Monday, May 23, 2005

5 21

Roloff 5 21

Jerks, Continued.

Sometimes, a situation prompts jer-like behavior.


1. Competition – Competitive people want victories, not ties or losses.

2 Types:

1) Absolute Competition: Wants a victory, regardless how slim the margin
2) Proportional Competition: This person is only happy if the margin of victory is large.

Given a choice of a 300 to 200 dollar margin, or a 10 to 1 dollar margin for victory, the proportionally competitive person takes the 10 to 1 margin, though they benefit more from the other deal.

Competitive people think that everyone is as competitive as they are.

When a competitive person negotiates with a cooperative person, the cooperative person becomes more competitive, which confirms the worldview of the competitive person.

People become more competitive when the results are made public. Roloff’s grad school experience – made first paper grades public, and in an icebreaker, made all students GREs and undergrad GPAs known to each other.

Competition can be instilled by structuring the situation, it isn’t a necessarily a personality trait.

2. Cooperation – interdependency, if I do well so do you, and if I do poorly so do you.

3. Individualism – people who are competitive are cognitively simple, individualists are cognitively complex. An individualist wants to do well and doesn’t care what happens to others. An individualist is not concerned with relative outcomes. The individualists will do what’s best for them, if they need to act competitively or cooperatively, they will. They are high Macs. Never assume an individualist is loyal, he or she will be loyal to him or herself.

Situations can make people individualistic. When there are scarce resources, people act in an individualistic way. During the last gas shortage, gasoline was topped off to be sure they had a full tank created artificial shortages, but people acted individualistically and topped off anyway.
Altruists – Want good things for others regardless what happens to them.

People act altruistically when they enter into a negotiation in which the outcomes mean more to the other party than to them. Gratitude will not be a factor for altruists; they won’t care whether they are thanked. People who want recognition and ego strokes for giving time or money are not really altruistic; people who give because the think it is the right thing to do are the first to quit, because the organizations are often run by ego-driven people.

Aggressive – A person who wants to hurt another, regardless what happens to them. This is also situational. When someone has been humiliated, they will act aggressively. These people will engage in negotiations that have lose-lose outcomes. These people will leave a job for another that pays less just to cripple the company they leave. A woman sued a company after working for a jerk who treated her poorly; they started by asking for a settlement. They go to a database of judgments and make an offer slightly above the average. They always say no, though the odds of success in court are small. The plaintiff’s attorney will be prompted by the plaintiff to ask questions the court won’t allow. The effort is made by the plaintiff to humiliate the boss but gets no money.

Face-related behavior – Brown – created a face-saving theory of negotiation. What makes us engage in fights is that someone humiliates us. All people want to believe that they are competent and strong, or at least no believe that they are incompetent or weak. When someone treats us like we are incompetent or weak, we are motivated to restore our face. The other party acts like a jerk, one can begin to act like a jerk. A low offer prompts efforts to show that the person to whom the offer was made is strong, usually they become difficult.

2 ways of looking at face:

1) Before negotiation – prior to a negotiation, you engage in behavior that shows that you are a force to be reckoned with, that you are tough. This can backfire. 2 months before a negotiations between CAT and Union, they ran ads asking for non-union labor that would cross the picket line. This galvanized the Union, and got them fired up. Sometimes, the expectancies of the constituencies are lowered on purpose, so that even a small victory is considered a big win. “Self-handicapping” = under-promise and over-deliver.
2) During the negotiation – A non-negotiable demand will set off face saving, as will threats, insults. The propensity to take things personally will lead some to lose face. Coercion is humiliating, it can lead to face-saving. “Always let them leave with their dignity” will prevent irrational face-saving measures.

3. Role – some roles put us in the position of acting like a jerk. Roloff was a jerk as chair of the program, stopped being a jerk when he was no longer chair.

Boundary Role Conflict – boundary roles mean that you have a lot of contact with people outside and inside the organization, e.g. salespeople or any people dealing with the public. People in boundary roles are stressed out, hate their jobs, and want to stop dealing with clients. Boundary Roles create torn loyalties; someone in that role has to deal with two groups of insane people.

