A632.4.5.RB_MedinaM.

After reading Chapter 11 of the Wharton text, I realized that there are many subjects of information on a negotiation that negotiators tend to lie or misrepresent during the negotiation. The difference between lies and misrepresentation depend on the outcome or purpose for which the information was withheld. Telling lies by omission means that negotiators will not reveal information to the opposite party during a negotiation, while telling lies by commission is the act of actively misrepresenting information to the negotiating party (Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther, 2001). There are 4 classified types of information that can be misrepresented during a negotiation: reservation prices, interest, intentions, and material facts.

            A reservation price is another term for “bottom line” of a company. Basically, negotiators of a company misrepresent the information of the actual “bottom line” of the company in order to make the decision more lucrative or appealing to the opposite negotiating party. Interest is referred to as the misrepresentation of the seller or buyer’s true interests. During negotiating efforts offers are made and more often than not one of the party’s involved will misrepresent their true interests in order to make the sale or make the sale happen quicker. An intention in this case is referred to as having a hidden agenda, where one of the involved parties has other intentions with the gain of the sale or result of the negotiation. If the other party has an idea of the negotiating party’s hidden agenda, they can call their bluff and force them to act appropriately. The last classified type of information is the most serious of all misrepresentations, material facts. These types of lies or misrepresentation of information on material facts actually constitute to a level of fraud during the negotiation. Typically, the events of the negotiation and the “knowing of misrepresentation of material facts” help determine the gravity in which fraud was conducted and authorities tend to get involved as well to determine the outcome of the situation.

            Authors Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther provide various alternatives and/or tips for: the preparation of a negotiation, what to look for during the negotiation, and what to do after the negotiation. During the negotiation it is important for the negotiator to ask direct questions to the opposite negotiating party. By asking direct questions the negotiator ensures that the opposite negotiating party is not lying or misrepresenting the information in order to win on the negotiation. A second important tactic for the negotiator is to listen carefully to the person making the negotiation. It is important to pay attention to what is being said and what is not being said on the negotiating table. Negotiators who feel like they may get caught misrepresenting information will begin choosing their words more carefully and begin to leave certain details out of the negotiating table in order to keep their advantage.

            The third most important tip used for during the negotiation is to pay attention to nonverbal cues. Humans communicate more clearly and more often in nonverbal cues. Paying attention to these cues will reveal to the negotiator if the opposite negotiating party is anxious, nervous, lying, or misrepresenting information. In my opinion, certain individuals tend to talk on a higher pitch when lying or when feeling caught sort of speak. These and more are the types of cues to pay attention for in order to figure out if you are being deceived during a negotiation. The last important tip is to keep records and get things in writing. During the negotiation, it’s important to keep written records of the demands, accusations, claims, results of what is being negotiated. Written records will help avoid any misunderstandings during the negotiation and each party will have a clear idea which item or product is being negotiated on.

            During a recent small negotiation between one of the coworkers and me, I was asked by the coworker to stay until her regular end shift time as she would be leaving during my regular shift end time in order to go to the doctors. I was mislead by this coworker as later that night I found through Facebook that this coworker had left work early to go to the casino.

            An example of an event in which I overstated a claim, would be when negotiating with my supervisor on who should be working the late shift whenever an employee from the night shift calls out. Typically, before my position, I was always involuntarily made to stay the extra shift in order to help cover the empty position. Now with my position, I do volunteer from time to time to stay behind for an extra shift. But, when others do not volunteer my supervisor automatically tries to count me in to fill the position. At this time, I begin to overstate the many times that I have helped her by staying behind for an extra shift even though I had school early the next day or assignments due that same night. Reflecting back on the times that I have overstated my claim, I realize that I have only gone as far as misrepresenting certain doctor appointment information in order to only stay my regular shift. In other words, in certain occasions my doctor appointments were not until 5pm, I would tell my supervisor my appointment time was 4pm so I was only be able to stay an extra 30 minutes after my shift. Even though I misrepresented or lied of commission, on this type of information it allowed me more time for me to finish or start part of my assignments before leaving for the doctors.

Source:

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Deception in Negotiations.

            Wharton on Making Decisions (pp. 188 – 197). New York: Wiley.

A632.3.4.RB_MedinaM.

