2. Negotiations in which the outcomes are negatively framed tend to produce fewe
ID: 325549 • Letter: 2
Question
2. Negotiations in which the outcomes are negatively framed tend to produce fewer concessions, reach fewer agreements, and perceive outcomes as less fair. Utilizing the LIRN database, or any other form of media, choose a fictitious or real negotiation that was clearly framed negatively and discuss your perception of what concessions, agreements, or perceived outcomes resulted. Then discuss how you could have used that negatively framed negotiation to your benefit utilizing techniques provided in Lesson 10. (Reference Lesson 10)Explanation / Answer
In a study, people were asked to answer the following:
"Imagine that a country is preparing for an outbreak of a disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to control the disease have been proposed. If program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. If program B is adopted, there is a 33% probability that no people will be saved and a 67% probability that that all people will be saved. You can only choose one program. Which of the two programs would you choose?"
As the problem was positively framed, 72% of the respondents chose program A- the safe strategy.
Only 28% chose program B, the risky/uncertain strategy.
The same set of people were also required to answer to the following question:
"Imagine that a country is preparing for an outbreak of a disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to control the disease have been proposed. If program C is adopted, 400 people will die. If program D is adopted, there is a 33% probability that no one will die and a 67% probability that 600 people will die. You can only choose one program. Which of the two programs would you choose?"
Although both questions were identical, people replied quite differently when faced with a negative frame. Only 28% then voted for program C the conservative strategy and 72% for program D the risky strategy.
By altering the frame from positive to negative in negotiations, there was a near perfect reversal in the choices of people. Altering the frame from positive to negative powerfully affected the manner in how people perceive the problem.
In a negotation between an manager and a senior manager, a manager wants more resources to complete the tasks that are assigned to his team. A negatively framed negotiation would look something like this:
Manager: "You give me work but not enough resources, either reduce the work or give me more people to get this work done with. You have poor leadership skills"
Senior Manager: "We do not have the budget or permission for more resources, besides the guy before you was managing with these resources, but you are not able to. Clearly, you lack capabilities"
This negotiation is likely to result in mud-slinging, discussions about leadership styles/skills, capabilities or the lack of them, and might even result in the manager being fired.
Imagine if the conversation proceeds as below:
Manager: "Sir, we would need more resources with XX and YY skillset so that we can not only reach but beat our targets"
Senior Manager: "Targets were being met before, what is the problem now? Why don't you train the existing resources"
Manager: " Sir, with due respect, our team has taken on a great deal of innovative work that encourages team to do their very best. They lack skills, not dedication and we are more likely to succeed if an expert was to get on the job rather than train the existing employees as we will be able to show results faster"
Senior Manager: " Okay, let me see"
Thus, it is clear that talking with a positive frame results in better concessions, agreements and outcomes.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.