Dataset Viewer
id
stringlengths 14
14
| text
stringlengths 89
1.85k
| source
stringclasses 4
values |
|---|---|---|
7c34eb4bce37-0
|
Negotiation
Definition: Negotiation is a process by which two or more people (or groups) resolve an issue or
arrive at a better outcome but not through compromise. Negotiation is a way to avoid arguing and
come to an agreement with which both parties feel satisfied.
In a negotiation, each party tries to persuade the other to agree with his or her point of view.
By negotiating , all involved parties try to avoid arguing but agree to reach some form of
compromise.
Negotiation can be used by a variety of groups in a variety of situations —for instance, between
individuals at a market looking to get the best price on an item, between startups looking to merge
organizations through business negotiations, or between gove rnments who want to come to a
peace agreement. In your daily life, you may find yourself at work in salary negotiations or sales
negotiations. Negotiation strategies are also a great tool for conflict management and conflict
resolution —even in your persona l life.
Negotiations involve some give and take, which means one party will always come out on top of
the negotiation. The other, though, must concede —even if that concession is nominal.
Parties involved in negotiations can vary. They can include talks bet ween buyers and sellers, an
employer and prospective employee, or between the governments of two or more countries.
The Two Types of Negotiation
There are two possible types of negotiation, depending on the point of view and leadership styles
of each negotiating party:
1. Distributive negotiation : Also sometimes called “hard bargaining,” distributive
negotiation is when both parties take an extreme position and one side’s win is believed
|
data/202004291614538934Savya-Sachi-Negotiation.pdf
|
7c34eb4bce37-1
|
negotiation is when both parties take an extreme position and one side’s win is believed
to be the other side’s loss (a win -lose solution). This operates on a “fixed pie” principle, in
which there is only a set amount of value in the negotiation, and one side will walk away
with the better deal. Examples include haggling prices in real estate or at a car dealership.
2. Integrative negotiation : Parties engaging in integrative negotiation don’t believe in a
fixed pie, instead asserting that both sides can create value or mutual gains by offering
trade -offs and reframing the problem so that everyone can walk away with a win -win
solution.
Three essentials
Before entering a negotiation, you need to assess three things: your goals, your best alternative
to a negotiated agreement (BATNA), and the reservation price.
The goals should be quantitative and precise, and the negotiator must be held accountable for
them. They must be somewhat difficult to achieve and must be recalibrated over time. A caveat is
that “reaching a fair agreement” is nota goal. There is no such thing as dividing the pie fairly
because fairness is not an objective metric. If the counter party does better than you do, you feel
it is unfair even though you may have achieved your goals.
BATNA is the alternative to the deal if you cannot come to an agreement. The reservation
price is the walkaway point that you will not breach and which you cannot reveal at any cost. For
an outcome lower than the reservation price, no agreement is preferable. T he final deal is usually
|
data/202004291614538934Savya-Sachi-Negotiation.pdf
|
31f183c0873a-0
|
secured between the goal and the reservation price. The bargaining zone is the space between
the buyer’s and the seller’s reservation price. The zones must overlap for a possible agreement.
While the BATNA is your source of power, you also have to assess your counterpart’s goal, BATNA
and reservation price.
The 5 Stages of the Negotiation Process
While there are many approaches to negotiation tactics, there are five common steps that most
effective negotiations follow to achieve a successful outcome:
1. Prepare : Negotiation preparation is easy to ignore, but it’s a vital first stage of the
negotiating process. To prepare, research both sides of the discussion, identify any
possible trade -offs, determine your most -desired and least -desired possible outcomes.
Then, make a list of what concessions you’re willing to put on the bargaining table,
understand who in your organization has the decision -making power, know the
relationship that you want to build or maintain with the other party, and prepare your
BATNA (“best alternative to a negotiated agreement”). Preparation ca n also include the
definition of the ground rules: determining where, when, with whom, and under what
time constraints the negotiations will take place.
2. Exchange information : This is the part of the negotiation when both parties exchange
their initial posi tions. Each side should be allowed to share their underlying interests and
concerns uninterrupted, including what they aim to receive at the end of the negotiation
and why they feel the way they do.
3. Clarify : During the clarification step, both sides contin ue the discussion that they began
when exchanging information by justifying and bolstering their claims. If one side
disagrees with something the other side is saying, they should discuss that disagreement
|
data/202004291614538934Savya-Sachi-Negotiation.pdf
|
31f183c0873a-1
|
disagrees with something the other side is saying, they should discuss that disagreement
in calm terms to reach a point of understanding.
4. Bargain and problem -solve : This step is the meat of the process of negotiation, during
which both sides begin a give -and-take. After the initial first offer, each negotiating party
should propose different counter -offers for the problem, all the while makin g and
managing their concessions. During the bargaining process, keep your emotions in check;
the best negotiators use strong verbal communication skills (active listening and calm
feedback; in face -to-face negotiation, this also includes body language). T he goal of this
step is to emerge with a win -win outcome —a positive course of action.
5. Conclude and implement : Once an acceptable solution has been agreed upon, both sides
should thank each other for the discussion, no matter the outcome of the negotiation;
successful negotiations are all about creating and maintaining good long -term
relationships. Then they should outline the expectations of each party and ensure that the
compromise will be implemented effectively. This step often includes a written contrac t
and a follow -up to confirm the implementation is going smoothly.
Negotiation Strategies :
Now that you've done your homework, what about actually negotiating? Here are some
techniques to help you when you sit down with the other party.
Convey Confidence, Not Cockiness
To help you stay focused, remind yourself of your own objectives. To a great exte nt, power
is a matter of perception. You may feel at a disadvantage when negotiating with a more
powerful individual, but keep in mind that you would not be negotiating unless you have
|
data/202004291614538934Savya-Sachi-Negotiation.pdf
|
31f183c0873a-2
|
powerful individual, but keep in mind that you would not be negotiating unless you have
something the other party needs. On the other hand, Gesme notes that “o verconfidence
kills most negotiation.” Speaking specifically of managed care plans, he says, “The doctors
|
data/202004291614538934Savya-Sachi-Negotiation.pdf
|
32bf9917312d-0
|
who think they do it well get fleeced more often than anyone else. Be humble but know
your options.”
Set the Stage for Agreement
“The first impression is truly the lasting impression,” Craver points out. “Even in
negotiation, if I start in a positive way, the other party is likely to behave more
cooperatively and reach an efficient agreement, meaning we are trading the right items.”
Establish rapport wi th the other party early in the negotiation by looking for areas on
which you both agree. Bring up points on which you are fairly certain the other party can
say “yes.” Agreement helps establish a foundation of trust and respect that will be useful
when yo u address more controversial topics.
Do Not Put Off Bringing Up the Elephant in the Room
Although it is a good strategy to find areas to agree on first, avoid waiting too long to bring
up points you know might be significant. Gesme likens this to the story of a young
physician he knew who waited until 2 weeks before the wedding to tell his fiancée that he
had been previously married. He says, “When you know there are major obstacles, be
tactful, but bring them up early rather than risk going through a labor ious process and
then having to put a band -aid fix on it at the end.” Such an issue common today is the
generational disparity in expectations about work hours. “Senior partners are used to
working 70 to 80 hours a week, while young people want to work 50 hours,” Gesme
explains. “It's not an insurmountable chasm, but it's something that has to be negotiated
up front. Both sides tend to keep those issues tucked away because they are painful and a
|
data/202004291614538934Savya-Sachi-Negotiation.pdf
|
32bf9917312d-1
|
up front. Both sides tend to keep those issues tucked away because they are painful and a
bit hard. But you want to bring it up early.”
Ask Open -Ended Q uestions
Use phrases such as “Tell me more about… ” and “What is your biggest concern with… ”
instead of questions that can be answered with a “yes” or “no.” Your goal in the early
stages of negotiation is to find out more about what the other party's real needs are. “The
more time they speak, the more information they disclose,” Craver notes.
“A lot comes back to knowing who you're dealing with, whether it's a payer, a group of
doctors, or a patient,” Gesme suggests. “With patients, for example, open -ended questions
elicit a greater range of feedback about the medical problem, and also put it in the
perspective of how the patient is looking at his or her problem and what the current
situation is. This has to be part of the resolution.”
Listen and Restate Co mments
Be wary of talking too much. By listening more than you talk, you will uncover information
and attitudes that can help you understand the other party's concerns and interests.
“Listen to verbal leaks that inadvertently give away important information,” Craver
recommends. “For example, someone who says he doesn't ‘have much more room’
clearly does have more room.”
Paraphrase others' statements in your own words. This lets them provide clarification or
correct misinterpretations. In addition, you will often hear an elaboration on a point that
will help you find out their needs and how to meet them. As Gesme notes, “I t's extremely
|
data/202004291614538934Savya-Sachi-Negotiation.pdf
|
32bf9917312d-2
|
important to understand their perspective as the negotiation proceeds.”
