inside a global air fleet company did just that and saw a 56% boost in productivity? Would I get your attention? Thought so.
That skill is called Versatility, and it is perhaps the most powerful interpersonal skill you can have.
Today’s mandate to “perform well,” on whatever task it may be, is dependent on functionally and culturally diverse people within and outside the organization making high performance happen and happen fast. It is difficult to get good innovative decisions and actions carried out with high energy when people feel there is tension and communication is strained. The good news is we can take responsibility for managing our communication behavior and reducing interpersonal tension, keeping the task focused on solving problems and achieving improvements of productivity, efficiencies, and employee engagement.
VERSATILE COMMUNICATION SKILLS
Versatility is the ability to recognize differences in communication preferences and to adapt to make others more open and receptive—creating more effective and productive relationships.
The first step is to recognize communication differences, and the Wilson Learning Social Styles model is the tool to help you. Social Style is based on our preferred communication approaches. Your Social Style varies in terms of your actions on the dimensions of Assertiveness and Responsiveness.
Because about 25% of people fall into each of these four categories, you share a Social Style with only about 25% of the people you meet. Just think about the consequences when we can’t or won’t adapt to the other 75%. Do you see an opportunity here?
“The more I know about you, the more I know about me, and the more I can take responsibility for managing the difference between us.”
If you choose to take responsibility and manage the differences between your Social Style preference with the other 75%, you can create more productive relationships and, as a result, maximize your effectiveness on the job.
THE KEY IS VERSATILITY
Social Style helps you recognize communication preferences, and Versatility helps you take responsibility for managing differences. The good news is Versatility is a skill that can be learned and mastered. But Versatility requires effort, requiring you to modify your approach to fit others’ approaches, even when it may not be comfortable. You have to make a conscious choice to be Versatile:
- Do I need this relationship to work so I can achieve my results?
- What will be the benefits if I improve this relationship?
- What will be the risks if I do not improve this relationship?
Having chosen to be Versatile, you then have to act on that choice with a process we call the Versatile Response:
1. IDENTIFY: WHAT IS THE PERSON’S SOCIAL STYLE?
You identify others’ Social Styles by focusing on what they value, the environment in which they work best, and how they like to work.
|THE VERSATILE RESPONSE1|
Identify the person’s Social Style.
“She or he is…”
Based on the person’s Social Style, reflect on and describe her or his expectations for interactions with you.
“So she or he needs…”
Decide how to modify your behaviors to maximize your effectiveness.
“Therefore I will…”
1 Building Relationship Versatility: Social Styles At Work: The Business of Versatility
Analyticals, for example:
- Value conservative and practical business decisions
- Rely on structured approach and factual evidence
- Prefer a systematic approach to coming to a recommendation
Amiables tend to:
- Value cooperation in business situations
- Rely on the support of others in shared decision making
- Prefer an interactive approach to problem solving
Drivers tend to:
- Be forceful and quick in making decisions
- Flourish in a goal-oriented environment
- Expect others to respond in a timely manner
Expressives tend to:
- Be futuristic in their thinking
- Attempt to make others enthusiastic about ideas
- Prefer a collaborative approach to problem solving
2. REFLECT: WHAT DOES THIS PERSON NEED FROM ME INTERPERSONALLY?
How you modify your Social Style depends on both the other’s Social Style and the situation. There is no one straightforward solution. An Analytical (or Driver, Amiable, or Expressive) in one situation may need something different in another situation.
An Analytical, for example, may need a more formal and structured approach, or may just need enough time to think things through. An Amiable may need you to be open and honest about your feelings, or need other people to be involved in the decision. A Driver may need you to get right to the point, or focus a little more on the problem and less on the people involved. And an Expressive may need you to be a little more flexible on time, or to hear your excitement for the issue.
So, before going straight from Identify to Modify, pause a second to reflect: What does this Social Style need? And what is needed now?