Union Reps -------------------------------------------------------Management

Also accountable to:
- Rank and file -Stockholders

Reps come to like each other by the end of a negotiation, and start to complain about their constituents.

When constituencies were asked how to evaluate a rep, what was the #1 thing they wanted? It was obedience. The next was to be tough. The quality of the agreement was third.

How do constituencies control the rep?
1) Restrict his or her authority.
2) Increase accountability – force them to come back and explain why they did what they did.
3) They control outcomes (rewards and punishments)
4) Monitor negotiation
5) Provide feedback – it doesn’t matter what feedback is given, it makes the rep tougher; if you are doing a good job, you assume it is because of toughness, but if you are doing a bad job, you get tougher in response
6) Support – Study: When would elected representatives be most loyal to the wishes of constituencies, when they win by a large or small margin? Small margins are more loyal, large margins act independently.

What do reps do to get more independence from constituents?

1) Invite a small, select group of rank and file to watch the negotiation – these are usually those who would be supportive.
2) Provide constant information to constituency – bullet pointed memos
3) Try to negotiate in private, unwatched by constituency (some states have sunshine laws, which dictate that negotiation must be announced), like on a golf course or bar.

How can I use my constituency against my opponent?

1) “My hands are tied” – my constituency will never agree to this. Studies suggest that this only works if your offer is above their resistance point. Car dealers who have to talk to their managers are using this strategy.

2) Contrast – contrasting ones view with his or her constituency

1 – constituency is tough, opponent acts the way the constituency wants,
results in deadlock
2 – constituency is soft, negotiator is soft – no concession is given
3 – constituency is tough, negotiator is soft – negotiator should claim to be soft reasonable, and compare himself to his constituency, say he’ll be replaced by crazies like his constituency.
4 – constituency is soft, negotiator is tough –

Third Party Assistance

Arbitration – binding vs. non-binding

In binding arbitration, the parties are legally bound to follow the arbitrator’s settlement.

In non-binding, the arbitrators tell the parties what their likely outcome is and make a recommendation, but the parties can still go to court (the law in IL is that the parties must first go to non-binding arbitration, and if one party agrees and the other doesn’t, the party that doesn’t must pay the fees of the arbitrators).

Grievance and Interest Arbitration – Grievance arbitration is worked into collective bargaining, disputes between employees and management are settled by arbitrators.

In interest, there is no contract, and an arbitrator decides. This is typically used in public-sector negotiation, nurse, firefighters, law-enforcement, air traffic controllers, situations in which going on strike would not serve the public interest.

The theory was that if arbitration was forced, a settlement negotiated in good faith would be reached. The theory assumed the hastening effect would result, but a chilling effect was what resulted, they slowed down concession-making, and a narcotic effect, in which people became addicted to negotiation. Arbitration bias resulted. Usually, management and labor and the American Arbitration Association would each submit a list, and one from each list would serve. Because arbitrators publish their results, their bias can be predicted, so there is no need to fear arbitration (there are usually pro-labor or pro-management arbitrators, none are neutral_


1) Precedent
2) Weak-person bias – arbitrators side with the weaker of the two parties, regardless who is right, an underdog effect (average age of arbitrators is 60, they are aging but predictable so the same arbitrators are often chosen).
3) Split the difference – arbitrators like to create a split-the-difference compromise. Final offer arbitration means that the arbitrator has to choose between one of the two final offers, which prevents parties from starting with an unreasonably high offer. People think that 80% think like them, so the are less afraid of final offer arbitration than they should be. Unions manipulated it by logrolling, they figured out that there were things the company wouldn’t give, so they are extremely reasonable on some issues, but asked for what they knew they’d never get. Management would look unreasonable, and Unions would win the final offer arbitration. Final Offer arbitration yields bad agreements, and Unions undercut their systems. They figured out how to adjust; arbitrators looked at each agreement issue by issue and picked the best from each.

Arbitration was started during WWI, to settle disputes in the railroad industry, since strikes would be detrimental to the war effort. The threat of arbitration is a deterrent, an incentive to make a settlement.