There are three steps that managers can take in order to begin taking control of their frames to avoid frame blindness or “framing traps”. The first step is to: See the frame by conducting a frame audit. A manager cannot begin taking control of his or her frame when they cannot see them. Become aware and understanding your frames, understanding the frames of others, and developing appreciation for newly developed frames can increase the manager’s awareness of frames and avoid “framing traps”. The best way is to surface the frames and present them visually (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001).

A good example of this situation would be the many different times my supervisor and I have/had differences of opinions. On one instance I had consulted her for guidance on the completion of a task. After the task was completed, I wanted to receive feedback from her about the methods I used since they were different but more efficient. Instead of receiving feedback, I received negative harsh comments and was asked, “Why didn’t you do it the way I did it?” Being frustrated about the situation, I brought up the incident to one of the managers. The manager then took action and made her realize that everyone has their own methods of completing tasks and as long as the methods or ideas are: efficient, ethical, cost efficient, and the results are the same; it’s ok to try something new or different. After this incident, my supervisor and I decided that any conversation or situation that became similar to the prior incident were to be resolved first by the both of us. We would accomplish this by first taking a step back from our frame, reflecting on the situation, understanding each other’s frame and view, and then reaching an agreement by acting rationally. If this method doesn’t fix the situation then a manager would need to get involved to help us see and understand each other’s frame or point of views.

The second step is: Identify and change inadequate frames. More often than we realize we work with outdated frames or views of situations. Therefore, we must constantly challenge our own frames. When things seem to fit too perfectly, we must take a step back and find other frames that challenge our frames. Sometimes poor results or inconsistencies on our own frames cause us to feel like we have the perfect frame (or solution) and everyone else’s is wrong (frame denial). Times like these we must become aware of our frame and accept the fact that our frame isn’t perfect and change our frame if possible.

An example of identifying and changing inadequate frames would be a situation I professionally encountered with my supervisor. The situation began when my supervisor asked me to take charge of the store as if it was my own. Seeing as I had my first opportunity to show others what I can do, I took the challenge and owned up to those words. I always did my best, went above and beyond even when it wasn’t necessary and so on. But there were times where certain tasks needed to be completed by a supervisor with clearance. Since I wasn’t the official supervisor, I had no clearance. So tasks that required those types of clearances, I left behind on my supervisor’s desk for her to do. During that time I didn’t feel like I needed to tell her about her job or tasks, so leaving them on her “to do list” pile on her desk was just part of the normal routine for me. Things began to get out of hand with certain tasks falling behind and my supervisor turning around and blaming me for the issues and problems encountered.

After the situation became under control, I realized that in part it was my mistake. I had begun to act like I didn’t need her and that I could do a much better job than her. I, basically, became overconfident on myself and on my skills. So at the time, I should had taken a step back and change my inadequate frame. I needed to accept the fact that I wasn’t (and still not) perfect and that majority of tasks couldn’t be completed without her. Looking back now at the situation, I would say that if I had the opportunity to change the situation (or frame) I would. Instead of becoming overconfident on my skills, I still needed to keep a clear communication with her by telling her about the tasks, the events, the situations, etc. rather than just keeping her in the dark and acting like I didn’t need her.

The last step of avoiding “framing traps” is to: Master techniques for reframing. Managers need to develop the capacity to create new frames and select the correct frame for the situation rather than using a frame out of habit. For certain situations, it is best to combine frames in order to get a new perspective on the situation or to reach a solution. For this step, I would like to use the same example as mentioned above on step one. One of the reasons of why I had received negative harsh comments from my supervisor was because I had used a combination of her old methods and some of the new methods or ways to complete tasks now. In other words, I had used multiple frames (or views/methods) in order to complete the tasks more efficiently. But instead, my supervisor wanted me to rely on the “old” frame out of habit and wanted to impose on me her frame. In my opinion, we are two different people and it seems like we will always continue to have our differences of opinions. Some say it’s the “old guard dog guarding her territory” sort of thinking that maybe causing us to not communicate as much as we should be. With this new lesson on how to avoid “framing traps”, I hope to be able to become more aware of my framing, understand my supervisor’s framing as well as begin to appreciate new/different frames and the frame of others.

Source:

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Managing frames to make better decisions. Wharton on making decisions (pp. 142-153). New York: Wiley.