Watch for Nonverbal Cues
As a clinician, you are likely already familiar with the significance of nonverbal cues.
Watch for meaningful gestures in your “adversary,” and b e aware of the messages you are
sending with your own body language. Noting gestures such as these can be helpful in
negotiating: leaning back or clasping hands behind one's head is a sign of confidence or
|
data/202004291614538934Savya-Sachi-Negotiation.pdf
|
38ea0b13c5c9-0
|
even dominance, but moving one hand behind one's h ead is usually a negative sign, and
could mean uncertainty, disagreement, or frustration; sitting on the edge of one's chair
shows interest; compressed lips may signal the onset of anger or uncertainty.
Stay Cool and Depersonalize Disagreements
Never negot iate when you are angry. Be aware of your own hot buttons, and do not rise
to the bait if someone pushes one of them. Similarly, help the other party stay cool. When
identifying potentially touchy points, refer to them objectively rather than assigning
own ership. For instance, instead of saying “the way you assign call hours,” say “the
structure of call coverage.”
Separate Discussion of Problems From Exploration of Solutions
Seek to clarify an issue and evaluate the nature of the disagreement before explori ng
solutions to it. Discussing solutions before the problem is fully defined can lead to trouble
later because there might have been premature agreement on a problem that was not
really fully understood by both parties.
Do Not Compare Offers
Although you h ave researched alternatives and know what someone else might be
offering you, discuss the current deal on its merits. Do not compare it openly with other
offers you have. Other offers you may have are your backup —your BATNA —if you can't
reach a satisfactor y agreement in the current negotiations.
Don't Issue an Ultimatum
Any kind of “take it or leave it” or “this is my final position” pronouncement cuts off the
negotiations completely. Ultimatums are especially dangerous early in the negotiating
process.
Use Deferment As a Trade -Off
|
data/202004291614538934Savya-Sachi-Negotiation.pdf
|
38ea0b13c5c9-1
|
process.
Use Deferment As a Trade -Off
In negotiating an employment contract, compensation is an area in which you can
sometimes gain what you want by deferring it to the second year. For example, if your
goal is a first -year salary of $120,000, but the practice seems firm on offering only
$110,000, suggest that the $10,000 difference be added to your second -year's salary.
Thus, if the second -year salary was to be $130,000, indicate you will accept the $110,000
offered for the first year if they make the salary $140,000 in year two. This shows that you
are thinking long -term and also conveys confidence that the practice will be happy with
you.
Use Your Leverage
Do not let any of the leveraging points you identified earlier go unexpressed during
negotiations. As you prepa red, you thought about the attributes you have that they want.
Now is the time to bring them up.
Bring Materials That Supports Your Position
Data and literature convey authority. Have reports on hand that back up your negotiating
points, such as salary sur veys. If you want to work part time, for example, bring articles
that discuss the success stories and the benefits that such arrangements can offer.
Beware of a Stall: Reach Closure
If the other party seems uninterested in finalizing the agreement, he or s he might think a
delay will improve the bargaining position. Ask what additional information is needed for
|
data/202004291614538934Savya-Sachi-Negotiation.pdf
|
ea918336395b-0
|
a final decision to be made. On the other hand, you can use a stalling technique yourself.
If you want to negotiate more slowly and deliberately, tel l the other party that you wish
to confer with, for example, your spouse or an attorney.
Bringing Value to Negoti ation:
Never Tell a Lie, Be Nice, and Consider the Timing:
As Craver points out, most of the basic principles of negotiation were learned before
kindergarten. Be polite. Be honest. Be considerate.
“Skilled bargainers do not behave badly,” Craver says. “If you come to me and begin
negatively I will look for a reason t o tell you ‘no.’ But if you are professional and
personable, I will feel guilty if I say ‘no.’” Craver uses the term “negotiating emotional
intelligence” to refer to the overall interpersonal skills needed to be successful in
negotiations —self-awareness, a bility to adapt, ability to empathize. And he likens it to
physician -patient relations. “Where you have somebody with a nicer bedside manner —
doctors with good relationships with patients are likely to have long -term relationships.”
Gesme stresses that honesty is paramount. “Whether negotiating with a potential
employer or a patient, honesty and integrity have to be first and foremost,” he notes. “You
will always lose if you've been dishonest. Nobody wants to bargain when you're not
bargai ning in good faith. It takes too much time, too many resources, too much energy.”
Timing is important. Just as a child knows not to ask for a treat in the middle of a quarrel
|
data/202004291614538934Savya-Sachi-Negotiation.pdf
|
ea918336395b-1
|
between mom and dad, don't initiate a negotiation during a difficult time for the other
party. Even when negotiations are under way, correct timing remains important. For
example, you shouldn't bring up salary and other compensation details prematurely when
seeking a new position. Craver advises, “Wait until you have an offer. If they ask what you
expect as salary before stating a figure, the best response is ‘What is your normal
amount?’”
Do Your Home work:
Take time to pre pare before approaching a negotiation. Start with assessing your own
goals. “The biggest mistake I've seen, in my own negotiations and in those of others, is
coming in with a specific demand,” Gesme recounts. “You may think you want the corner
office, but in fact it has a water leak and the heat doesn't work, so there may be a better
strategy. You want to be open going into a negotiation.” Beware of assumptions and
biases, which often become self -fulfilling. As Gesme says, “Be careful what you wish for.”
Evaluate Yourself:
You will be in negotiati ng situation throughout your life. Learn from them , and after any
negotiating process, ask yourself these questions:
• What additional preparation would have helped me?
• Did I listen enough?
• Did I paraphrase statements from the other party?
• Were options explored sufficiently?
• How much did the outcome meet each party ’s real needs?
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• A negotiation is a strategic discussion that resolves an issue in a way that both parties find
acceptable.
|
data/202004291614538934Savya-Sachi-Negotiation.pdf
|
da288ce1a938-0
|
• Negotiations can ta ke place between buyers and sellers, an employer and prospective
employee, or governments of two or more countries.
• Negotiating is used to reduce debts, lower the sale price of a house, improve the
conditions of a contract, or get a better deal on a car.
• When negotiating, be sure to justify your position, put yourself in the other party's shoes,
keep your emotions in check, and know when to walk away
|
data/202004291614538934Savya-Sachi-Negotiation.pdf
|
a43373822e9d-0
|
Principled Negotiation – The Harvard Approach – Fisher & Ury
Roger Fisher and William Ury of Harvard wrote a seminal work on negotiation entitled
“Getting to yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In ” In their book, they
described a “good” negotiation as one which:
Is more than just getting to “yes.” A good agreement is one which is wise and efficient,
and which improves relationships. Wise agreements satisfy both parties’ interests and
are fair and lasting. With most long -term clients, business partne rs and team members
the quality of the ongoing relationship is more important than the outcome of the
particular negotiation. In order to preserve and hopefully improve relationships how you
get to “yes” matters.
What’s the Problem with Positions?
Negoti ations commonly follow a process of “positional bargaining.” Positional bargaining
represents a win -lose, versus a win -win paradigm. In positional barg aining each party
opens with their position on an issue then bargains from the party’s separate opening
positions to eventually agree on one position. Haggling over a price is a typical example of
positional bargaining, with both parties having a bottom line figure in mind.
According to Fisher and Ury, positional bargaining does not tend to produce good
agreements for the following reasons:
It is an inefficient means of reaching agreements.
The agreements tend to neglect the other party's respective interests.
Ego tends to be involved.
It encourages stubbornness thus harming the parties' relationship.
The Four Prescriptions of Principled Negotiation
Principled negotiation offers perhaps a better way of reaching good agreements. This
|
data/ER2017_CollaboratingwithSchools_SandyMislow_Handout-PrincipledNegotiation.pdf
|
a43373822e9d-1
|
Principled negotiation offers perhaps a better way of reaching good agreements. This
process can be used effectively on almost any type of conflict.
1. Separate the People from the Problem:
Because people te nd to become personally involved with the issues and their respective
position, they may feel resistance to their position as a personal attack. Separating
yourself and your ego from the issues allows you to address the problem without
damaging relationshi ps. It will also allow you to get a more clear view of the substance of
the conflict.
The authors identify three basic sorts of people problems:
(1) different perceptions among the parties;
(2) emotions such as fear and anger; and
(3) communication problems.
|
data/ER2017_CollaboratingwithSchools_SandyMislow_Handout-PrincipledNegotiation.pdf
|
27581922f8aa-0
|
Fisher & Ury’s suggested solutions:
Try to understand the other person's viewpoint by putting yourself in the other's
place.