Trying to get two parties to agree and suggesting solutions. Not binding.

Mediators must convince parties to comply with their decisions. Most arbitrators are trained to look passive and indifferent, but mediators must have social skills. Mediators tend to be like negotiators, they represent society’s interests or they represent people who are not present but are affected by the agreement (Divorce mediators argue on behalf of the children). Mediators must sometimes engage in tough negotiation, but in other cases be an integrative bargainer. Credibility comes from the fact that the mediator is gaining and losing nothing from the outcome. In last MLB strike, the mediator threatened to reveal the negotiation tactics each side used if they didn’t settle in 90 days, and they settled in 90 days.


Emerged out of mediation. Content and process mediation, content said what the agreement should look like, process pointed to a way to settle. Content mediators would tell parties what an agreement should be, but process mediators wouldn’t judge the solution as long as it was properly negotiated. Process mediators became facilitators. These people will tell parties how to talk. “If you reached this agreement together, it must be good.”


Filley – amounts to group decision making, enforce negotiation steps.

Separate the parties, and transfer messages – “Shuttle diplomacy” Kissinger did between Cairo and Tel Aviv. An intermediary. If one party doesn’t know what they are doing, the mediator can advise them without parties losing face. Downsides: it takes longer to reach an agreement, and parties have no idea what the other side is told, and research suggests that these agreements are short-lived.

Single Text Method (aka, The Delphi Method) – combination of content and process. Mythology of the single text method goes along with the Camp David accords. Carter did not allow the Egyptians and Isrealis to directly negotiat; he put parties at opposite sides of the camp, and came in with a sample accord. “Here’s the document, tell me what is wrong with it” He took their feedback, revised the documents, and went through a series of iterations in which the Israelis and Egyptians never met. When they were about to settle, Carter allowed them to speak to each other, and they reached a settlement. This keeps that parties focused on the agreement, not on each other, and there are parts of the agreement that both sides can claim as their own.

Often, Third Party Intervention doesn’t work unless the parties have felt a lot of pain, and often won’t involve a third party if they haven’t experienced an adequate level of pain.

The Journal of Counseling suggests that marital counseling helps, but 83% divorce rate results when the counseling ends, because a third party/neutral ground are no longer available.

Monday, May 16, 2005

5 13

Roloff 5 13

Roloff doesn’t like The Harvard Negotiation Project:

Fisher and Ury – Getting to Yes – Positional Negotiation vs. “Principled Negotiation” - is now referred to as Interest Negotiation. It is called positional because in a negotiation, each position is presented, then the battle begins; a position is an offer, a lot of discussion about the proposals occurs during the negotiation.

Two versions of positional bargaining:

Soft – Goal – to reach an agreement, (low expectations).
Role – friends
Resistance Points – low resistance point
Trust – High
Concessions – made to build a good relationship
Disclosure – disclose everything

Tough – Goal – Victory
Role - Adversaries
Resistance Points – high resistance point
Trust – Low
Concessions – demand concessions
Disclosure – disclose nothing

Principled Negotiation:

Goal – “Wise Agreement” – meets the interests of the two parties. An interest represents the need or value served by an agreement, it is the reason you pursue an agreement. When Roloff interviewed with Wisconsin, if Fisher and Ury were in the agreement, they would insist that Roloff define his purpose for asking for the “Family Income” number he established. Roloff would have said that the lifestyle, and the status that came with the family income number, were the interests served.

Role – Problem solvers.

Resistance Point – NONE. If you set a resistance point, if you focus on one issue, you will lose site of possible alternatives; walking out of an agreement keeps negotiators from finding a solution.

Trust – Irrelevant. One should still try to negotiate with un-trustworthy people in an integrative fashion. Fisher and Ury said of Operation Desert Storm, we can negotiate with Saddam Hussein in an integrative way without military action. “Threre are no bad people” just misunderstandings. In “The Fog of War” McNamara said that we were minutes from war, Kruschev sent two letters, one conciliatory, and a second that was hostile. McNamara suggested they answer the first, as if they didn’t get the second, they were able to empathize with Kruschev, who was faced with advisors who wanted conflict. To Roloff, trust must be extended a little until earned or not deserved, shouldn’t move to a position of mistrust right away.