3. MODIFY: WHAT CAN I DO TO MODIFY MY BEHAVIOR?
People new to Versatility skills sometimes think you have to make big behavior changes to communicate effectively. But just like the old adage “the best things come in small packages,” little changes in Assertiveness and Responsiveness can have a big impact on the effectiveness of communication. Maybe all you need to do is:
- Ask for the other person’s opinion first
- Get to the point quickly
- Use a slower or faster pace
- Use more or less gestures and facial expressions
How might this work in the real world? Here are some examples:
A VP of Research and Development (an Analytical) was frustrated because he was not receiving responses from e-mails to the VP of Sales (a Driver). Upon reflection, he realized the VP of Sales needed to get right to the point, and the lengthy explanation of the data and how he reached his conclusion was not helping the VP of Sales. So with the next email, the VP of R&D “flipped” the message; he put the conclusion first, the explanation second. The VP of Sales responded immediately.
The VP of Marketing (a Driver) was having trouble getting the Website Design Manager (an Amiable) to make changes to the corporate website. The VP of Marketing paused for a moment and realized that the Website Design Manager always felt more comfortable when more people were involved in decisions. So the VP of Marketing asked her who else might be able to contribute to this decision and invited them all to a meeting to discuss the changes. After the group made the decisions, the Website Design Manager implemented them almost immediately.
WHEN SOFT SKILLS YIELD HARD RESULTS
Equipping your employees and leaders, in all functions, with Versatility skills enables them to address complex challenges, reduce tension and conflict, and build more collaborative relationships throughout the organization. Without communication obstacles, individuals, teams, and work groups can soar as they are free to focus on the work at hand. Join the ranks of the global air fleet maintenance team and boost your productivity to new altitudes.
Negotiation is one of the most common and constructive ways of dealing with conflict. It can be defined as the joint decision making between interdependent individuals aimed at resolving a perceived divergence of interests (Pietroni et al., 2008). Negotiation is a part of our life and we negotiate every now and then, consciously or subconsciously, for creating value and/or claiming value. We negotiate in an informal way with our friends and family or we take a formal approach to negotiation in a work environment which includes business deals, dispute settlement, conflict resolution etc. But wherever we negotiate or whenever we negotiate, just like any other social interaction emotions are inherent to negotiation. Negotiations involve people and people are indispensable from emotions. The things that people care about are not just the outcomes but also respect, power and identity which are bound to incite strong emotions.
As an emotion emerges, it entails coordinated changes in physiology, motor readiness, behaviour, cognition, and subjective experience. Emotional reactions emerge in response to perceived or actual alterations in the person’s environment (Mayer et al., 2007). Emotions intertwine with rational thoughts to make us human. Reasons cannot easily operate without feelings, or vice versa. We need to understand, channel and learn from our emotions in order to adapt to the situation at hand and engage others successfully. The key to a successful deal most often lies not in technical details, or even in price, but in the proper treatment of the emotion and psychological motivations that drive the buyer or the seller (Garai and Pravda, 1993). Even when the economies or the strategies are right, a transaction can break down if critical personal concerns are not recognized and addressed (Garai and Pravda, 1993). Being emotionally prepared is as important as any other aspect of the negotiation planning.
In Greek myth, many of the ills that plagued mankind were creatures of emotion, such as revenge, spite, and envy. Released by the goddess Pandora, they sought to torment the world (MacDonald and Matthew, 2008). To be able to use emotion as a weapon in negotiation, we must first understand the effect of emotions on negotiation. Acknowledging the critical role emotions can play in the negotiation, more and more studies are focussing on emotive other than cognitive aspect of the negotiation.
Both cognitive and emotional approaches to negotiation have highlighted not only outcomes related to the negotiable items on the table, but also outcomes related to the social relationship between the parties at table (Kopelman et al., 2006). Effect of emotions on negotiation can be studied as intrapersonal effect of emotions on a negotiator and interpersonal effect of emotions on other negotiators around the table. Various models such as affect-as information model, affect-priming models, affect infusion model etc. have been developed guiding the research on intrapersonal effect and various models such as motivated information processing model, social information model, actor-partner independence model etc. have been developed guiding research on interpersonal effect.
Intrapersonal effects of emotions in negotiation is the influence of a negotiator’s emotional state on his or her own behaviour (Van Kleef et al.) Studies have shown quite consistently that negotiators experiencing positive affect tend to be more cooperative and conciliatory, whereas negotiators in a negative affective state tend to be more competitive and reluctant to make concessions. Positive affect of emotions has shown to increase concession making, stimulate creative problem solving, increase preferences for cooperation, reduce the use of contentious tactics, and increase the use of cooperative strategies. Conversely, negative affect has been shown to decrease initial offers, decrease joint gains, promote the rejection of ultimatum offers, increase use of competitive strategies and decrease desire to work together in future (Van Kleef et al.).
Negotiation is a complex process which demands high level of attentiveness and awareness of the environment. Emotional effects of a negotiator are not only intrapersonal but also interpersonal that is our emotions not only influence us but also people whom we are interacting with. Negotiation is a social phenomenon whereby emotions of one negotiator not only affect themselves but also their counterparts (Van Kleef et al.). Negotiators use their opponent’s emotions to infer the location of his or her limits and subsequently used this information to make a counteroffer (Van Kleef et al.). In other words, negotiators who are confronted with an angry opponent estimate the opponent’s limit to be high, and to avoid costly impasse, they place low demands and make the large concessions. Conversely, negotiators with a happy opponent, judge the opponent’s limit to be low, feel no need to concede to avoid impasse, and accordingly place high demands and make small concessions. But anger is considered to be a negative emotion and negative emotions are highly contagious that they can anger the opposite party resulting in an impasse.
Disadvantages of communicating anger in a negotiation could be that the negotiator may be perceived with a negative personality, may anger the counterpart and/or negatively affect the future relationship. But communicating anger can have positive affects financially with the angry party claiming higher concessions. Studies by Beest et al. (2008), revealed that communicating anger has profound impact on multiparty negotiation and may trigger negative impressions in multiparty negotiation. But if the parties are forced to include an angry counterpart then the angry party tends to claim higher value than others.
Positive emotions lead to better cognitive thinking and result in better results whereas negative emotions influence the parties to focus on distributive approach resulting in one party gaining more than the other or reach an impasse. Negotiations are best when they are integrative and result in added value instead of a fixed pie approach. Fixed –pie perceptions lead negotiators to engage in distributive negotiation[i] and to forego possibilities of an integrative negotiation[ii], typically resulting in sub-optimal agreements (De Dreu, 2003). But there may be some instances where fixed pie is an actuality and distributive bargaining is the most appropriate approach to take. In these negotiations strategic display of anger can yield better results for the party expressing anger.
The effect of emotions in negotiation cannot be generalised but is influenced by various other factors
Negotiation parties often differ in terms of power, and power differences exert an important influence on the way in which negotiation processes develop and conclude (Van Kleef et al.). The effect emotions have on a negotiation depends on the power level of the parties involved in the negotiation. The party with a higher power will be more expressive of their emotions and less or not affected by the emotions of the counterpart. This resonates with the theory that negotiators with higher power are found to be more demanding and less conceding since their BATNA[iii] is relatively stronger.
Effect of Epistemic Motivation[iv]
The effectiveness of the use of emotional deception as a strategic ploy depends on whether the target of the influence attempt is motivated to think about the implications of the other’s emotions for his or her goal attainment (Van Kleef et al.). Negotiators’ tendency to concede more to an angry opponent than to a happy one is moderated by individual differences in epistemic motivation. The epistemic motivation is another factor that governs the extent to which emotions play a role in negotiation. The higher the epistemic motivation the more the parties will be willing to achieve an outcome. Hence, the parties will be more receptive to emotions.
Whether individuals will engage in a systematic and thorough information processing depends on their epistemic motivation – the desire to develop and maintain a rich and accurate understanding of the world, including negotiation task (Van Kleef et al.). Epistemic motivation depends upon need for cognitive closure, attractiveness, environmental noise, mental fatigue, time pressure.
In a negotiation, a party can maintain a steady state emotion of being happy or angry throughout the negotiation or transition from a happy to angry or angry to happy emotional stage. The transition from happy to angry has been found to be the most effective where the negotiator started with a happy emotion transitioning to angry emotion (Filipowicz et al.).