Do not assume that your worst fears will become the actions of the other party.
Do not blame or attack the other par ty for the problem.
Try to create proposals which should be appealing to the other party.
Acknowledge emotions and try to understand their source (understand that all
feelings are valid even if you do not agree or understand them).
Allow the other side to express their emotions.
Try not to react emotionally to another’s emotional outbursts.
Symbolic gestures such as apologies or expressions of sympathy can help to
defuse strong emotions.
Actively listen to the other party (give the speaker your full attenti on, occasionally
summarizing the speaker's points to confirm your understanding).
When speaking direct your speech toward the other party and keep focused on
what you are trying to communicate.
You should avoid blaming or attacking the other person, speaki ng only about
yourself.
Try using “I” statements, such as “I feel” or “I think.”
Think of each other as partners in negotiation rather than as adversaries.
2. Focus on Interests not Positions
When a problem is defined in terms of the parties' underlying interests it is often possible
to find a solution which satisfies both parties’ interests. All people will share certain
basic interests or needs, such as the need for security and economic well -being. To
identify, understand, and deal with both parties' underlying interests you must:
|
data/ER2017_CollaboratingwithSchools_SandyMislow_Handout-PrincipledNegotiation.pdf
|
27581922f8aa-1
|
identify, understand, and deal with both parties' underlying interests you must:
Ask why the party holds the positions she or he does, and consider why the party
does not hold some other possible position.
Explain your interests clearly.
Discuss these interests together looking forward to the desired solu tion, rather
than focusing on past events.
Focus clearly on your interests, but remain open to different proposals and
positions.
3. Invent Options for Mutual Gain
Fisher and Ury identify four obstacles to generating creative problem solving options:
(1) deciding prematurely on an option and thereby failing to consider alternatives;
(2) being too intent on narrowing options to find the single answer;
|
data/ER2017_CollaboratingwithSchools_SandyMislow_Handout-PrincipledNegotiation.pdf
|
625dcf067437-0
|
(3) defining the problem in win -lose terms; or
(4) Thinking that it is up to the other side to come up with a solution to the party’s
problem.
The authors also suggest four prescriptions for overcoming these obstacles and
generating creative options:
(1) Separate the process of inventing options from the act of judging them;
(2) Broaden the options on the table rather than only look for a single solution;
(3) Search for mutual gains; and
(4) Invent ways of making decisions easy.
To invent options for mutual gain:
Brainstorm for all possible solutions to the problem.
Evaluate the ideas only after a vari ety of proposals have been made
Start evaluations with the most promising proposals, refining and improving
proposals at this point.
Focus on shared interests, and when the parties' interests differ, seek options
whereby those differences can be made compa tible or even complementary.
Make proposals that are appealing to the other side and with which the other side
would ultimately find ease in agreement.
Identify the decision makers and target proposals directly toward them.
The key to reconciling different interests is to "look for items that are of low cost to you
and high benefit to them, and vice versa"
4. Insist on Using Objective Criteria
When interests are directly opposed, the parties should use objective criteria to resolve
their differences. All owing differences to spark a b attle of egos and thus wills is inefficient,
destroys relationships, and is unlikely to produce wise agreements. The remedy is to
|
data/ER2017_CollaboratingwithSchools_SandyMislow_Handout-PrincipledNegotiation.pdf
|
625dcf067437-1
|
destroys relationships, and is unlikely to produce wise agreements. The remedy is to
negotiate a solution based on objective criteria, independent of the will of either side.
Partie s must first develop objective criteria that both parties agree to. Criteria should be
both legitimate and practical, such as scientific findings, professional standards, or legal
precedent. To test for objectivity, ask if both sides would agree to be boun d by those
standards.
Three points to keep in mind when using objective criteria:
1. Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria. Ask for the reasoning
behind the other party's suggestions.
|
data/ER2017_CollaboratingwithSchools_SandyMislow_Handout-PrincipledNegotiation.pdf
|
cc4c0038c1c7-0
|
2. Reason as to which standards are most appropriate and h ow they should be
applied; Keep an open mind.
3. Never yield to pressure, threats, or bribes – only to principles. When the other
party stubbornly refuses to be reasonable, shift the discussion from a search for
substantive criteria to a search for procedural criteria.
Remember negotiations do not have to be overly contentious or personal. The person you
negotiate with today may be your close business partner tomorrow. Additionally, your
reputation in your business community may be shaped by your reputation as a
negotiator.
Therefore, think big picture and be rational and reasonable in your negotiation applying
the principles of PEOPLE, INTERESTS, OPTIONS, and CRITERIA set forth above.
Recommended Reading
Getting to Yes by Fisher and Ury. A classic book on t he Harvard negotiation approach.
The authors call it “A straightforward, universally applicable method for negotiating
personal and professional disputes without getting taken – and without getting angry.”
Negotiating Rationally by Bazernan and Neale. A b ook that identifies the common
errors that negotiators can make, and gives good advice on how to avoid them.
|
data/ER2017_CollaboratingwithSchools_SandyMislow_Handout-PrincipledNegotiation.pdf
|
06081e438dc6-0
|
Negotiations and Resolving Conflicts: An Overview
prepared by
Professor E. Wertheim
http://www.cba.neu.edu/~ewertheim/
College of Business Administration
Northeastern University
In a successful negotiation, everyone wins. The objective should be agreement, not vic tory.
Every desire that demands satisfaction and every need to be met -is at least potentially an occasion for
negotiation; whenever people exchange ideas with the intention of changing relationships, whenever they
confer for agreement, they are negotiating .
Table of Contents
Introduction
Major Causes of Conflict
The Five Modes of Conflict Resolution
The Rational vs. the Emotional Aspects of Negot iation
Two Kinds of Bargaining: Distributive (win -lose) or Integrative (win -win)
Basic Principles of Integrative or Win -Win Bargaining:
Planning for the Negotiation
Paying Attention to the Flow of Negotiation: Negotiation is a sequence of events, not an incident
The "Intangibles" of Negotiation
Some "Tricks" Skilled Negotiators Use
How Can I Change what seems to be a "win -lose" to a "win -win" situation
What if I want to "win" and don't care about the other person's interests?
Is it ethical to lie or bluff i n negotiation?
Summary
Appendices
Some Types of Negotiators
Three Modes of Conflict Resolution: Soft, Hard, and Principles
Dealing with Difficult People
Principles of Third Person Negotiation
...from Negotiate to Win
Krunchlist: mild to infl ammatory and responding to krunches
A one page evaluation for critiquing your Negotiation
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
06081e438dc6-1
|
A one page evaluation for critiquing your Negotiation
Introduction
(Suggestion: This guide will be easier to follow if you think about a specific negotiation or conflict situation you have rec ently
been involved in.)
In the course of a week, we are all involved in numerous situations that need to be dealt with through
negotiation; this occurs at work, at home, and at recreation. A conflict or negotiation situation is one in
which there is a conflict of interests or wha t one wants isn't necessarily what the other wants and where both
sides prefer to search for solutions, rather than giving in or breaking -off contact.
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
6a5ec301d1bb-0
|
Few of us enjoy dealing with with conflicts -either with bosses, peers, subordinates, friends, or stranger s.
This is particularly true when the conflict becomes hostile and when strong feelings become involved.
Resolving conflict can be mentally exhausting and emotionally draining.
But it is important to realize that conflict that requires resolution is neithe r good nor bad. There can be
positive and negative outcomes as seen in the box below. It can be destructive but can also play a productive
role for you personally and for your relationships -both personal and professional. The important point is to
manage t he conflict, not to suppress conflict and not to let conflict escalate out of control. Many of us seek
to avoid conflict when it arises but there are many times when we should use conflict as a critical aspect of
creativity and motivation.
Top
Potential Positive Outcomes of Conflict Potential Negative Outcomes of Conflict
can motivate us to try harder -to "win"
can increase commitment, enhance group
loyalty
increased clarity about the problem
can lead to innovative breakthroughs and
new approaches
conflict can clarify underlying problems,
facilitate change
can focus attention on basic issues and lead
to solution
increased energy level; making visible key
values
involvement in conflict can sharpen our
approaches to bargaining, influencing,
competing can lead to anger, avoidance, sniping, shouting,
frustration , fear of failure, sense of personal
inadequacy
withholding of critical information
lower productivity from wasteful conflict
careers can be sidetracked; relationships ruinied
disrupted patterns of work
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
6a5ec301d1bb-1
|
disrupted patterns of work
consume huge amount of time -loss of productivity
You will be constantly negotiating and resolving conflict throughout all of your professional and personal
life. Given that organizations are becoming less hierarchical, less based on positional authority, less based
on clear boundaries of responsibility an d authority, it is likely that conflict will be an even greater
component of organizations in the future. Studies have shown that negotiation skills are among the most
significant determinants of career success. While negotiation is an art form to some deg ree, there are specific
techniques that anyone can learn. Understanding these techniques and developing your skills will be a
critical component of your career success and personal success.
