Assignment Common Mistakes in Negotiation Bazerman (1986) described the followin

Assignment
Common Mistakes in Negotiation
Bazerman (1986) described the following five common mistakes negotiators make and suggested strategies for avoiding them.
Expanding the fixed pie. Too often negotiators assume there is only a fixed amount of profit or gain and that to win something the other party must necessarily lose it. Sometimes this is true, of course, but too often we assume it is without trying to think integratively. For example, purchasing goods is usually thought of in win-lose terms. However, another approach may be possible. A retailer may be willing to cut the price if payment is made in cash.
Dehexing the winner’s curse. In some negotiations we may find that the other party accepts our offer more quickly than we anticipated, and we wonder if we’ve been taken. A key factor in the winner’s curse is that one side may have much better information than the other. To protect ourselves in negotiations of any sort we may need to borrow expertise. For example, before buying a used car, we may be wise to get a mechanic’s evaluation.
De-escalating conflict. Often both sides in a conflict start with extreme demands, expecting to compromise somewhere in the middle. However, they get caught up in the conflict and take a hard line instead of a conciliatory or problem-solving approach. To prevent this kind of escalation, negotiators must constantly evaluate the benefits of continuing along the same course. Also negotiators should avoid pushing opponents into a corner, getting them angry, or making them feel that they can’t afford to give up the struggle.
Undercutting overconfidence. Bazerman noted that negotiators consistently expect the other side to concede more than objective analysis would suggest. Also, in final-offer arbitration, negotiators overestimate the likelihood that their final offer will be accepted. Wherever possible, negotiators should try to obtain objective assessments from outside experts to temper overestimation.
Reframing negotiations. Research has shown that there are important differences in how people respond to problems depending on whether they are framed in terms of gains or losses. For example, given a choice between a small sure gain and a risky larger gain, most people take the sure thing. However, if the same situation is presented as a choice between a sure small loss and a possible larger loss, most will prefer to gamble. This framing effect suggests that if you are evaluating a settlement in terms of what might be lost, you should also consider what can be gained. It also suggests that a negotiator should emphasize what the opposition has to gain from a risk-free settlement. Finally, when mediators are trying to reach a compromise, they should frame suggestions in ways that show what both sides have to gain.
In this assignment, read over these 5 negotiation tips. Then go and research at least 2 other options that may also be good ways of resolving a conflict. Try to find ones that use the 4 strategies we discussed this week from the textbook. Write the ideas down, and explain how they fit in with the strategies from this week. (This does not need to be in paper format and can be point form).