History is riddled with instances where emotions overpowered reasoning. In contrast to the historically dominant view of emotions as a negative influence in human behaviour, recent research in neuroscience and psychology has highlighted the positive roles played by emotions in decision making (Shiv et al., 2005). The automatic emotions triggered by a given situation help the normal decision-making process by narrowing down the options for action, either by discarding those that are dangerous or by endorsing those that are advantageous (Shiv et al., 2005). This process can be lifesaving in certain events but when it comes to negotiation, relying on automatic emotive triggering can lead to damaging results. Here, we must inhibit the trigger and take a cognitive approach with emotions being used strategically. Emotional Intelligence (EI) [v] will enable us to accurately perceive and express emotion in the self, recognize and appraise the emotion in others, regulate emotion in the self, and use emotions to facilitate performance by guiding them towards constructive activities and personal performance.
Before walking into a negotiation, every negotiator must assess and accept the emotional complexity of the negotiation. They should follow the six-step warm-up exercise suggested by Kimberlyn Leary (2013) to emotionally prepare themselves for negotiation.
People sometimes are unable to control the emotions sparked by a negotiation. More often than not they end up conceding major concessions to the opposite party or the negotiation fails to materialize. The two most intense emotions that confront negotiators are fear and anger (Adler et al., 1998). Anger and fear in negotiations can be good and bad. The emotions in themselves are not negative; they affect us negatively if we let the emotions control us in situations which also demand certain level of rationalisation, whereas if we are aware of our emotional state, control it and use it for our own benefit, results can be positive. Adler et al. (1998) have suggested following ways to successfully deal with anger and fear arising in conflict situation:
|DEALING WITH OUR OWN ANGER-
· The critical need for self-awareness
· Determine situations that trigger inappropriate anger
· Decide whether to display anger
· Behavioural techniques to reduce anger like calling for a temporary break
· Express anger and disappointment affectively
· Avoid “negotiators bias”
· Try to promote trust
|DEALING WITH OUR OPPONENT”S ANGER-
· Defuse beated emotional buildup
· Assess the significance of angry displays
· Address an opponent’s anger
· Respond to anger in strategic ways
· Help an angry opponent save face
· Involve a mediator where we anticipate anger
|DEALING WITH OUR OWN FEAR-
· Know your warning signs
· Understand that fear is often a normal reaction
· Determine how visibly you display fear
· Determine situations that trigger fear
· Behavioural techniques to reduce feelings of fear like thinking about a positive thought from the past
· Careful preparation reduces fear (refer to (Kimberlyn Leary, 2013))
· Act confident even if you do not feel so
· Avoid quick agreements motivated by fear
· Try to reduce stress level by exercising etc.
|DEALING WITH OUR OPPONENT’S FEAR-
· Monitor all negotiations for emotional build-ups
· Show flexibility in how we react to your opponent’s fear
· Where helpful, share your fears and anxieties with your opponent
· Help your fearful opponents save face
Negotiators must use the information about the other’s emotion to design their own negotiation strategy. When negotiators lack information about counter parties, they bend towards distributive negotiation instead of an integrative negotiation (assuming win-win situation is a possibility). Studies by Paul Ekman, helps us understand the basic emotions and universal language of facial expressions. The study can be very helpful in face-to-face negotiation (assuming counterparts do not maintain a poker face[vi]) which is the most common setting especially for high level negotiations, dispute settlements and conflict resolutions.
Even though negotiators may not explicitly and deliberately inform others about the structure of their preferences and payoffs, an emotionally intelligent negotiator may extract this information from other’s emotional displays. Accurate recognition of particular patterns of emotional expression may help negotiators to revise their fixed-pie perceptions and discover mutually satisfying win-win agreements (Pietroni et al., 2008). For example, if a counterpart expresses anger in response to a particular issue, the focal negotiator can infer from the emotion that the issue is of high importance to the counterpart, and vice-versa. Hence, by gaining information about the high importance and low importance issue, the negotiators can work towards an integrative agreement.