Top
Major Causes of Conflict
Opposing interests (or what we think are opposing interests) are at the core of most conflicts. In a modern complex
society, we confront these situations many times a day. The modern organization adds a whole new group of
potential causes of conflict that are already present:
competition over sca rce resources, time
ambiguity over responsibility and authority:
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
3c0dd291d804-0
|
differences in perceptions, work styles, attitudes, communication problems, individual differences
increasing interdependence as boundaries between individuals and groups become increasingly blurred
reward systems: we work in situations with complex and often contradictory incentive systems
differentiation: division of labor which is the basis for any organization causes people and groups to see
situations differently and have different goals
equity vs. equality: continuous tension exists between equity (the belief that we should be rewarded relative
to our relative contributions) and equality (belief that everyone should receive the same or similar
outcomes).
Top
The Five Modes of Responding to Conflict
It is useful to categorize the various responses we have to conflict in terms of two dimensions:
1. how important or unimportant it is to satisfy our needs and
2. how important or unimportant it is to satisfy the other person's needs.
Answering this questions re sults in the following five modes of conflict resolution. None is these is "right"
or "wrong". There are situations where any would be appropriate. For example, if we are cut off driving to
work, we may decide "avoidance" is the best option. Other times "a voidance" may be a poor alternative.
Similarly, collaboration may be appropriate sometimes but not at other times.
Competition: Distributive (win -lose) bargaining
Satisfying your needs is important; satisfying the other's needs isn't important to you
Colla boration: Integrative (win -win)
Satisfying both your needs and the other's needs is important
Compromising:
Satisfying both your needs and the other's are moderately important
Avoiding :
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
3c0dd291d804-1
|
Satisfying both your needs and the other's are moderately important
Avoiding :
you are indifferent about satisfying either your needs or the other's needs: no action is likely
Accommodating :
simply yield (it doesn't matter to you and it matters to the other person)
In general, most successful negotiators start off assuming collaborat ive (integrative) or win -win
negotiation. Most good negotiators will try for a win -win or aim at a situation where both sides feel they
won. Negotiations tend to go much better if both sides perceive they are in a win -win situation or both sides
approach t he negotiation wanting to "create value" or satisfy both their own needs and the other's needs.
We will focus on the two most problematic types: Collaborative (integrative)
and Competitive (Distributive).
Of the two the more important is Collaborative since most of your negotiation and conflict resolution in
your personal and professional life will (or should) be of this nature. This is because most negotiation
involves situations where we want or need an on -going relationship with the other person. While i t is
important to develop skills in "competitive" bargaining (eg. when buying a car), or skills that allow us to
satisfy our concerns while ignoring the other's goals, this approach has many negative consequences for both
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
516113b98811-0
|
our personal lives and for our pro fessional careers especially if we are to have an on -going relationship with
the other person..
The key to successful negotiation is to shift the situation to a "win -win" even if it looks like a "win -lose" situation.
Almost all negotiation have at least some elements of win -win. Successful negotiations often depend on finding the
win-win aspects in any situation. Only shift to a win -lose mode if all else fails.
Reducing Conflict that A lready Exists
Organizations also take steps to reduce conflict. The following list suggests some of these ways:
physical separation
hierarchy (the boss decides)
bureaucratic approaches (rules, procedures)
integrators and third -party intervention
negotiati on
rotating members
interdependent tasks and superordinate goals ("We are all in this together...")
intergroup and interpersonal training
Top
Rational vs. the Emotional Components of Negotiation
All negotiations involve two levels: a rational decision making (substantive) process and a psychological (emotional)
process. The outcome of a negotiation is as likely to be a result of the psychological elements as it is the rational
element. In most cases, the failure of two people to reach the "optimal" resolution or best alternative stems from
intangible factors such as:
Psycholo gical Factors that will affect negotiations
how comfortable each feels about conflict
how each perceives or mis -perceives the other
the assumptions each makes about the other and the problem
the attitudes and expectations about the other
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
516113b98811-1
|
the attitudes and expectations about the other
the decisions each makes about trust, about how important "winning" is, how important it is to avoid
conflict, how much one likes or dislikes the other; how important it is to "not look foolish."
Understanding the "rational" part of the negotiation is rela tively easy. Understanding the "psychological" part is
more difficult. We need to understand ourselves and our opponents psychologically. Failure to understand these
psychological needs and issues is at the root of most unsuccessful negotiations.
This is m ade more difficult because norms in most organizations discourage open expression of negative
personal feeings. Thus intense emotional onflicts are often expressed and rationalized as substnative issues.
People often drum up disagreements on trivial issues to provide justification for an emotional conflict with
another individual (Ware and Barnes).
Top
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
bc41d949c8c6-0
|
Basic Issues in Conflict Management
what are the personal and organizational consequences of the conflict
what are the behavioral patterns that characterize the conflict
substantive issues vs. emotional issues
apparent underlying and background conditions leading to the conflict
Welcome...
Top
The Two Most Important Kinds of Bargaining: Distributive (win -lose) vs. Integrative
(win -win)
All bargaining situations can be divided into two categories:
Distributive (also called competitive, zero sum, win -lose or claiming value).
In this kind of bargaining, one side "wins" and one side "loses." In this situation ther e are fixed resources to
be divided so that the more one gets, the less the other gets. In this situation, one person's interests oppose
the others. In many "buying" situations, the more the other person gets of your money, the less you have
left. The domi nant concern in this type of bargaining is usually maximizing one's own interests. Dominant
strategies in this mode include manipulation, forcing, and withholding information. This version is also called
"claiming value" since the goal in this type of situ ation is to increase your own value and decrease your
opponent's.
Integrative (collaborative, win -win or creating value).
In this kind of bargaining, there is a variable amount of resources to be divided and both sides can "win." The
dominant concern here is to maximize joint outcomes. An example is resolving a different opinion about
where you and a friend want to go to dinner. Another example is a performance appraisal situation with a
subordinate or resolving a situation of a subordinate who keeps coming in late to work. Dominant strategies
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
bc41d949c8c6-1
|
in this mode include cooperation, sharing information, and mutual problem solving. This type is also called
"creating value" since the goal here is to have both sides leave the negotiating feeling they had greater valu e
than before.
It needs to be emphasized that many situations contain elements of both distributive and integrative
bargaining.. For example, in negotiating a price with a customer, to some degree your interests oppose the
customer (you want a higher price ; he wants a lower one) but to some degree you want your interests to
coincide (you want both your customer and you to satisfy both of your interests -you want to be happy; you
want your customer to be happy). The options can be seen in the table below:
Top
Integrative or Win -Win Bargaining: The Critical Points
Plan and have a concrete strategy: Be clear on what is important to you
Separate people from the problem
Emphasize win-win solutions:
Focus on interests , not positions
Create Options for Mutual Gain: Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
13c94dafa725-0
|
Aim for an outcome be based on some objective standard
Consider the other party's situation :
Know your BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Alternative)
Pay a lot of attention to the flow of negotiation
Take the Intangibles into account
Use Active Liste ning Skills
Top
Do some thinking ahead of time:
Planning for the Negot iation
Before the negotiation it is helpful to plan. Know whether you are in a win -win or win -lose situation.
Be sure of your goals, positions, and underlying interests. Try to figure out the best resolution you can
expect, what is a fair and reasonable de al and what is a minimally acceptable deal. What information do you
have and what do you need. What are your competitive advantages and disadvantages. What is the other's
advantages and disadvantages. Give some thought to your strategy.
It is very importan t to be clear on what is important to you. Be clear about your real goals and real issues
and try to figure out the other person's real goals and issues. Too many negotiations fail because people are
so worried about being taken advantage of that they forg et their needs. People who lose track of their own
goals will break off negotiations even if they have achieved their needs because they become more
concerned with whether the other side "won."
It is helpful to have a min -max strategy. Have a "walk -away" p osition. When entering a negotiation or
conflict resolution, make sure you have already thought about answers to these questions: Planning for the
negotiation: The min -max approach
1. What is the minimum I can accept to resolve the conflict?
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
13c94dafa725-1
|
1. What is the minimum I can accept to resolve the conflict?
2. What is the ma ximum I can ask for without appearing outrageous;
3. What is the maximum I can give away?
4. What is the least I can offer without appearing outrageous?
5. Try to predict the answers the other person will have to these questions
It is important to know your com petitive advantage -your strongest points. Also you need to know the
advantages to the other's argument. Similarly, know your weaknesses and the other's weaknesses.