Concessions – make only if they are in your interest. U of W negotiation, Wisconsin told Roloff that a cordial relationship with peers was in his interest, and a high salary would have diminished that because of a peer review of salaries, so it was not in Roloff’s interest to demand a high salary, and he made a concession on that.

Disclosure – disclose interests, F and U suggest that negotiators should start by talking about their interests. Danger is that you won’t get what you don’t ask for; if money is a priority, don’t pose it as a lifestyle, ask for money.

Fisher and Ury anticipated criticisms, one of which was that the other party might want to negotiate positionally, they wrote a chapter in Getting to Yes about what to do.

Don’t push back - Understand their interests
Invite Criticism – we present our proposals as though they were perfect, we should seek feedback on the proposal to better understand the interests of the other side.
Seek information – it’s more important to ask questions than to give information
BATNA – best alternative to negotiated agreement. Create an alternative for yourself, an alternative to reaching an agreement. You should use BATNAs for defensive purposes rather than as offensive, threatening purposes (If you don’t give me a raise, I will leave and go to University of X). Roloff at U of W, he had a BATNA (stay at NU) so he could share interests and take the risk of not reaching an agreement with Wisconsin.

The tactics in the first book didn’t work so well in real life, so they wrote a second book.

Fisher and Brown – Working Together, Building Working Relationships

They overlooked something in the first book, one should establish a good working relationship with the other party in the negotiation.

2 things that go wrong in working relationships:

We assume similarity with the other party - it gets ugly when we discover that the other party isn’t like us. The False Consensus effect – everybody believes that their behavior is typical. Tested with Undergrads, suck on a pacifier, we will videotape this, and show it publicly. Would the students be willing? 20% accepted. The 80% who said no were asked how many students did they think refused to do it? They said 80%. The 20% who accepted said they thought 80% would accept.

We assume other parties will reciprocate the nice things we do. The positive norm of reciprocity is a nice assumption, but doesn’t always hold. The negative norm reciprocity, an eye-for-an-eye (which often escalates to create a deterrent) then takes over.

Fisher and Brown say that you have to not reciprocate the negative actions of the other, do not follow the negative norm of reciprocity.

- If the other side does not talk to you, you should continue to talk to them.
- Even if the other party rejects you, you should accept them
- Even if the other party misunderstands you, you should try to understand them
- Even if the other party is being coercive, be nice to them
- Even if the other party is irrational, be rational

Take the high road, then a good relationship will result.

They were criticized, so they wrote a third (Ury only):

Getting Past No, Negotiating your way from Confrontation to Cooperation

How do deal with difficult people:

“Go to the balcony” – when the other party gets competitive, which means taking a timeout. During the timeout, one controls their emotion and thinks of alternatives.
Acknowledge their point/feelings – when confronted with negative emotion. This disarms the other parties, negative emotions; it is a “step to their side”. Venting, and finding ways to cope with emotions.
When the other party uses their power against you, being coerecive. “Bring them to their senses, not to their knees.”
When the other party is skeptical about your offers. “Build them a golden bridge”. Build an offer that unexpectedly meets their interests.
Change the Rules of the Game– when the other party engages in positional negotiation. Reframe the argument; give the other side a lesson in interest negotiation.

Accommodation – mirroring the non-verbal of the other party. Mimicking the other party’s non-verbal reactions can help create a connection.

The downside of the Harvard School is that it requires a lot of effort, which one can ask whether it is worth it to do.

There is not a lot of evidence that it works.

How to Deal with Jerks!

Machiavellians – Christie and Geis – wrote about Machiavellian personalities, now a euphemism for sociopaths. Characteristics:

Low commitment to morality – a-ethical, they don’t worry about ethics, unencumbered by conscience. The ends justify the means.
Low ideological commitment – will switch religions/political affiliations if it helps them, sometimes radical changes.
High in emotional control – “Don’t get mad, get even”. High Machiavellians don’t get excited or bummed when good or bad things happen, but often they can act well, to create an image.
Don’t suffer from gross psychopathology – the behavior is not psychopathic.