Both cognitive and emotional approaches to negotiation have highlighted not only outcomes related to the negotiable items on table, but also outcomes related to the social relationship between the parties at table(Kopelman et al., 2006). Emotions are deliberate behavioural strategy that is available to the negotiator. Strategic display of emotions refers to emotions intentionally expressed by the focal negotiator to attain a desired outcome. The displayed emotions may convey information and may influence strategic information processing or it may pursue the counterparty to act in a different way they would not have acted otherwise. This strategic display of emotions can be achieved by deep acting where internally experienced and externally displayed emotions are aligned or surface acting where displayed emotions are purely strategic and are at odds with internal experience. In his research (Kopelman et al., 2006), has shown the effects of strategically using positive or negative emotions or maintaining neutral emotion. His study resonates with the effects discussed above.
We have discussed the powerful role emotions play in the negotiation and how emotions can be manipulated and used as a weapon in tough negotiations. Strategically using emotions can be argued to be an unethical approach to a negotiation. But I feel that it is an art that negotiators develop to achieve better outcomes and since the emotions are used under a controlled setting the rationale is never lost. So, instead of accepting the consequences of uncontrolled real emotions, the approach of gaining strategic information from emotions and using emotions strategically are tools which should be cognitively practiced by the negotiators.
Two goals primary in negotiation situations are those of creating value and claiming value. We talk about creating value in a negotiation but at the same time we must stress upon effectively claiming that additional value. Effective negotiation depends on the ability of parties to manage both the integrative and distributive component of the task (Kumar, 1997). Many of the abilities within emotional intelligence that assist negotiators in creating joint value might also assist in claiming individual value for themselves (Foo et al.). Hence, negotiators must work on raising their Emotional Intelligence. A research by Peter Salovay (2002) shows us how we can improve Emotional Intelligence.
Still a lot needs to be done in assessing the role of emotions in different scenarios. The studies and information on which this essay is based has been conducted in specific settings in an experimental environment with limitations, hence the results cannot be generalised but helps us in getting a fair idea of the role emotions play in negotiations. One important limitation in the studies on effect of emotions on negotiation is that they do not take into account the social or cultural diversity of the experimental group which is another important indicator in this area. Cross-cultural negotiations are very important in today’s globalised environment. Hence, a negotiator should work on developing his or her Cultural Intelligence (CQ)[vii].
[i] Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-bargaining negotiation. It tends to approach negotiation on the model of haggling in a market. In a distributive negotiation, each side often adopts an extreme position, knowing that it will not be accepted, and then employs a combination of guile, bluffing, and brinksmanship in order to cede as little as possible before reaching a deal. Distributive bargainers conceive of negotiation as a process of distributing a fixed amount of value. BRAZEAL, G. 2009. Against Gridlock: The Viability of Interest-Based Legislative Negotiation. Harvard Law & Policy Review (Online), 3, 1..
[ii] Integrative negotiation is also sometimes called interest-based or principled negotiation. It is a set of techniques that attempts to improve the quality and likelihood of negotiated agreement by providing an alternative to traditional distributive negotiation techniques. While distributive negotiation assumes there is a fixed amount of value (a “fixed pie”) to be divided between the parties, integrative negotiation often attempts to create value in the course of the negotiation (“expand the pie”). It focuses on the underlying interests of the parties rather than their arbitrary starting positions, approaches negotiation as a shared problem rather than a personalized battle, and insists upon adherence to objective, principled criteria as the basis for agreement. . Ibid.
[iii] Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
[iv] Epistemic Motivation can be defined as the desire to develop and maintain a rich and accurate understanding of the world, including the negotiation task. DE DREU, C. K. W., CARNEVALE, P. J., DE DREU, C. K. W. & CARNEVALE, P. J. 2003. Motivational bases of information processing and strategy in conflict and negotiation. ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, VOL 35, 35, 235-291.
[v] Emotional intelligence concerns the ability to carry out accurate reasoning about emotions and the ability to use emotions and emotional knowledge to enhance thought. MAYER, J. D., ROBERTS, R. D. & BARSADE, S. G. 2007. Human Abilities: Emotional Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507-536.
[vi] A face on a person that shows no emotion, often called poker face because in the game of poker it would be foolish to show any emotional traits that might screw the game for you.(www.urbandictionary.com)
[vii] Cultural Intelligence is defined as an individual’s capability to adapt effectively to situations of cultural diversity. IMAI, L. & GELFAND, M. J. 2010. The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112, 83-98.