A632.6.3.RB_StevensEric

When I looked at this assignment I immediately thought of a situation where I was faced with the issue of increasing child support wanted by the ex-wife. Looking at the ten principles of new thinking I immediately think to myself, where was these principles a year and half ago? The fact remains that I did take these principles and approached this situation with this frame of mind, at the old thinking.

The first issue that I had was the fact that I didn’t communicate my side of the negotiations effectively and my response was to get the lawyers involved. I take blame to part of the problem because she did try and hold open dialogue and this got me now where except attorney fees and increased child support. The issue that was faced was an increase of $150 to $175 a month in child support which I thought was crazy. In the end the increase included a $1,000 dollar attorney bill and an increase of $425 a month. So in the end I lost the battle when I was so engrained in fighting this battle that I lost sight of the big picture. The children should have been the concern all along not the fact that I wanted to win a battle against the ex-wife. This taught me a very valuable lesson where I fostered conflict, and I postured from the start in my response to this issue.  

Looking at the new way of thinking if these principles would have been used the fact remain that my relationship as strained as it was could have gotten better instead of worse.  This would of cost the entire change in child support cost to go from the initial $1000 to $55 in filing fees and the support going from $950 to $700. I know I didn’t major in economics but this would have been a win for both sides instead this cost me dearly not only financially but in our relationship. If I could do this all over again things would have changed. I learned not to jump to immediate conclusions based upon feelings of the past.

A632.5.5.RB_StevensEric

                                                            A632.5.5.RB_StevensEric

Looking back at the brain exercise I was surprised at the way I responded in the values, family, and compassion. The idea that many of these traits were very similar made me look at what exactly does this mean for me. The 3 different examples that I used made me sit back and realize that I share many of the same traits that my parents do. This wasn’t a complete surprise but when I had to use the pro v con approach and what exactly would cause them to change that did in fact surprise me.

I understand that I have a strong moral background and that most of my decisions are based upon these morals and beliefs because of the way I was raised. The influence of the family and my religious beliefs seem to be a dominant aspect of this approach. I did find it rather interesting that I would change these beliefs if the situation suited my needs to advance my decision making.  The ideal of trading a value to gain an advantage was surprising but the thought process of achieving this goal in my line of work understood. The idea that I would have to give up a belief or a value in order to maintain the safety of myself or others I completely understood.

The fact that many people do not like to change the person who they grew up to be is without question one where they have to adapt to their surrounding or they will be left behind. Incorporate America this is common in order to advance yourself and standout. The person who normally would have let an idea be shared and not take credit for being the author of this idea is seen. If the person does not stand up and look out for them they will not be noticed and the person taking credit will advance. I found this very interesting and I can understand why people behave the way they do because of the faults of mankind.

A632.4.5.RB_StevensEric

Reflect on deceptions in negotiations and describe four ways to evaluate information during negotiations. Relate an example of a recent negotiation in which you have been misled and one in which you may have overstated a claim; define how far you would be willing to go to leverage your position.

Looking at the negotiations that I have been part of and how the negotiations that I was involved in and how I was misled and how I overstated a situation is interesting.  Deception in negotiations is something that is all too common tactics in a majority of any negotiations. The though process that they do not want to reveal all their cards too soon to the other party is a common occurrence. The off set of expounding on a certain issue that you as a negotiator may or may not have is something that is an everyday practice in some negotiations.

Recently I went to by a car for my wife at a local car dealership. I have had many cars over the years and I always hate going into car dealerships and haggling over these car prices. I had $7,200 cash and I wanted to by a car outright and walk out of the door accomplishing two things. First I have a paid off car and second to know that I won and I did not have a car payment. I walked into the dealership with my cash in my pocket and I said I was a car that costs about $6,000 and I won’t pay a penny more. Well I found a 2004 Nissan that I thought would fit the bill so the negotiations began. The first question they asked is what is the highest you will go. I told them $6,200 and I immediately realized the mistake since I had told then before I wouldn’t pay $6,000 on a car. The salesman immediately said the car was $6.500 cash. I knew that I was in trouble right out of the gate and I had revealed my cards way too early. After a lengthy negotiation process the dealership said they could not sell the car cheaper than $7,400 dollars since the vehicle needed some work and they were willing to flip the bill. I played hardball and after 3 hours of going back and forth I got up and left. The sales manager came out into the parking lot after me and said that his final deal was $7.100. I told him I would give him $7,000 cash out the door and we came to an agreement. After this I realized me great negotiation skills were not so great since I went from $6,000 I would pay a penny more to handing them $7,000 and me walking out the door with $200.

If I could go back to the original negotiation I would have downplayed the money that I had and got up earlier and walked away which I am sure would have saved me more money. Valuable negotiation lesson learned.  I would of evaluated the non-verbal cues, the verbal cues, the body language, and the hesitation of information from the salesperson after certain questions were asked.

A632.3.4.RB_StevensEric

                                                                      A632.3.4.RB_StevensEric

Shoemaker and Russo discuss the hazards associated with "frame blindness" and how to guard against it.  Discuss three ways you can avoid "framing traps" and provide a detailed example of each from your life experience.  Could you have framed each situation differently? What did the exercise teach you about complex decision-making? What additional tools or "frames" would've helped you through the process? How much "risk" do you feel was in your recommendation? What did you learn about yourself through this exercise? 

When I look at the frame blindness that I have experienced throughout my life I can see the mistakes that I have made in the past. The illusion of completeness is the first one that I have come across in my personal decision making. The thought that I had all the available information and the picture was clear is a mistake that I have made in more than one case. The idea that the information that I had was the gospel and the information was only one part of the problem has come up several times. In one example I thought I was making the correct decision on a case and I was sure that I had all the necessary information to make an informed decision was wrong. The second part of the problem surfaced and I quickly realized that I had made a mistake but the mistake had caused an arrest that should have never occurred. I had to reveal the mistake which cost a lot of problems for me for the next six months.

I could have looked at the issue from a neutral standpoint which I should have done but I had already made the mistake and the decision. The exercise taught me to think of all possible variables and not to discount all options.  The hindsight approach would have been the correct response but it was a very valuable lesson learned. If I would have looked at the peer review and allowed the input from more of a neutral party to assist me in the investigation this issue may have been avoided.

I had a lot of risks in my decision where it cost this party their freedom for an extended period of time. The end result was the charges were dropped but not after having an innocent person incarcerated for about 6 months while the slow wheels of justice turned.   

I learned to slow down my thinking and to not to make a quick decision on limited information. This was a life lesson in my professional life that I have learned to transfer to my personal life and not be judgmental in my decisions.