High Macs don’t always act Machiavellians; they are driven by tangible outcomes, like money. Study, negotiation without money, high macs tied with lows, but high macs outperformed the lows when an award was given for good performance. There could be as many as 3 types of high Macs. The one core trait of Machiavellians is cynicism, they believe that nobody is any good.

3 types, each adapts to cynicism in different ways:

Fatalism – since the world is no good, they suck-up to powerful people, become flatterers and sycophants, but their loyalty low. They have low self-esteem.
Highly Competitive – Want to be the biggest shark in the ocean, do unto others before they do unto you. These people have high self-esteem. They are deceitful, and they are flatterers.
Religious – they are likely to rise to the top of their religions, “the religiosity scale” shows behavior, and these people will do things shown on the religiosity scale without being believers. Charles “Chucky” Kolson, advisor to Nixon, was put in the federal penitentiary, had a sign on his desk that said “if you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.” Now a minister, working for inmates rights (Machiavellians will not be Machiavellian overtly).

The most current thinking on Machiavellianism is that we all have a proclivity toward Machiavellinism, because it is a survival of the fittest mentality, it is evolutionary.

Kids who become Machiavellian are raised in homes where discipline is random and unpredictable.

Highly Dogmatic Personalities:

Rokeach – 4 traits of a highly dogmatic person:

Tend to reject alternative belief systems – study where high and low dogs interviewed job candidates, high dogs ask about values, and make the hiring decision earlier in the interview process, since they are more concerned that the interviewee believes like them than compentency, low dogs are the opposite.
They like authority figures – high dogs engage in authoritarian submissiveness, highly obedient. These are likely to kiss up and kick down.
Future orientation – High dogs look to the future, they are visionaries. They don’t have a balanced perspective of past, present and future, which makes them hard to persuade, since they only see the future.
They are uncreative – they cannot step outside the box. They don’t have a sense of humor. National Lampoon did a parody of Playboy, reversed bikini tan lines. Low dogs found it funny, high dogs found nothing odd about the picture and didn’t find it funny. They distorted what they saw to fit what their expectations.

High dogs don’t compromise, or consider compromise a defeat. They must have it downloaded from an authority figure, then mistrust the compromise. Finding commonality or using authority is the only way to negotiate with high dogs.


Self-absorbed – everything is about them. They dominate conversations.Grossly optimistic – can-do attitude. Study forced them to fail, they go into a black mood, but they bounce back very fast. Narcissists bounce back up without learning; they consider failure a temporary setback. They blame others for their failure.

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

5 7

Integrative Bargaining – Pruitt

1. General Characteristics of Integrative Agreements

Yield High Joint Benefits – both sides achieve or exceed their levels of aspiration – how do we treat a compromise? “A lazy person’s integrative agreement”. Integrative bargainers don’t believe in compromise. Pruitt believes that sometimes the best integrative solution is a compromise, but if there are multiple issues on the table, a compromise is a minimum of what can be achieved.
Non-obvious – Prominent or salient (obvious) solutions are rarely integrative solutions. One of the biggest impediments, the most obvious solution, is a compromise.

2. Specific types of integrative agreements

a. Cost cutting – Make an offer that reduces the cost to the opponent’s image, or reduces face costs. Two concerns when negotiation –1. Precedent setting - an agreement with you sets precedent for other agreements. Ways around this – a. negotiate in private – students who want to take Roloff’s class should visit him in his office rather than appear in class and rush him with an add slip. He offers deals that are good for 31 minutes, and if the person tells roommate he/she also tries to contact Roloff the same way, both will be refused. b. Negotiate up front that this deal does not create a precedent – Roloff suggests it doesn’t work – one year teaching contracts offered because a tenured prof left leaving not enough time to hire another prof on the tenure track, they think they are entitled to the job after the one year is up. “When a precedent becomes the norm, you are screwed.” 2. Fear of appearing weak – student caught Roloff on a bad day, two weeks into the term, the student was honest, and said that she needed a C-level class to graduate. Roloff confronted her with the fact that she just needed a class and didn’t care which one, so she asked whether she could start again. She came back and said that her degree would be diminished if she didn’t take his very special class (honesty was not the best policy). Students who ask for an extension on a midterm either make their circumstances seem so bad that he doesn’t lose face granting an extension, or they grovel, say how tough Roloff is reputed to be, and builds face for Roloff. Or, they say how sensitive and understanding he is, attribute their compliance to a pro-social motive. Make the other party believe the solution is their idea, Roloff story in which a student took Roloff’s examples and used them on his paper, Roloff gave him those examples because R wanted to help him quickly. Sanctioned Forums – a person makes a request, and a group decides whether to grant. Putting decision-making in the hands of a group makes individual face issues disappear.
b. Logrolling – Pruitt is best known for this. Multiple issues with different priorities are on the table; make concessions on low priority issues while standing firm on the high priority issues. A trade-off strategy. Source of the term is from politics, democracy works because of logrolling, divergent groups are willing to give concessions that are meaningless to them as long as they get a high priority item in return. In Springfield, they don’t care about what happens in Chicago, and vice versa. This is a controversial technique, esp. in politics this is considered unethical.
c. Non-specific Compensation – After a negotiation starts, you add a new reward to the mix, something else that adds value. In logrolling, all issues are on the table; in non-specific compensation, priorities are shared with opponent, so a new reward is added to enable trade-offs. A way to create trade-offs when none are otherwise available. Downsides: 1. Must create something of actual value to the other side. Money must be exchanged for a greater measure of a non-money item, like service. 2. It looks like a bribe, can cheapen the negotiation, sweeteners can look superficial or cheap, or appear unethical because they are not within the parameters of the deal, e.g. Cubs tickets to close a pharma deal.
d. Bridging – Non-conventional, anti-prominence, transform the situation by acting in ways that you haven’t before. Study done a U of Michigan, gave midterm then took 50 points away from every score, so all failed. He made the class negotiate against each other to get points back. 10 rounds of Creative alternative game – P and O. P can choose C or D, O can choose A and B. A and C, both get 4 points, C and B, P gets 4, O gets 0. A and D P gets –8, O gets 4, D and B, P gets 20, O gets –2. (ex) Prominent solution is that each gets 4. Solution is that D B and the 20 points are split, 11 to 9. Over 10 rounds points are more than made up for, 90 points exceeds that 50-point loss. When will people negotiate? Face to face worked, passing notes did not. Personality was a factor; people who are dogmatic would not negotiate, two high-dogmatic people would not negotiate, were not creative, a high/low the low found the solution and convinced them. Two lows will find it together. For Bridging to work, preconceptions of how the game is played must be abandoned. Dogmatic people will blindly follow precedent.
e. Unlinking Agreements – like nonspecific compensation in reverse – removing issues upon which parties can’t agree from the negotiation. 1. Fractionation – breaks a complex issue into parts and deal with the parts separately. Doesn’t work after negotiation has already begun. When filling a role in Comm, people wanted to add to that area but didn’t like the person proposed to fill it; since a link was already created, the position couldn’t be looked at in a vacuum without the person proposed. A strong negative component will defeat fractionation. Removing parties who care about the decision is a way to fractionate – risky shift research in Roloff’s undergrad, he was put into a group with a high-risk taker in hopes that a group would take risk individuals wouldn’t. Vote was 4-1 for 60% success of marriage before recommending marriage. Roloff made a motion that the risk taker couldn’t vote, and the decision was unanimous. Roloff proposed changing the meaning of unanimity. Research made them consider the other, they voted to recommend marriage when chances were 1 in 10.High-risk taker was only influential when he couldn’t be ignored. Roloff controlled the schedule when a difficult prof was on a committee, they met when the difficult prof was unavailable. 2. Precedent setting – the way it has been done makes unlinking possible 3. Agree to disagree – leave the issue unsettled, doesn’t work if the issue must be settled.
f. Reopener Agreements – risk and uncertainty, possible negative outcomes, one party holds out because of fear. Put a time limit on the arrangement, make a temporary arrangement. An MSC student was asked to sign a prenuptial agreement. She objected, he pushed her to get an attorney so the agreement would hold up in court. Her attorney told her not to sign it. Since the wedding was already arranged, they stopped talking about it. Day of the wedding, the attorney appeared and said she should sign or the wedding would be called off, the groom was elsewhere. Her attorney appeared, his attorney said that he’d been taken to the cleaners in a prior 2-month marriage, and didn’t want to repeat that. Her attorney said that a codicil, the prenup was only good for the first year of marriage, then they would renegotiate. They’d been married for 7 years at the time she wrote the paper (the couple didn’t renegotiate after a year). When MSC was started, the School of Speech had to grant faculty for the program. One of the artsy types suggested that the MSC was a military industrial complex sellout. One prof suggested a reopener with a 5-year time limit. After 5 years, the issue was never revisited. Pruitt says that the downside to the reopening agreement is that it could undercut the agreement, if there is a chance the agreement will be cancelled; the party may under invest to cut its losses. If marriages were renegotiable periodically, it would discourage people from kids, buying real estate, things that come with commitment. At first, the Constitution was to be renegotiated every 19 years, would have had bad results.
g. Contingency Contracts – Became popular in sports negotiations, late-career athletes’ contracts were given a base plus performance incentives.