In most conflict resolution or negotiation situations you will have a continuing relationshi p with the other
person so it is important to leave the situation with both sides feeling they have "won." It is very important
that the other person doesn't feel that he or she "lost." When the other person loses, the results are often lack
of commitment to the agreement or even worse, retaliation. The most common failure is the failure of
negotiating parties to recognize (or search for) the integrative potential in a negotiating problem ; beneath
hardened positions are often common or shared interests.
Separate people from the problem
Address problems, not personalities: Avoid the tendency to attack your opponent personally; if the other
person feels threatened, he defends his self -esteem and makes attacking the real problem more difficult;
separate the pe ople issues from the problem
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
872fbb5ae41f-0
|
Maintain a rational, goal oriented frame of mind: if your opponent attacks you personally, don't let him hook
you into an emotional reaction; let the other blow off steam without taking it personally; try to understand
the prob lem behind the aggression
Emphasize win -win solutions:
Even in what appears to be win -lose situaitons, there are often win -win solutions; look for an integrative
solution; create additional alternatives, such as low cost concessions that might have high value to the other
person; frame options in terms of the other person's interests; look for alternatives that allow your opponent
to declare victory
Find underlying interests
A key to success is finding the "integrative" issues --often they can be found in underlying interests.
We are used to identifying our own interests, but a critical element in negotiation is to come to
understanding the other person's underlying interests and underlying needs. With probing and exchanging
information we can find the commonalities between us and minimize the differences that se em to be evident.
Understanding these interests is the key to "integrative bargaining." The biggest source of failure in
negotiation is the failure to see the "integrative" element of most negotiation. Too often we think a situation
is win -lose when it is actually a win -win situation. This mistaken view causes us to often use the wrong
strategy. Consider a situation where your boss rates you lower on a performance appraisal than you think
you deserve. We often tend to see this as win -lose-either he/she give s in or I give in. There is probably a
much higher chance of a successful negotiation if you can turn this to a win -win negotiation.
A key part in finding common interests is the problem identification . It is important to define the problem
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
872fbb5ae41f-1
|
in a way that i s mutually acceptable to both sides. This involves depersonalizing the problem so as not to
raise the defensiveness of the other person. Thus the student negotiating a problem with a professor is likely
to be more effective by defining the problem as "I ne ed to understand this material better" or "I don't
understand this" rather than "You're not teaching the material very well."
Use an Objective Standard
Try to have the result be based on some objective standard. Make your negotiated decision based on
princ iples and results, not emotions or pressure; try to find objective criteria that both parties can use to
evaluate alternatives; don't succumb to emotional please, assertiveness, or stubborness
Try to understand the other person: Know his/her situation
Often we tend to focus on our needs, our goals, and our positions. To successfully resolve conflict, it is
important to focus also on the other person. We need to figure out what the other's goals, needs, and
positions are as well as their underlying interests . We need to think about the personality of the other person,
how far we can push, how open or concealed we should make our positions.
Acquire as much information about the other's interests and goals; what are the real needs vs. wants; what
constituencies must he or she appease? What is her strategy? Be prepared to frame solutions in terms of her
interests.
An important part of this is to recognize that people place very different values on issues than ourselves. For
example, a clean room may be much more important to you than it is to your roommate. We must
understand how the other person sees reality, not just how we see reality.
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
872fbb5ae41f-2
|
understand how the other person sees reality, not just how we see reality.
If through pressure, deception or sheer aggressiveness, we push people to the point where they see
themselves as likely to lose , this creates problems. The opponent will retaliate and fight back; losers often
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
b047957d87bc-0
|
lose commitment to their bargain. Also negotiators get reputations that can backfire. Remember that
settlements which are most satisfactory and durable are the ones that addr ess the needs of both parties.
Know Your Best Alternative
Try to explore the other side's BATNA and certainly be aware of your own. See if you can change the other
person's BATNA. If the other person's BATNA is poor (the alternatives to reaching an agreeme nt with you
are unattractive), you are in a better position.
Top
Paying Attention to the Flow of Negotiation:
Negotiation is a sequence of events
There is a tendency to think about conflict or the negotiating situation as an isolated incident. It is probably
more useful to think about conflict as a process, or a complex series of events over time involving both
external factors and internal social and psychological factors. Conflict episodes typically are affected by
preceding and in turn produce res ults and outcomes that affect the conflict dynamics.
A negotiation usually involves a number of steps including the exchange of proposals and counter proposals.
In good -faith negotiation, both sides are expected to make offers and concessions. Your goal he re isnot only
to try to solve the problem, but to gain information - information that will enable you to get a clearer notion
of what the true issues might be and how your "opponent" sees reality. Through offers and counter offers
there should be a goal of a lot of information exchange that might yield a common definition of the problem.
Such an approach suggests the importance of perception -conflict is in the eye of the beholder. Thus,
situations which to an outside observer should produce conflict may not if the parties either ignore or choose
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
b047957d87bc-1
|
to ignore the conflict situation. Conversely, people can perceive a conflict situation when in reality there is
none.
Next, once aware of the conflict, both parties experience emotional reactions to it and think about it in
various ways. These emotions and thoughts are crucial to the course of the developing conflict. For example,
a negotiation can be greately affected if people react in anger perhaps resulting from past conflict.
Then based on the thoughts and emotion s that arise in the process of conflict resolution, we formulate
specific intentions about the strategies we will use in the negotiation. These may be quite general (eg. plan to
use a cooperative approach) or quite specific (eg. use a specific negotiating tactic).
Finally, these intentions are translated into behavior. These behaviors in turn elicit some responde from the
other person and the process recycles.
This approach suggests we pay particular attention to these generalizations:
Conflict is an ongoin g process that occurs against a backdrop of continuing relationships and events;
Such conflict involves the thoughts, perceptions, memories, and emotions of the people involved; these
must be considered.
Negotiations are like a chess match; have a strategy; anticipate how the other will respond; how strong is
your position, and situation; how important is the issue; how important will it be to stick to a hardened
position.
Begin with a positive approach:Tr y to establish rapport and mutual trust before starting; try for a small
concession early
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
01bfb2b1a390-0
|
Pay little attention to initial offers: these are points of departure; they tend to be extreme and idealistic;
focus on the other person's interests and your own goal s and principles, while you generate other
possibilities
Top
The Inta ngibles:
Other Elements that affect negotiation
Intangibles are often the key factors in many negotiations. Some of these intangibles are:
Personalities: be conscious of aspects of your personality such of your own needs and interpersonal style as
well as the other person's personality; these factors will play a key role and understanding yourself will be an
important factor
Your own personality and style : how much you trust the person; how free with your emotions; how much
you want to conceal or reveal;
Physical space: sometimes where the negotiation takes place can be important; are we negotiating in a
space we are uncomfortable and other is comfortable?
Past interaction: if there is a history of conflict resolution with this person, think about how this h istory
might affect the upcoming negotiation
Time pressure: Think about whether time pressure will affect the negotiation and whether you need to try
to change this variable?
Subjective utilities : be aware that people place very different values on element s of a negotiation. For
example, in negotiating for a job, you may place a high value on location and relatively lower on salary; it is
important to be aware of your subjective utilities and try to ascertain the other person's subjective utilities;
it is d ifficult to know in advance or even during the negotiation what a particular outcome will mean to the
other party. Finding out what is "valued" is one of the key parts of negotiation.
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
01bfb2b1a390-1
|
Understand the Context for the Conflict
o what are the important personal and organizational consequences of the conflict? What are possible
future consequences?
o What behavior patterns characterize the conflict
o What are the substantive issues? Are the issues biased by each side's perceptions and feelings?
o What are the underlying or background factors that have lead to the situation and the related
feelings, perceptions, and behaviors?
Be an active Listener:
Good communication skills are critical although it is easy to forget them in the "heat of battle." Try to
separate the probl em from the person. Focus on the problem (eg. "this accounting concept is unclear to me")
not the person (eg. "you did a lousy job explaining this"). When we tie the person to the problem, the other
person gets defensive and communication tends to become v ery difficult.
Don't: Talk at the other side, focus on the past, blame the other person. Do: Be an "active listener.
This involves continuously checking to see if you are understanding the other person.
Restate the other's position to make sure you are he aring him or her correctly. Focus on
the future; talk about what is to be done; tackle the problem jointly.
Top
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
9f28b7675bad-0
|
How can I change what seems like a "win -lose" situation to a "win -win" (or what if
the other person doesn't play by these rules?)
There are many advantages to trying to shift a w in/lose situation to a win/win. Yet we
will be in situations where the other person either doesn't wish to reach a "win -win" or
doesn't realize it is in his or her best interest to achieve a collaborative solution. In these
situations it is necessary for u s to open lines of communication, increasing trust and
cooperativeness.
