I. INTRODUCTION A. Negotiation is a fact of life. Everyone negotiates something every day. 1. Any method of negotiation may be judged by three criteria: a. b. c. Should produce wise agreement if agreement is possible; Should be efficient; Should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties.


Negotiation takes place on two levels: a. b. Addresses the substance; Focuses on the procedure for dealing with the substance.


Negotiations often viewed as either: a. “Hard” (1) (2) (3) participants are adversaries goal is victory demand concessions as a condition of the relationship


distrust others search for the single answer: the one you will accept try to win a contest of wills apply pressure

(5) (6) b. “Soft” (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

participants are friends goal is agreement make concessions to cultivate the relationship be soft on the people and the problem trust others change your position easily make offers search for the single answer: the one they will accept insist on agreement try to avoid contest of will yield to pressure

(9) (10) (11) 4.

Dangers of “positional” negotiations: a. Produces unwise agreements.

Multi-party negotiation complicate positional bargaining. Agreement requires concession. Negotiators locked into positions. (1) (2) Incentives to stall settlement. less attention devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties. Arguing over positions is inefficient. Four basic points: (1) (2) Separate the people from the problem. 3 . Anger/resentment may result from concessions required to reach agreement. (1) (2) Contest of will. d. Focus on interests.” a. Additional method of negotiations—“Principled negotiations. Endangers ongoing relationships. Changing position difficult. b. As more attention is paid to positions. (1) Varying positions make “common” position difficult.(1) (2) (3) Positions tied to ego. not positions. (2) 5. c.

PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION METHOD A. Negotiators on both sides of the issue bring emotion.(3) Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do. Separate the People from the Problem. 1. 4 . a. perceptions. Misunderstandings or personal perceptions of “facts” of negotiation may lead to reactions that produce counter-reactions that leads to failure of negotiation. and values to the negotiations. Discussions of substance entangled with emotions of issue. Seven Elements: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Interests Options Alternatives Legitimacy Communication Relationship Commitment II. 2. Insist that the result be based on some objective standard. (4) b.

Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate. (2) 3. Emotions. Ability to see the situation as the other side sees it is one of the most important skills a negotiator can possess. e. c. Understanding other side’s position does not mean agreeing with it. (1) (2) Identify source of emotions. d. a.(1) Statement may be intended to identify a problem but may be heard as an attack. Conflict lies in each side’s perception of the problem. f. Perceptions. Allow other side to let off steam. b. One way to deal with differing perceptions is to make them explicit and discuss them. Allow “face-saving”—reconciling an agreement with principle and self-image of the negotiators. Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with other side’s perceptions—may lead to change of perceptions. a. b. People draw inferences from comments that become “facts” about other individual’s intentions and attitudes. 4. Recognize and understand emotions—yours and theirs. 5 .

Other side may not be hearing you. Listen without responding. Solutions: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Listen actively. 5. Misunderstanding. Three problems: (1) (2) (3) b. Acknowledge what other side is saying. Negotiators may not be talking to each other. Even when don’t acknowledge personal responsibility. Don’t react to emotional outbursts. Use symbolic gestures.(1) (2) c. Talk—don’t debate. Speak about yourself--not about them. 6 . Communication. Acknowledgement is not agreement. Speak with a purpose. (1) (2) Apology can defuse emotions. a.

Help the other side understand how important and legitimate your interests are. a. b. a. without implying other side’s interests are unimportant. 1.B. Focus on interests. 5. Prioritize your interests—consider the other side’s priorities as well. 6. “Whose decision do I want to affect?” Look for the interests behind the position. Why does party hold that position? Ask why not?—why hasn’t other side taken the action you desire? 3. a. 4. b. 7 . b. not positions. 2. The most powerful interests are basic human needs. b. Identify the relevant parties. Interests define the problem. Negotiations are not likely to make progress if one side believes basic human needs threatened. Set forth the seriousness of your concerns. Look for conflicting as well as shared interests. Be specific. Each side has multiple interests. a.

While not tied to a position. c. b. Acknowledge their interests as part of the problem.7. b. Step 3: Approaches—what are possible strategies? Step 4: Action ideas. Remain flexible to solution that satisfies interests. Step 1: define the problem. Premature judgment. d. Four major obstacles that inhibit invention of options: a. Invent Options for Mutual Gain. Highlight shared interests. Assumption of a fixed pie. 8. c. Be concrete. b. Searching for the single answer. must be committed to the interests. 2. b.” Four basic steps for inventing options: a. 8 . yet flexible. 1. Demonstrate understanding of their interests. a. Thinking that “solving the problem is their problem. C. a. Step 2: Analysis—diagnose causes of the problem. d.