1. Simultaneous consideration – consideration of issues – package offer
2. Search Model – “Reasonably High” goals - no prominent solution, challenges one to exert effort, low goals and unreasonably high goals discourage effort. A. Set reasonably high goals B. Find ways the opponent can help you meet your goals C. If opponent rejects offer, readjust the ways the opponent can help you meet your goals. Roloff was upset at NU, applied at Wisconsin, they wanted him and were willing to negotiate for as long as possible. R set a family income goal, set it reasonably high because raises once hired are hard to come by. Thought of all that U of W could give a prof 1. Salary 2. Summer Support (a summer school class or a grant) 3. Research Support (travel, journal and book money) 4. Tuition support for daughters. 5. Discretionary fund. 90% comes from salary. U of W said they couldn’t afford to pay that, because at U of W a committee of faculty vote on what everone else should make, so he’d never see a raise, and other faculty would know that his salary came from their potential raises. Pruitt says that Roloff should have reduced the amount that came from salary (90%) and shifted it to another category. Patents feed a slush fund, which is distributed to other faculty. U of W still couldn’t meet his needs. They came up with a possible deal-closer; they offered Roloff’s wife a job! They log rolled in reverse, and asked Roloff to adjust his salary because Karen would be working at U of W. Karen went to Madison, and favored a move. It almost worked, NU countered, Karen really didn’t want to move from Chicago. Don’t lower goals, just adjust paths, unless the other party proves that you can’t get what you want.
3. Strategies - Information exchange – two types 1. Goals 2. Priorities to get to goal. According to Pruitt, it is more important to negotiate priorities than goals, you can settle without knowing goals. Pressure strategies – the more argumentative or coercive you are, the less likely an integrative agreement will be reached. One exception, if you are argumentative about the workability or advantages of the offer. At U of W, they gave Roloff a practical disadvantage to paying him, the political fallout when salaries are reviewed by other faculty. They didn’t question Roloff’s value, they offered a better way to achieve the family income goal. Bargaining strategies – 3 types 1. Sequential approach – least effective. All items on the table, settle each item in sequence. Very inefficient way to do integrative bargaining, if a priority item is not settled, the negotiation can fail. Log rolling is much more effective. One-sided log rolling, you make concessions on your low priority items, the other party will do the same naturally, disadvantage is the time it takes.

Pruitt’s general principle –Flexible Rigidity – To be an effective integrative bargainer be rigid as to goals, but flexible as to the means to achieve them. The two most pressing considerations: 1. Being rigidly rigid – looks like tough bargaining 2. Flexibly flexible – too easy, soft, insufficiently stubborn.

The dual concern model, be highly concerned for other party but sufficiently demanding on ones own behalf. Anticipated future interaction will raise concern for the other party, but may give too much. If they were accountable to a constituency but also had a future with the other party, this created a balance.