Sometimes conflicts escalate, the atmosphere becomes charged with anger, frustration,
resentment, mistrust, hostility, and a sense of futility. Communication channels close
down or are used to criticize and blame the other. We focus on our next assault. The
original issues become blurred and ill -defined and new issues are added as the conflict
becomes personalized. Even if one side is willing to make concessions often hostility
prevents agreements. In such a conflict, perceived differences become magnified, each
side gets locked into their initial positions and each side resorts to lies, threats, distortions,
and other attempts to force the other party to comply with demands.
It is not e asy to shift this situation to a win -win but the following lists some techniques
that you might use:
reduce tension through humor, let the other "vent," acknowledge the other's
views, listen actively, make a small concession as a signal of good faith
incre ase the accuracy of communication; listen hard in the middle of conflict;
rephrase the other's comments to make sure you hear them; mirror the other's
views
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
9f28b7675bad-1
|
views
control issues: search for ways to slice the large issue into smaller pieces;
depersonalize the con flict--separate the issues from the people
establish commonalities: since conflict tends to magnify perceived differences
and minimize similarities, look for greater common goals (we are in this together);
find a common enemy; focus on what you have in com mon
focus less on your position and more on a clear understanding of the other's
needs and figure out ways to move toward them
make a "yesable" proposal; refine their demand; reformulate; repackage;
sweeten the offer; emphasize the positives
find a legitim ate or objective criteria to evaluate the solution (eg. the blue book
value of a car)
Top
Some Tricks that Skilled Negotiators Use
We constantly trade -off in negotiations. An examples is when a union negotiation trades
wage gains for job security. An important ingredient of negotiation is assessing the trade -
offs. In general, we start by identifying the best and worst possible outcomes, and then
specify possible increments that trade -offs can reflect, and finally, consider how the
increments relate to the key issues.
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
c2474d6a1892-0
|
If we pursue "integrative bargaining," we t ry to create gains for both parties. An example
is offering something less valuable to us but more valuable to the other person (eg., the
other person may highly value payment in cash rather than through financing whereas we
may be indifferent to this). Th e following are ways of creating joint gains.
When to reveal your position: This depends on the other person. It is not a good idea to
reveal your minimum position if the other person needs to feel he has worked hard to
reach it; the other person may need to feel he or she has worked very hard to move you to
your position.
Case from a workshop on negotiation :
We had to sell a training program to Sue, a former member of our law firm We knew she
needed to purchase a program and she also held a grudge against our firm. Mary heaped
abuse on us. I wanted to punch her, but Chuck (my partner) just smiled and began
applying some standard negotiating principles.
First, he identified our interests as the selling of a program at a decent price and the
maintenance of a good relationship with Mary and her law firm (focus on interests, not
positions). Next, he completely ignored Mary's obnoxious personality (separate p eople
from problems). And he offered to sell Mary only the latest program, with a price break
for a quick sale (options for mutual gain).
But his most effective technique was the "jujitsu." When the other side pushes, don't push
back. When they attack, don 't counterattack; rethink their attack as an attack on mutual
problems. Two tools are used --ask questions instead of making statements, and respond
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
c2474d6a1892-1
|
problems. Two tools are used --ask questions instead of making statements, and respond
with prolonged silence in the face of unreason. Chuck used them both, and we completed
the sale and got a be tter price than we had hoped for. Other Techniques you can use
Broadening the Pie: Create additional resources so that both sides can obtain
their major goals
Nonspecific Compensation : One side gets what it wants and the other is
compensated on another iss ue
Logrolling Each party makes concessions on low -priority issues in exchange for
concessions on issues that it values more highly
Cost Cutting: one party gets what it wants; the costs to the other are reduced or
eliminated
Bridging : Neither party gets it s initial demands but a new option that satisfies the
major interests of both sides are developed
Top
What if I want "to win" and I don't care about the other person's interests
(Distributive or win -lose Bargaining)
In this situation, strategy is dif ferent than in integrative bargaining. In this mode, one
seeks to gain advantage through concealing information, misleading, or using
manipulative actions. Of course, these methods have serious potential for negative
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
9c89500238bb-0
|
consequences. Yet even in this type of negotiation, both sides must feel that at the end the
outcome was the best that they could achieve and that it is worth accepting and
supporting.
Most critical in this mode is to set one's own opening target and resistance points and to
learn what the othe r's starting points, target points, and resistance points are. Typically,
the resistance point (the point beyond which a party will not go) is usually unknown until
late in negotiation and is often jealously concealed by the other party. This is what you
need to find out.
The range between resistance points is typically the bargaining range; if this number is
negative, successful negotiation is usually impossible. For example, if you are willing to
pay up to $3,000 and the seller is willing to go as low as $2800, there is a $200 positive
spread or bargaining range if the negotiators are skillful enough to figure it out. The goal
of a competitive bargaining situation is to get the final settlement to be as close to the
other party's resistance point as possib le. The basic techniques open to the negotiator to
accomplish this include
influence the other person's belief in what is possible (eg. a car dealer telling you
what your used car is worth)
learn as much as possible about the other person's position especi ally with regard
to resistance points
try to convince the other to change his/her mind about their ability to achieve
their own goals
promote your own objectives as desirable, necessary, ethical, or even inevitable.
Top
Is it ethical to "lie or bluff" in negot iations?
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
9c89500238bb-1
|
Is it ethical to "lie or bluff" in negot iations?
The answer to this question depends on one's values, one's culture, and the situation.
What might be acceptable in poker would probably not be acceptable in most business
situations. What might be acceptable in Cairo might not be acceptable in Boston.
Different cultures and different situations contain inherent "rules" about the degree to
which bluffing or misrepresentation is deemed acceptable.
In poker and in general negotiations one is not expected to reveal strength or intentions
prematurely. But discre tion in making claims and statements syhould not be confused
with misrepresentation. In general, in our culture, our "rules" forbid and should penalize
outright lying, false claims, bribing an opponent, stealing secrets, or threatening an
opponent. While t here may be a fine line between legitimate and illegitimate withholding
of facts, there is a line and again we are distinguishing between the careful planning of
when and how to reveal facts vs. outright lying.
Bluffing, while it may be ethical, does entai l risk. The bluffer who is called loses
credibility and it can get out of hand. Also remember, that most negotiations are carried
out with people with whom you will have a continuing relationship. Again, while our
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
9b23d11a3a1c-0
|
culture supports and encourages those who are careful about how and when to disclose
facts, out culture does not condone outright lying.
An old British Diplomat Service manual stated the following and it still might be useful.
Nothing may be said which is not true, but it is as unnecessary as it i s sometimes
undesirable to say everything relevant which is true; and the facts given may bve arrange
din any convenient order. The perfect reply to an embarassing question is one that is
brief, appears to answer the question completely (if challenged it c an be proved to be
accurate in every word), gives no opening for awkward follow -up questions, and
discloses really nothing.
Skilled negotiators develop techniques to do this. A favorite one is to answer a question
with a question to deflect the first quest ion.
Top
Final Advice
Be unconditionally constructive. Approach a neg otiation with this -- 'I accept you as an
equal negotiating partner; I respect your right to differ; I will be receptive.' Some
criticize my approach as being too soft. But negotiating by these principles is a sign of
strength.
R. Fisher and R. Ury,"Getting to Yes"
All of us engage in many negotiations during a week but that doesn't mean we become
better at it. To become better we need to become aware of the structure and dynamics of
negotiation and we need to think systematically, objectively, and criticall y about our own
negotiations. After engaging in a negotiation, reflect on what happened and figure out
what you did effectively and what you need to do better.
There is no one "best" style; each of us has to find a style that is comfortable for us. Yet,
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
9b23d11a3a1c-1
|
everyone can negotiate successfully; everyone can reach agreements where all sides feel
at least some of their needs have been satisfied. This involves a lot of alertness, active
listening, good communication skills, great flexibility, good preparation, and above all it
involves a sharing of responsibility for solving the problem, not a view that this is "their"
problem.
To summarize the most important keys to successful conflict resolution:
bargain over interests, not predetermined positions
de-personalize the problem (separate the person from the problem)
separate the problem definition from the search for solutions
try to generate alternative solutions; try to use objective criteria as much as
possible
reflect on your negotiations; learn fro m your successes and mistakes
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
7d6b82ee955b-0
|
Have unlimited patience. Never corner an opponent and always assist the other person
to save his face. Put yourself in his shoes -so as to see things through his eyes. Avoid self -
righteousness like the devil -nothing is so self -blinding.
