Are you a knowledgable negotiator?

March 25, 2002 8:13 AM

Are you a knowledgable negotiator? Another web test, this time courtesy the Consensus Building Institute, Inc. I got a 5 because I'm a sucker. How good are you at the wheelin and the dealin?
posted by andnbsp (23 comments total)

the best of my negotiating skills couldnt get this site to work
posted by monkeyJuice at 8:27 AM on March 25, 2002

Eight. . .in my job I negotiate all the time both implicitly and explicitly. I suspect a lot of people's jobs are like that anymore. The best thing I ever read about negotiating is to go in with the attitude, "I care about this, but not that much."
posted by Danf at 8:30 AM on March 25, 2002

Also try http://www.cbi-web.org and click on the link on the side that says "Take Our Test"

My FPP link was straight to the frame that contained the test, and it worked for me on preview...oh well.
posted by andnbsp at 8:32 AM on March 25, 2002

Eight. Obviously I'm wasted in my non-negotiating job. It's a useful skill for many board games though.
posted by salmacis at 8:41 AM on March 25, 2002

I can't get it to work, even with the corrected link.
posted by starvingartist at 8:43 AM on March 25, 2002

Well, I guess CBI couldn't negotiate themselves a good website. Sorry about that, folks.
posted by andnbsp at 8:50 AM on March 25, 2002

Darn I still can't get the test page to load, and I really want to take it. In my job I get to learn about and use these skills quite often, and have even taught classes on mediation and win-win negotiating. I've been looking for a test that measures people's willingness to go for a win-win, not just their knowledge of the lingo and concepts. Thanks andnbsp for the link. Maybe after we quit bombing it, it will come back up.
posted by pomegranate at 8:50 AM on March 25, 2002

(It worked for me...) 8/10. The funny part of this is that, as a litigation attorney, I pretty much negotiate over everything all day long. In the legal field, negotiation is everything. But you know what? Even though this "Getting to Yes"-type view has been around for a long time, it never gets used in the legal field. For one reason or another (possibly the emotions involved), it's always the same story: one side wants to get the most, and the other side wants to give nothing. If a compromise is reached, it's reached by an exhaustive series of back-and-forth counteroffers that finally result in a figure somewhere in the middle of where the negotiations "started" (of course, the first offer is always far below what the person/entity is willing to pay, and the first counteroffer is far above what the person/entity is willing to take). The result of this is definitely "lose-lose" as one side thinks it paid too much and the other thinks it settled too low. But I don't think the negotiating style will ever change.
posted by pardonyou? at 9:05 AM on March 25, 2002

pardonyou: Well, this style of adversarial negotiating must be most profitable for the attorneys, if frustrating, isn't it?

(I scored 5/10, by the way, which doesn't surprise me; I already knew I don't play well with others)
posted by tippiedog at 9:59 AM on March 25, 2002

for those people that can't get it to work:
if you're using ie, try netscape.
i had the same issue when i tried to use ie.

8/10

but i call bullcrap on the one about how to improve your negotiation skills.
posted by juv3nal at 10:09 AM on March 25, 2002

tippiedog, it does increase the transactional costs, that's for sure. The only thing I can say in defense of attorneys (and believe me I don't often try to defend my profession) is that it's quite often the clients who insist on this scorched-earth approach.

I left the business of litigation last November, largely because I got so tired of this constant wrangling. For all my effort I rarely saw a net benefit to anybody. (I'm much happier now).
posted by pardonyou? at 10:10 AM on March 25, 2002

Kick ass, that's the first site I found that works in Netscape 6 and *not* IE. It's because they're using Javascript as the source for frames! Ha! 4 out of 10 for me. I sell, I don't negotiate ;-)
posted by wackybrit at 10:51 AM on March 25, 2002

Also, the quiz says that learning basic mutual gains theory is the best way to become a better negotiator. So, I duly went to Google and typed in "mutual gains theory".. et voila, 3 results. Must be popular.
posted by wackybrit at 10:54 AM on March 25, 2002

Try "mutual gains bargaining theory" or just "mutual gains" and theory.
posted by krebby at 11:04 AM on March 25, 2002

pardonyou wrote: it does increase the transactional costs, that's for sure. The only thing I can say in defense of attorneys (and believe me I don't often try to defend my profession) is that it's quite often the clients who insist on this scorched-earth approach.

I don't doubt that one bit. I'm sure that few people want to hear their lawyer say, "OK, we're gonna go in there and find a mutually beneficial solution as efficiently as possible"
posted by tippiedog at 11:52 AM on March 25, 2002

Opera doesn't seem to want it to work either. I can get to the page, but I can't get the test to start.

I guess they didn't negotiate properly with their web designer.
posted by Salmonberry at 12:00 PM on March 25, 2002

Can't get it to work with Netscape either.

Oh well. I wonder if they need any consulting services...
posted by sauril at 12:27 PM on March 25, 2002

Even though this "Getting to Yes"-type view has been around for a long time, it never gets used in the legal field.

It also conflicts with several other negotiation-related theories, and isn't applicable to all situations. For example, I missed one question where the 'right' answer was that hiding your true interests was unimportant. In certain situations, there's a definite strategic advantage to making your opponent think the payoff matrix is different from what you know to be reality, particularly in zero-sum games. There's also the common sense notion that "showing your hand" or revealing your "reservation price" gives your opponent the advantage of knowing just how far he or she can push you, and where they have particularly strong leverage.

Not to mention that the mutual gains theory isn't always appropriate. If the perceived "mutual gains" aren't sufficient to warrant a cooperative strategy over a non-cooperative strategy, and there's no credible third party enforcement, mutual gains theory doesn't work.
posted by lizs at 12:46 PM on March 25, 2002

I scored a 7. I believe that I may be able to share some insight as to why the other three could have alternative answers.
posted by jmccorm at 1:58 PM on March 25, 2002

Okay, I got to the page, took the test, but it's another one that tests theoretical knowledge versus willingness to apply. I think maybe my dream-test isn't out there, because the type of approach may be more deeply linked to circumstance than character.
I scored a ten on the test and practice this pretty much every week in one form or another, but if someone was trying to "win-win" their way to something I had no interest in giving up, I wouldn't play nice. If I had a good reason not to trust the character of the person on the other side of the table, nothing would make me give up my interests.
Pardonyou?, my local court has a requirement that all civil litigation first go through mediation; it has cut down quite a bit on courthouse backlogs but may be attempted in only the most cursory "letter of the law" manner.
I actually am struggling right now with whether or not to go to law school - I know I'm smart enough, but may value wisdom more than cleverness. I've seen way too many burnt-out and bitter young attorneys who lose their humanity in the day to day of putting more notches on their belts. Good on ya for choosing a path that suits you.
posted by pomegranate at 3:01 PM on March 25, 2002

I GOT 100%

whee
I knew I was a bastard but this is ridiculous
posted by Settle at 3:42 PM on March 25, 2002

I couldn't get it to work so I hit my computer with my shoes untill it agreed to do whatever I tell it to.
posted by fuq at 6:02 PM on March 25, 2002

9/10, even though I'm a social misfit and outcast with poor people skills. Another example of just knowing how to take tests; reading the "win-win" intro and recognizing that they are the "Consensus Building Institute" points the casual test-taker to all the "right" answers (except, oddly, in #9).
posted by hincandenza at 8:42 PM on March 25, 2002