(1) Identify shared interests. Evaluate ideas and decide. Broaden the options on the table rather than looking for a single answer.3. Invent agreements of different strengths. a. Look for mutual gain. 9 . Invent improvement of promising ideas. (2) Post-brainstorming: (a) (b) (c) Identify most promising ideas. Change scope of proposed agreement. Choose a few participants. Separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them. (1) Brainstorming: (a) (b) (c) Define purpose. b. Inventing creative options. (2) (3) c. Clarify ground rules—including no criticism rule. (1) Examine problem from view of different professionals and disciplines.

(1) (2) Fair standards for the substantive question. (2) D. Stressing shared interests can make the negotiation smoother. Shared interests are opportunities. Option must be viewed as legitimate. Insist on using objective criteria. (a) (b) (c) (d) Different beliefs? Different valued placed on time? Different forecasts? Differences in aversion to risk? d.(a) Shared interests lie latent in every negotiation. 1. How do you develop objective criteria? a. Make their decision easy. (b) (c) (2) Dovetail differing interests. (1) Without some option that appeals to other side there will be no agreement. Independent of either side’s will. or Fair procedure for resolving conflicting interests. 10 .

Absolutely essential to know whether to accept alternative arrived at through negotiation versus ending negotiation.b. Select the alternatives that seem best. (3) d. Consider their BATNA: (1) Understanding BATNA helps you understand how to make agreement easier. E. Alternatives. b. Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). more probable. a. Alternatives are other ways of satisfying interests. Develop your BATNA: (1) (2) Invent a list of actions possible if no agreement. If you only accept a deal that is better than BATNA. Improve some of ideas from list. 11 . either through better agreement or going to the BATNA. improving BATNA leads to better result. Must consider other side’s BATNA as well as your own. Strengthen your BATNA: (1) How can you make BATNA easier. create practical alternatives. (2) e. 2. 1. or better at satisfying interest. c. Apply to both sides.

You continue to focus on merits. 1. c. rather than positions. b. Goal is to focus negotiator on merits (away from position). 12 . Typically. III. positional bargainer will use three maneuvers: (1) (2) Forcefully assert positions. When other side won’t play (hardball negotiator or positional negotiator insistent on asserting position only). GETTING TO AGREEMENT A. The ZOPA defines a “surplus” that must be divided between the parties. Counter positional bargaining to direct attention to merits (“negotiation jujitsu”). 3. f. Include a third party to focus discussion. Reservation Value: Translation of the BATNA into a value at the table—the amount at which you are indifferent between reaching a deal and walking away to your BATNA. Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA): the bargaining range created by the two reservation values. How? Three approaches: a. a. Negotiation Jujitsu. Attack ideas.(2) Understanding their BATNA allows you to estimate whether agreement is possible. 2. g.

Attack negotiator. When positional bargainer asserts position. invite criticism and advice. recast as an attack on the problem.(3) b. Recast attacks on you as an attack on the problem. When positional bargainer attacks your ideas. (2) d. they educate. e. especially when they have doubts of the merit of their position. (1) Use their negative judgments to find out their underlying interests and improve your ideas from their point of view. Questions do not criticize. Allow opponent to let off steam. 13 . look behind position to identify interests. (1) (2) Resist temptation to defend or counter-attack. Channel criticism in a constructive direction by turning situation around and asking for opponent’s advice—“what would you do in this situation?” c. Use silence. acknowledge understanding of their point. (a) People tend to feel uncomfortable with silence. (a) (b) (2) Questions offer no position to attack. Two key tools: (1) Use questions instead of statements.

Recognizing Hard-Bargaining Tactics: a. Third party revises draft until reaches “final” version. d. One-text procedure useful in multi-party negotiations to garner mutual agreement. Tactical advantage includes influencing opponent’s valuation of settlement range. Offers final version to each party with one decision—“yes” or “no” to the proposal. B. Using a third party—the “one-text procedure. Extreme claims. 14 . Third party devises draft solution. Third party explores interests of each party. Tactics—“Changing the Game. e. slow concessions. “Yes” decisions may be made contingent on other side making “yes” decision. Present draft solution to each party—each party offers criticism of draft. Tactical disadvantage—risk of no settlement. b. (3) b. 4. Commitment Tactics. f.(b) Silence creates impression of a stalemate. (1) (2) Most common of hard-bargaining tactics.” a. which other side may feel compelled to break with statement or suggestion.” 1. followed by small. c.