B. H. Liddell Hart, historian
Top
Appendix 1: Some Types of Negotiators
the aggressive
opener negotiator unsettle the other side by making cutting remarks about their
previous performance, unreasonabless, or anything t hat can imply the opponent is
worth little
the long pauser
list to the other side but don't answer immediately; appear to give it considerable
thought with long silences; hope the silence will get the other side to reveal information
you need
the mocking n egotiator
mock and sneer your opposition's proposals to get the other side so upset that they will
say something they may regret later
the interrogator
meet all proposals with searching questions that will imply the opponents haven't done
their homework; c hallenge any answers in a confronting manner and ask the opposition
to explain further what they mean
the cloak of reasonableness
appear to be reasonable while makng impossible demands for the purpose of winning
the friendship and confidence of the others
divide and conquer
produce dissension among opposition so they have to pay more attention to their own
internal disagreements rather than the disagreements with the opposition; ally with one
member of the team and try to play him or her off against the oth er members of the
team.
the "act dumb" negotiator
pretend to be particularly dense and by doing so exasperate the opposition in hopes
that at least one member of the opposing team will reveal information as he tries to find
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
7d6b82ee955b-1
|
that at least one member of the opposing team will reveal information as he tries to find
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
bc8fe67a3855-0
|
increasingly simple ways to describe proposals with each proposal being elaborated and
amplified so anyone can understand it
Top
Appendix 2: Three Styles: Soft, Hard, and Principled Negotiation
Soft Hard Principled
friends
goals: agreement
make concessions
be soft on people and
problems
trust others
change positione asily
make offers
disclose bottom line
accept one sided loss
search for acceptable answer
insist on agreement
try to avoid contest of wills
yield to pressure adversaries
victory
demand concessions
be hard on problem and people
distrust others
dig in
make threats
mislead
dem and one sided gain
search for one answer you will
accept
insist on your position
try to win context of wills
apply pressure problem solvers
wise outcome
separate people from problem
be soft on people, hard on problems
proceed independent of trust
focus on interests not positions
explore interests
avoid having bottom line
invent options for mutual gain
develop multiple options
insist on objective criteria
try to reach result based on
standards
yield to principle not pressure
Top
Dealing with Difficult People
Hostile Aggressive
Stand up for yourself; use self -assertive language
give them time to run down......avoid a direct confrontation
Complainers
Listen attentively; acknowledge their feelings; avoid complaining with them
state the facts without apology.... ...use a problem solving mode
Claims:
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
bc8fe67a3855-1
|
state the facts without apology.... ...use a problem solving mode
Claims:
keep asking open ended questions; be patient in waiting for a response
if no response occurs, tell them what you plan to do, because no discussion has
taken place
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
0aec902b5ae1-0
|
Superaggreables:
In a non -threatening manner, work ha rd to find out why they will not take action
Let them know you value them as people
Be ready to compromise and negotiate, and don't allow them to make unrealistic
commitments
Try to discern the hidden meaning in their humor
Negativists:
Do not be dragged into their despair.........Do not try to cajole them out of their
negativism
Discuss the problems thoroughly, without offering solutions
When alternatives are discussed, bring up the negatives yourself
Be ready to take action alone, witho ut their agreement
Know -it-Alls
Bulldozers: Prepare yourself; listen and paraphrase their main points; question to
raise problems
Balloons: state facts or opinions as your own perception of reality; find a way for
balloons to safe face; confront in privat e
Indecisive Stallers
Raise the issue of why they are hesitant...Possibly remove the staller from the
situation
If you are the problem, ask for help.....Keep the action steps in your own hands
(from Coping with Difficult People, R. M. Bramson, Doubleday, 1981)
Top
Some Principles of Third Person Mediation
Acknlowledge that you know the conflict exists and propose an approach for
resolving it
Try to maintain a neutral position regarding the people in the dispute
Make sure the discussion focuses on issues, not on personalities
Try to get the people to focus on areas where they might agree
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
0aec902b5ae1-1
|
Try to get the people to focus on areas where they might agree
Try to separate the issues and deal with them one at the time, starting with those
where agreement might be easiest
You are not a judge, but rather a facilitator; Judges deal with problems; you deal
with solutions -your focus is not on who is right and who is wrong
Make sure people agree on the solutions that are agreed upon
Top
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
194a2ad1b879-0
|
from Negotiation to Win
If your approach is a win -lose or distributive bargaining approach, you might prefer
these ideas :
The Critical Rule s
no free gifts; trade every concession; use the big IF
start high, make small concessions, especially in the end; try to have the other
side make the first offer on the issues being negotiated
be patient; remember to nibble at the end
keep looking for creative concessions to trade
The Important but Obvi ous Rule s
do your homework; start slowly; set a complete agenda
keep the climate positive; discuss small things first
remember that everything is negotiable
never accept their first offer; settle everything at the end
leave the other side feeling it has done well
consider using the good guy -bad guy approach
try to have the other
Top
Krunchlist
This is a brief list and I encourage you to add your own suggestions :
Sweet gentle krunches
Where do we go from here...what are we really talking about here...What can we
do about this? This doesn' t work for us.
I've got a problem with this; Where can you help me cut this; That really isn't
what I expected; I know we can do better
Take another look at the numbers; Budgets are tight; That would be really tough
for us
I hope we have room to negotiate; Can we talk; Work with me on this...
Middle of the Road Krunches
You've got to do better on this; That's not acceptable; I'm a bit disappointed in
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
194a2ad1b879-1
|
your offer; You're too expensive
Run that by me again; I can't afford that; That won't do; Pass, No sale; That's a
pretty big bite
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
60debe883d07-0
|
Be reasonable; I don't think we're communicating
You're not giving me anything on this; That doesn't turn me on; Perhaps we have
a misunderstanding here
I'm l ooking for a much better number; They'll never buy that; We're still not
there; No can do;
You're not speaking my language; It'll never fly; How much???? What???
Regional and Ethnic Krunche s
(heard in NYC) Talk to me; You're bustin my chops; I can't hear y ou; You're killin
me; Do you want my children to starve
(in the South) Say what?? There's not enough juice in that for us; That's not a big
enough work; That bug won't boil; That dog won't hunt/pig won't fly; you're in
the right church but the wrong pew; w e're within huggin distance, but we're not
ready to kiss yet; which end of the horse do you think you're talking to?
More aggressive krunche s
Ouch; Yeah right; Time out; That's below my cost; Do you want my business or
what; You want me to lose my job
No w ay; I thought we were friends; I'm not a tourist, I live here; We're not the
Salvation Army; We must have a bad connection
What's your real offer; that really hurts; I don't want the gold plating; Would you
like my arm and leg too; Gimme a break
You're not even close; I've got a family to feed; The decimal point must be off; I
love your humor; Be serious
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
60debe883d07-1
|
love your humor; Be serious
At that price, we can't even talk; You're gonna kill us; You're really squeezing me;
Where's the fat
What's the bottom line -is that your target or bottom line
Inflammatory krunches (be sure to smile )
You're insulting my intelligence; I was born at night, not last night
Over my dead body; Who do you think you are; Do you have a bridge you'd like to
sell me
Is that in dollars or pesos? Are we in Oz; Is this April Fools Day
You ought to be in comedy; 50,000 comedians out of work and you're trying to be
funny
Go ahead and shoot me; Go ahead and call 911; Get outta here; Go rub a lamp
Is it on loan from a museu m; You're dreaming; Is this a negotiation or a burial
(for a job offer) I didn't know it was part -time
When donkeys fly; what planet are you from; My mama didn't raise no fool
Not in my lifetime; you call that an offer; Did you drink your lunch; I thought I had
a drinking problem
What are you smoking; did you take your medication; let's wait til your 'ludes
wear off
Don't let the door slam on the way out; Have a nice flight home
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
2175b2546e80-0
|
That's your competition in the lobby
Nonverbal krunche s
feigned heart attack, choking, rolling eyes, looking at ceiling
caucus; pulling necktie over head (noose)
Responses to krunche s
make me an offer; what are you looking for; what could you live with; what do
you need
do you have a figure in mind; give me a number; what's your budget; what is fair
What is the problem; what were you thinking about
If you were in my shoes, what would you do
Top
Evaluating Your Negotiation Skills
Negotiation Exercise: _______________My Name ___________ Partner Fill this out
after the interaction/negotiation; you are encouraged to discuss your critique directly
with your partner. You can learn a lot from each other.
What are your key impressions of the other person:
What techniques did the other person use in dealing with the conflict/negotiation
In the interaction, did you........ win, lose, deadlock, both win, both lose?
rank from 1 (not true at all) to 5 (Very true)
The negotiation was very effective___
I left the negotiation satisfied ___
My "opponent" was easy to understand___
She/he made me f eel comfortable___
She/he listened well___
She/he was credible___ He/she created a cooperative climate___
What style of interaction was used: (tell and sell,
tell and listen, problem solving)
Rank the other person (your "opponent") on these variables:
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
2175b2546e80-1
|
Rank the other person (your "opponent") on these variables:
Cooperative 1 2 3 4 5 Competitive
Judgmental 1 2 3 4 5 Empathetic
Controlling 1 2 3 4 5 Problem Oriented
Supportive 1 2 3 4 5 Defensive
Comfortable 1 2 3 4 5 Suspicious
Cautious 1 2 3 4 5 Open/trusting
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
f77cf0684801-0
|
Credible 1 2 3 4 5 not credible
listened 1 2 3 4 5 Tuned out
Honest 1 2 3 4 5 Dishonest
Interested in me 1 2 3 4 5 Not interested
Easy to understand 1 2 3 4 5 Hard to understand
Look at these Overall Guidelines for Effective Negotiation and rank how well you did
(5=excellent); rank your "opponent"
Me Opponent
--- --- Consider the other party's situation:
acquire as much information about the other's interests and goals; what are the real needs
vs. wants; what constituencies must he or she appease? What is her strategy? Be prepared
to frame solutions in terms of her interests.
--- --- Have a concrete strate gy:
Negotiations are like a chess match; have a strategy; anticipate how the other will
respond; how strong is your position, and situation; how important is the issue; how
important will it be to stick to a hardened position.
--- --- Begin with a positiv e approach :
Try to establish rapport and mutual trust before starting; try for a small concession early.
--- --- Address problems, not personalities:
Avoid the tendency to attack your opponent personally; if the other person feels
threatened, he defends his self -esteem and makes attacking the real problem more
difficult; separate the people issues from the problem
--- --- Maintain a rational, goal oriented frame of mind:
if your opponent attacks you personally, don't let him hook you into an emotional
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
f77cf0684801-1
|
if your opponent attacks you personally, don't let him hook you into an emotional
reaction; let the other blow off steam without taking it personally; try to understand the
problem behind the aggression.
--- --- Pay little attention to initial offers:
these are points of departure; they tend to be extreme and idealistic; focus on the oth er
person's interests and your own goals and principles, while you generate other
possibilities.
--- --- Emphasize win -win solutions:
Even in what appears to be win -lose situaitons, there are often win -win solutions; look for
an integrative solution; crea te additional alternatives, such as low cost concessions that
might have high value to the other person; frame options in terms of the other person's
interests; look for alternatives that allow your opponent to declare victory
--- --- Insist on using objec tive criteria :
Make your negotiated decision based on principles and results, not emotions or pressure;
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
100303a51bbc-0
|
try to find objective criteria that both parties can use to evaluate alternatives; don't
succumb to emotional please, assertiveness, or stubborness
(on the back) What specific suggestions can you give the other person to help him or her
be more effective in negotiations.
REFERENCES
1. Nierenberg, Gerard, Fundamentals of Negotiation,
2. James Ware and Louis B. Barnes, "Managing Interpersonal Conflict," HBR, 1978.
3. Fisher, Roger and William Ury, "Getting to Yes"
4. Gourlay, R. "Negotiations and Bargaining," Management Decision 25(3)(1987):23.
5. Pruitt, D. G. "Strategic Choice in Negotiation," American Behavioral Scientist 27
(November -Decemer 1983): 167 -194.
6. Lax, D. A. an d J. K. Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator, (New York: Free Press,
1986).
7. Savage, G. T., J. D. Blair, and R. L. Sorenson, "Consider both the relationships and
substance when negotiating strategically," Academy of Management Executive
3(1) (1989): 40.
|
data/Negotiation Skills.pdf
|
1a56493fc962-0
|
SEVEN ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS
December 2008 – Jerome Slavik
Adapted from Getting To Yes – Negotiating Agreements Without Giving In, R. Fisher and W . Ury
1. RELATIONSHIP: AM I PREPARED TO DEAL WITH THE RELATIONSHIP?
a) A good negotiating relationsh ip is needed to address differences and conflicts.
b) Separate people issues from substantive issues.
c) Plan and prepare to build and maintain a good working relationship.
d) Be respectful, trustworthy and unconditional constructive.
2. COMMUNICATION: AM I READY T O LISTEN AND TALK EFFECTIVELY?
CREATING A LEARNING CONVERSATION
a) Core Skills – Basic Communication Skills in Negotiation
i. Active listening – To do active listening, we must overcome some of our
tendencies and habits that interfere with good listen ing.
ii. Acknowledging what has been said and felt – Have you effectively
demonstrated to the other negotiators that you have heard and
UNDERSTOOD what they have said? Use paraphrasing and summarizing.
iii. Listen to understand, speak to be understood – Have you thought about
ways to communicate with the ot her party by using words (and at the right
time) in a way that they will understand?
iv. Speak about yourself, not them – Have you let them know what are the
crucial issues for you and your community and how you fee l about the
problem at hand? Use “I” statements.
v. Speak for a purpose – Have you thought t hrough the timing and impact of
|
data/HMS.HHSD_.HSPH_.OmbudsOffice.SEVEN ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS.pdf
|
1a56493fc962-1
|
v. Speak for a purpose – Have you thought t hrough the timing and impact of
what you wish to say? Be clear and concise.
b) Core Skills – Communications to Gather Knowledge and Learn About Their Interest s
i. Clarifyin g and Probing Skills
Have you thought about basic questions for clarification (including
empathetic questions) you might ask to draw out the interests from
the other negotiators? E.g. can you explain…?
Could you use consequential questions to draw out the other side?
E.g. what would you need to…?
HMS/HSDM/HSPH OMBUDS OFFICE
Melissa Brodrick, Ombudsperson, [email protected]
164 Longwood Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115
617-432-4040 (Ombuds line) 617 -432-4041 (office line)
|
data/HMS.HHSD_.HSPH_.OmbudsOffice.SEVEN ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS.pdf
|
4d27f491d7a6-0
|
ii. Integr ative Framing Skills
Paraphrasing – Have you given feedback in your own words or what
you understand the key concerns and interests on the other side to
be?
Summarizing – Can you accurately draw togeth er the main points of
the discussion up to that point in time?
3. INTEREST S: WHAT DO PEOPLE REALLY WANT?
a) Collectively identify and articulate the interests, concerns, and needs of all relevant
parties (mine, your s, theirs). Remember: most parties do not k now all their
interests or necessarily agree on their interests.
b) Identify and prioritize community interests together. Get on the same page.
c) Probe for your and their unarticulated or underlying interests.
d) Share and clarify the respective interests of the parties. Move beyond speculation
about to acknowledgement of their interests.
e) Identify and share common interests as a basis to develop options.
f) Interests from the agenda.
4. OPTIONS: WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE AGREEMENTS OR BITS OF AN AGREEMENT?
a) Design options , not positions.
b) Create options to meet interests of both parties .
c) Remember when designing options they also must transparently meet their
interests. Find ways to maximize joint gains for both.
5. ALTERNATIVES: WHAT WILL I DO IF WE DO NOT AGREE?
a) Do we need to negotiate or can we satisfactorily meet our interests in other ways?
b) Identify and articulate our best/doable alternatives to a negotiated agreement.
c) Fully understand the implication, consequences, risks and costs of your and their
BATNA.
|
data/HMS.HHSD_.HSPH_.OmbudsOffice.SEVEN ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS.pdf
|
4d27f491d7a6-1
|
BATNA.
d) Select and imp rove our BATNA
e) Identify the best and worst alternatives open to the other side.
f) How can we make their BATNA worse for them? (i.e. keep them at the table)
6. LEGITIMACY: WHAT CRITERIA WILL I USE TO PERSUADE EACH OF US THAT WE ARE
NOT BEING RIPPED OF F?
a) Fairness is a governing consideration.
b) Use external criteria and objective standards as a basis to legitimize your preferred
options and as a shield against unreasonable proposals from the other side.
|
data/HMS.HHSD_.HSPH_.OmbudsOffice.SEVEN ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS.pdf
|
8731e1e08001-0
|
c) Use demonstrable “fairness” of the process and outco me to persuade them of the
merits of a proposal.
d) Offer their negotiator an attractive way to explain his decision to his principals (see
number 8).
7. COMMITMENT: WHAT COMMITMENTS SHOULD I SEEK OR MAKE?
a) Get commitments at the end
not the beginning.
b) Identify all of the implementation issues to be included in the agreement. No post -
argument surprises?
c) Plan the timeframe and steps to implement the agreement.
8. CONCLUSION: WHAT IS A GOOD OUTCOME?
a) Meet s interests.
b) Demonstrably fair.
c) Better than BATNA.
d) Doable.
s:\jns-r\files\jerome \2008 neg. workshop \seven elements of effective negotiations nov. 19 -08.doc
|
data/HMS.HHSD_.HSPH_.OmbudsOffice.SEVEN ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS.pdf
|
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 7