Boulwarism—no haggling.” 15 b. a. no deal. Risks: (a) If both parties are locked in.(1) One party persuades other that there is no freedom of choice with respect of a particular issue. “You’re essentially saying. take it or leave it. “Name the Game. Exploding offer—“take it today or it’s gone. no freedom on either side—no chance of deal. (1) One party threatens to end negotiation if offer is not accepted. (2) (b) c. (2) .” (1) Share your perceptions of what the other party is doing.we can both dig in and play chicken to see who blinks first. “I could report that my client insists on a certain provision…. “Take it or Leave it” Offers. Perception of pre-determined commitment damages relationships between parties. Changing the game.” Risk—if both sides play. (2) (3) (4) 2.” Show that you can play the same game. Stay with your game—don’t let hard-bargainer inhibit you from staying focused on your interests.

” means distancing yourself from your natural impulses and emotions—this keeps you focused on the ultimate goal—a deal that is better than your BATNA. Suspend natural reactions—three common reactions: (1) (2) (3) b.” a. Know your hot buttons. Change the players. Some tactics: (1) (2) Recognize the tactic. I think our shared problem is …. Giving In. c. negotiator).what can we do to set up a process to solve this mutual problem?” c. Getting past “No”—another strategy for getting to a mutually satisfactory agreement. (2) C.(3) Initiate a conversation about another process that might work better from the perspective of both parties. Five steps of “Breakthrough Strategy. 16 . “Going to the balcony. (1) Can change the players by removing certain parties (attorney. “Go to the Balcony.” 1. Striking back. Breaking Off. “Instead. or Can add neutral third party to assist.

Agree with them whenever possible. Acknowledge their point. Don’t make important decisions on the spot. Effective negotiators listen more than they talk! It is not enough just to listen. 17 . a. (3) b. Take a time-out. Acknowledge their point. (2) (3) (4) c. Step to their side. you must communicate that you have heard what the other party said—do this by paraphrasing and asking for corrections. their feelings and their competence and status.(3) (4) (5) (6) 2. Stepping to their side means doing three things: (1) (2) Listen to what the other party has to say. Pause and Say Nothing. Listen Actively. Rewind the tape. (1) Listening may be the cheapest concession you can make. Listening requires patience and self-discipline.

You have the power of positive perception—the ability to put a problem-solving frame around whatever the other side says. Offer an apology. Caution: an insincere acknowledgment is easy to spot. 18 . 3. Each yes reduces tension. Acknowledge their feelings. Reframing works because every message is subject to interpretation. b. Body language and tone count just as much as words. (3) e. Agree whenever you can. (1) (2) Agree without conceding. (2) d. (a) (b) Changes relationship between the parties. Acknowledging means that you view the other side’s point as one valid point of view among others. (1) (2) Behind an opponent’s position often lies emotions. Reframe: a. Accumulate Yeses.(1) Acknowledging does not mean agreeing with the other party’s point.

” above). Deflect attacks by changing attack on you to an attack on the problem. Tap the power of silence. c. b. a. Instead of pushing the other side toward an agreement. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 4. Unmet interests. Fear of losing face. Expose tricks (See “Name the Game.c. 19 . “Why Not?”. Reframing techniques: (1) Ask problem solving questions—“Why?”. Ask “What makes that fair?” Use open-ended questions. Build them a golden bridge. you need to reframe a retreat from their position as an advance toward a better solution. “What If?” Ask for the other party’s advice. Start from where the other side is in order to guide him toward eventual agreement. (1) (2) (3) Not their idea. Building a golden bridge makes it easier for the other side to surmount the four common obstacles to agreement.

Involve the other side. Too much too fast. (1) Help them back away without backing down. e. Point to a standard of fairness. (1) (2) (3) (4) Resistance often stems from unmet needs. Don’t dismiss needs as irrational. Satisfy unmet needs. Use an “if-then” formula. (1) (2) (3) Ask for and build on other side’s ideas. Offer them a choice. f. Don’t assume a fixed pie. high-benefit trades. Ask for constructive criticism. Help other side save face. (a) (b) Look for low-cost. Ask for third-party recommendation.(4) d. Don’t overlook basic human needs. (a) (b) (c) Show how circumstances have changed. 20 .

parties switch from problem solving game to power game. (a) “What do you think will happen if we don’t agree?” “What do you think I will do?” “What will you do?” b. Design deal to minimize risks. Use power to educate that only way for them to win is for both sides to win. 3. Remind opponent of golden bridge. (1) (2) Let them know the consequences. 21 . Build in dispute resolution procedures. 2. Often. Don’t Escalate: Use Power to Educate. 5. Ask reality-testing questions. Demonstrate your BATNA. (b) (c) (3) (4) (5) Warn. FORGE A LASTING AGREEMENT 1. Don’t rush to the finish. when negotiations are frustrating. don’t threaten. a.g. Don’t ignore implementation. IV.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful