WHO - Advanced Negotiation - PRINT BINDER

Advanced Negotiation
Participant Binder
Advanced Negotiation
This binder belongs to:
Table of Contents
Overview 4
The WHO Leader as Negotiator 10
The Mutual Gains Approach to Negotiation 19
Guidelines for Negotiation Behavior 37
Communications and Responding to Difficult 44
Tactics
Multi-Stakeholder Negotiations 53
Appendix 69
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved. 4

Overview
5
Advanced Negotiation: Objectives
By the end of this workshop, you will be able to:
 Apply a mutual gains model of negotiation in a wide range of

organizational contexts;
 Learn to prepare effectively for negotiations, as an individual and
as part of WHO staff teams;
 Maximize the potential for achieving mutual gains by exploring
interests and developing substantive options;
 Build more stable agreements using strategies that emphasize
objective criteria for distribution;
 Build more implementable agreements by anticipating
contingencies and aligning organizational capacities;
 Address challenges with negotiation partners who are not initially
able or willing to use a mutual gains approach;
 Assess the potential for multi-stakeholder consensus building on
projects and programs, and develop strategies for consensus
building.
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved. Overview 6
About The Bridgeway Group
The Bridgeway Group is a non-profit consulting firm based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
that acts as an advisor and trainer for organizations and individuals on negotiation, conflict
management, communication and the management of strategic external and internal
relationships. We bring to clients pragmatic methods, tools and skill sets developed at the
Harvard Negotiation Project, our sister organization CMPartners and in our twenty years of
individual and collective practice. The Bridgeway Group’s activities integrate one or more of
three sets of activities:
 Training. Bridgeway implements single side and joint training for parties to conflict,
parties in post-conflict situations, and/or for the purposes of institutional capacity
building.
 Consulting and advisory work. The Bridgeway Group offers real-time advice on
significant issues for parties to conflict. We assist our clients in the preparation, conduct,
and review of critical negotiations, and we assist our clients in improving the process by
which different internal organizations or teams collaborate and manage their differences
toward a common goal.
 Third party convening. We facilitate the creation and management of on-the-ground
partnerships, collaborations, and relationship networks.
Bridgeway consultants have extensive experience both in the health sector and in UN agencies
and other international organizations. Bridgeway has worked with WHO for over 15 years to
design and develop training, coaching and facilitation programs for both WHO staff and member
state officials.
Overview 7
About the Consensus Building Institute
The Consensus Building Institute (CBI) improves the way that leaders collaborate to make
organizational decisions, achieve agreements, and manage multi-party conflicts and planning
efforts. A nationally and internationally recognized not-for-profit organization, we work with
public, private, multilateral and non-profit organizations and their stakeholders in the U.S.
and around the world. CBI provides:
 facilitation and mediation to resolve conflict and build consensus on public and
organizational issues;
 training and organizational capacity building in negotiation and collaborative
leadership to the public, private, and non-profit sectors; and,
 evaluative research on negotiation and consensus building practices in public and
organizational settings.
Since its inception, CBI has been providing a wide range of organizational services to
government agencies, private companies, and non-governmental organizations involved in
issues of public interest in New England, nationally, and internationally. CBI also plays a key
role in helping to build the intellectual capital in the fields of collaborative leadership,
negotiation and conflict resolution. Our contributions include Built to Win: Creating a World
Class Negotiating Organization (Harvard Business Press 2009), Breaking Robert’s Rules
(Oxford University Press 2006), the Workable Peace Curriculum Series (PON Books, 2008),
the award winning Consensus Building Handbook (Sage 1999) and Dealing with an Angry
Public (Free Press 1996).
Overview 8
Facilitator Bio: Stephan Sonnenberg
Consultant, Consensus Building Institute
As a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and a Clinical Instructor with the Harvard Negotiation
and Mediation Clinical Program, Mr. Sonnenberg works with law students on applied dispute
management, conflict analysis, and negotiation curriculum design projects. In the past two years, he
has supervised a variety of conflict management efforts, including a project to explore the use of
consensus building techniques to help resolve environmental disputes in China, a partnership with
Hewlett Packard to design grievance mechanisms at two of its supplier factories in southern China, a
training for village elders negotiating with representatives of major multinational oil companies in the
Niger Delta, and a consultancy with a Boston area hospital to redesign its patient complaint response
procedure. Stephan also co-teaches the Negotiation Workshop at Harvard Law School, among other
courses.

Before accepting his current position, Mr. Sonnenberg worked primarily in the non-profit sector,
focusing on human rights, international development, and conflict resolution. He has lived and
worked in Northern Uganda and the Caucasus region of southern Russia, consulting for Amnesty
International, the International Rescue Committee, the International Council on Human Rights Policy,
the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and Physicians for Human Rights, among others. His
research focuses on ways in which alternative dispute resolution procedures can be used to prevent
mass atrocities.

Mr. Sonnenberg is a graduate of Harvard Law School, and the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy. He also holds a degree in European Studies from the Institut d’Études Politiques in Paris,
and an undergraduate degree from Brown University.

Facilitator Bio: Jim Tull
Senior Consultant, The Bridgeway Group
Jim Tull provides training and process assistance in the areas of negotiation, communication,
consensus building, mediation and dispute resolution. In the public sector, Mr. Tull has
consulted to the governments of Bolivia, Guyana, Venezuela and Colombia on their national
conflicts. He has advised and trained such diverse groups as OXFAM, Indonesia's Ministry of
Trade, El Salvador's Ministry of Education, and many of Canada's First Nations Communities
including the Mi'Kmaq, Samson Cree and Ermineskin Cree Nations. Mr. Tull has also worked
extensively with the WHO, WFP, FAO, IFAD, UNDP, OCHA and UNICEF branches of the United
Nations.

In the private sector, Mr. Tull has designed and delivered training workshops throughout the world
for a wide range of companies and IFIs. Mr. Tull's teaching experience includes the Program on
Negotiation at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Education as well
as the Kennedy School of Government. Mr. Tull spent eight years working for Professor Roger
Fisher's Conflict Management Group (CMG). Prior to joining CMG, Mr. Tull spent several years
working as an International Partner for Habitat for Humanity in Central and South America. His
interest in negotiation theory was made very personal in Nicaragua when he was held hostage by
Recompa guerrillas and negotiated his own release, as well as that of his colleagues.

Mr. Tull received his BA with honors from Kenyon College, and his Master of Public Administration
from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

The WHO Leader as Negotiator
11
Agency Leadership Tasks Include:
 Working with HWCOs /CDs/ UN Partners
 Working with Key National Counterparts
 Government
 Donors
 Civil Society
 Private Sector
 Managing Cluster/Department Staff and Projects
 Liaising with Regional Offices and Country Offices
 In order to…
 Advance WHO Goals
 Support a National Development Agenda
 Advance UN System Goals
These Tasks All Require Negotiation
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved. Who Leader as Negotiator 12
Negotiation: A Working Definition
The process by which
 two or more parties

 with conflicting and/or compatible goals
 seek to reach agreement
 that satisfies or improves their outcomes.
Negotiation Happens When:
 Interdependence Exists
 Cannot Command Behavior
 Limited Authority
 Differences Exist
 In Interests, Priorities, Capacities, Resources
 Potential for Mutually Beneficial Exchange
 Communication is possible
 May be clear or unclear
 May be straightforward, strategic or misleading
Negotiating DOWN, OUT, and UP
 Down: Staff accountable to you

 Technical and Administrative Staff
 Across/Out: Actors inside and outside WHO/UN system where

there is limited/no direct accountability
 Cross-functional counterparts, Regional/Country Office
counterparts, UN partners, Government, Donors, NGOs,
Others
 Up: Management to whom you are accountable

 Direct Supervisors, Cluster Directors, UN HQ
Negotiating DOWN and UP: Direct Leadership
 Formal Authority - Mandates

 Assigned and Negotiated
 Down: you mandate
 Up: you are mandated
 Authorization for Areas Beyond Mandate

 Requires ongoing communication between principals and agents
 Expectations and Conditions on Authority

 Stated and Unstated
 Assigned and Negotiated
Negotiating OUT: Indirect Leadership
Degree of Control < Degree of Responsibility
 Develop Objectives
 What is the desired result? (based on…)
 Map Stakeholders
 Who is involved?
 What does each want and need?
 What can each contribute?
 Develop Strategy to Influence Actions and Decisions

 What can we offer that would motivate them to meet our
objectives? (a Mutual Gains Approach…)
 How could we coordinate all the stakeholders? (Consensus
Building…)
Negotiating in 3-D
 In fast-changing situations, agency leaders often communicate

and re-negotiate mandates up and down while negotiating out
 Communication protocols become critical
 Agency Leaders often manage several parallel, linked

negotiations up, down and out
 Sequencing and trading become critical
Negotiation Skills for Leaders
 Organizational: understands organizational needs and constraints,

and helps mediate between and balance different needs
 Managerial: identifies specific actions needed at each step of the

work; works with staff and stakeholders to assign responsibility,
time and resources
 Interpersonal: deals with each negotiating partner as a whole

person; responds to individual interests and concerns while keeping
each person focused on the overall goals
 Facilitative: manages meetings, conversations, and overall process

to maximize contributions from each member; resolves conflict
when necessary
The Mutual Gains Approach (MGA)
to Negotiation
20
What are the goals of successful negotiation?
Satisfy the parties Outcome that meets

(stakeholders) goals and principles
Realize efficiency
with respect to Build relationships
time, effort, and and institutions
mutual gains
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved. The Mutual Gains Approach 21
Seeking Mutual Gains through Negotiation
#1. PREPARE EFFECTIVELY
#2. CREATE VALUE
#3. DISTRIBUTE VALUE
#4. FOLLOW THROUGH
Effective Preparation
You are getting ready to sit down to negotiate:
What are the most important things for

you to know in order to prepare
effectively for a negotiation?
Effective Preparation
 Mandate
 Clarify your authority
 Maximize your flexibility
 Interests
 Know your interests
 Think about their interests
 Alternatives
 Estimate Your Best Alternative (BATNA)
 Improve Your Alternative (if possible)
 Analyze their Alternative
 Options
 Prepare to suggest mutually beneficial options
Big Idea #1: Best Alternative to a Negotiated
Agreement (BATNA)
Big Idea #2: Move from Positions to Interests
Interests: Represent Our Underlying Needs…

Positions: Represent One Way to Achieve Them
 Positions vs. Interests

→ Position: “Follow my organizational policies…”
→ Position: “I need to meet my performance goals…”
→ Position: “Your division should provide funding…”
Key Question:
“Why is that important to you?”
Of all the things we’ve discussed, which is most
important to you?
#2: From Positions to Interests
WHO Technical Officer:
“Your unit should

fund”
Not a Protect limited Equitable to Precedent

priority budget benefits
#2: From Positions to Interests
Other WHO Unit:
“No we will not fund”
Costs are Budget Cycle Joint Precedent?

excessive? passed? ownership?
What Kinds of Interests (for projects)?
• Money
• Time of Completion
• Commitment of staff
• Relationship
• Development Impact(!)
• Risk
• Credit / Visibility
• Sustainability
• Ownership/Control
• Transaction Costs, etc
Big Idea #3: Asking what might be possible
 Once we have understood each other’s interests…
 We can brainstorm to see what’s possible…
 Key Question: What If…?

 What if we tried it this way…? How would that work for
you?
 Negotiation Tip:
 Explore interests BEFORE you start proposing options.
 This can help us to propose more creative solutions that
more effectively meet the key interests of all parties.
#3: From Interests to Options
Realistic Shared Revised ????

Cost-Share Benefits budget/scope
Shared Commitment,
Ownership
Big Idea #4: Fairness is a Source of Power
and a Means for Decision-Making
 When relationships matter:

 Offer rationales for why we should ‘divide the pie’ this
way or that…
 Don’t tell me that it’s fair…
 Tell me why and how it’s fair.
 Jointly develop the criteria we will use…
 This helps each side “sell” the agreement back to their
people
Criteria of Legitimacy
Use Contingent Commitments
 Manage Uncertainty/Disagreement about the future:

 If Perceptions of the future are different, don’t argue about
uncertainties
 Use If-then formulations to account for multiple potential
outcomes
 Allow time needed to implement change well
 Develop monitoring arrangements and clear assessment
strategies
 Set follow-up plan: come back together to assess results
Big Idea #5: Prepare for “Predictable Surprises”
If we want sustainable agreements…

 Ask: “What might go wrong?”
 How can you minimize those chances?

→ Incentivize compliance and commitment
→ Identify organizational / resource gaps
→ And seek to build this into your agreement…
 And discuss what will happen if it does go wrong…

→ How will you monitor implementation?
→ What do you agree to do about it if it does happen
MGA Summary: Five Key Questions
1. What’s our BATNA (best alternative to a

negotiated agreement/"Plan B")?
2. Why is that important to you?
3. What if…?
4. What makes that fair?
5. What might go wrong?
The Mutual Gains Approach 37
Guidelines for
Negotiation Behavior
38
NEGOTIATION STYLE
TOUGH Soft SMART
NEGOTIATION
BEHAVIOR
asks many questions

Asking Questions Asks few questions, mostly asks some questions
clarifying "what" others
About Others rhetorical
interests are and "why" they
are important
provides information about
Giving Information provides information mainly Provides information about
interests but not bottom
as demands, sometimes as interests, may reveal own
line
threats bottom line
creates/explores many
Brainstorming Tends to present options as open to other's options, may
"what if" options meeting
(Inventing Options) “take it or leave it” suggest some others
everyone's needs
demands
trades things less important
Trading doesn't want to trade willing to give up a lot in
in order to get things more
trades to preserve
important
relationship
Seeks agreement on
Using Fair Standards more interested in gain may settle for an outcome
standards that seem fair to
than in fairness that seems more fair to
self and others
others than to self
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved. Guidelines for Behavior 39
You ALWAYS want to be SMART;
When can you be tougher? Softer?
 What’s more important?

→ Ongoing Relationship  softer and smart
→ Outcome of this particular negotiation  tougher and smart
 What’s your BATNA? (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement)?
→ Your BATNA is bad  softer and smart
→ Your BATNA is great  tougher and smart
 How much joint gain may be possible?
→ Lots of joint gain possible  softer and smart
→ Not much joint gain possible  tougher and smart
 Who is your negotiating partner?
→ Tough  tougher and smart
→ Softer  softer and smart
A Guide for SMART Behavior: The Strategic Compass
Communication
Relationship
Interests
Options
Criteria
If “No” If “Yes”
Alternatives Commitment
Smart Behavior: Guidelines 1 of 3
Facilitate two-way COMMUNICATION

 Lead or explicitly negotiate the process: Purposes, Products, Place, Parties to
involve and the Process of our discussion
 Listen actively and inquire
 Frame what we say in light of what they will hear
 Reframe their positions and attacks as statements of interest and concern
Deal with RELATIONSHIP and substance issues each on their own merits
 Do not threaten or buy the relationship
 Be soft on the people, firm on the substance
 Create communication and relationship strategies for people problems
Rather than react to positions, probe for INTERESTS

 Inquire vertically “Why?”; horizontally “What else?”, and prioritize “In what order”
 Share some of your own interests
 Share your understanding of theirs and ask for feedback
 Ask for criticisms and suggestions, not demands or concessions
Avoid a concessions strategy, generate OPTIONS for mutual gain

 Jointly brainstorm multiple options
 Separate inventing from deciding
 Consider informal processes for brainstorming
Use CRITERIA to make wise decision, even when interests conflict

 Explain your reasoning, inquire into theirs
 Consider how they might explain any agreement to their constituents
 Focus on why an option is “fair” or “appropriate”
 Remember, parties can use different criteria to explain a shared decision to their
respective constituencies
Acknowledge ALTERNATIVES/BATNA as a choice

 Discuss BATNAs in order to unearth interests and invite better options
 Reality test theirs – how well does it satisfy their interests?
 If useful, explain yours as a choice you need to make
Make COMMITMENTS with care after learning all you can

 Commit early on process (and re-negotiate as you go), late on substance
 Build towards your objectives in stages: Design a chain of framework products for
each step of the process
 Break-up “decision making”
 Sequence: Delegate roles, invent many options, evaluate, refine, then seek
agreement
 Verify that parties know what they are committing to, how they will keep their
commitments, and how implementation can be verified
Communications and Responding
to Difficult Tactics
45
Why Inquiry Matters …
Why Inquiry Matters …
Canadians Americans
“Please divert your course 15 degrees “Recommend you divert your course 15
to the south to avoid a collision.” degrees to the north to avoid a
collision.”
“Negative. You will have to divert
your course 15 degrees to the “This is the Captain of a U.S. Navy ship.
south to avoid a collision.” I say again, divert YOUR course.”
“No, I say again, you divert YOUR “This is the Aircraft Carrier U.S.S.
course.” Lincoln, the second largest ship in the
United States Atlantic Fleet. We are
accompanied by three destroyers,
“This is a lighthouse. three cruisers, and numerous support
vessels. I demand that you change
Your call.” your course 15 degrees north. I say
again, that’s one-five degrees north,
or counter-measures will be
undertaken to ensure the safety of
this ship.
Three Rules for Good Communication
1. Listen Actively
-- Verbal and non-verbals
2. Get beneath the surface

-- ask questions to learn
3. Describe your “Data”
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved. Responding to Difficult Tactics 48
When to Use Active Listening
• Emotional situations
• Where communication is difficult
• When you’re not sure you understand
• When you’re going around in circles
• When they aren’t listening to you
INQUIRY
Low High
A High
Imposing Mutual
D Learning
V
O
C
A
C
Y Withdrawal Easing In
Low
Understanding
CAUTION: Understanding Does Not Mean Agreement!
• Don't discard your current understanding -- hold it as a

hypothesis
• Through conversation, begin to build a new understanding

in light of what you learn.
Pause, Think, then Act
PAUSE: Do not react blindly
 Take a breath, step back for a moment
 Recognize what is happening within and around you
 Acknowledge: What are you feeling? What might they be feeling? Why?
 “Does this conversation threaten how I/they would like to be perceived?”
THINK: Prepare to lead

 Reaffirm your goal
 What needs to happen next?
 Diagnose: What “game” that is forming
 Which of the Seven Elements are in play? How? Which are absent? Why?
ACT: Lead with purpose

 The choices: Time-out, play their game, or LEAD
 Lead to a new game unilaterally, or negotiate the ground rules
 Build communication that enables understanding and joint problem-solving
 The less you agree, the more you need to understand
 Remember the Strategic Compass
Act: Three Smart Responses to Difficult Tactics
Reframe their actions and statements
 From positions, demands, and threats to interests
 “Is your concern about follow-through, or public perceptions?”
 “How would working with another partner be good for you?”
 From positions to options
 “That’s one option, let’s explore others.”
 From positions to criteria
 “How did you develop that number?” “Let’s consider other possible standards.”
Name the game and change it

 Describe the current dynamic and its consequences
 Negotiate the process
 Explain and/or demonstrate the value of the mutual gains approach
Change the players

 Suggest more useful roles: Advising, brainstorming, educating, framing
 Delegate issues and decisions to more appropriate parties
 Add or replace one or more parties
Multi-Stakeholder Negotiations
54
Goals for Policy Decisions
Support well-informed, Resolve disagreements

transparent and among stakeholders
representative public
decision-making
Maximize joint
Minimize need for gains (economic,
trade-offs environmental,
social, political)
(Re)Build relationships and institutions
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved. Multi-stakeholder Negotiations 55

Multiparty Negotiations: A Strategic Challenge
Achieving “success” when
• Dealing with multiple parties in a web of interconnected relationships
• No single agreement with any one party can satisfy all key parties or interests
• The parties in this complex network have widely disparate interests
• Negotiations with any one party impact negotiations with others, yet…
• A common agreement or consensus among all parties seems impossible
Multi-stakeholder Negotiations
From Bilateral to Multilateral Negotiations
Complicating Factors
 Number of actors increases
 Principal-agent tensions become more pronounced
Relationship
 Coalitions become important
 Decision-making rules are challenging to establish

 Communication (trust) is hard to build
Process
 Roles change
 Complexity of information increases (number of interests

to satisfy)
 Lowest common denominator solutions become the
Substance norm
 Resources can be more limited
 Alternatives (a “kaleidoscope” of possibilities)
The Tactical Challenge
How do we apply the Mutual Gains framework & tools in a multi-party

environment?
Sequencing: with whom do we negotiate first? How, and to what end? Second?
Third?
How do we deal with the uncertainties of

 a changing political landscape, or
 concealed, inaccurate or vague information about players’ interests,
relationships, etc.?
A Common Approach
In crisis, we generally…
• Use whatever leverage we have on as many parties as possible

concurrently
• Resort early to BATNA – compete to see which single player can exert
the most pressure immediately
Consequences…
• Hard on working relationships
• Fails to build a sustainable capacity to prevent or efficiently manage
future surprises
A SMART Approach
Systematically maximize both your efficiency and leverage
• Organize and clarify the network of parties
• Sort the parties’ motivations: their interests, possible BATNAs and

key relationships
• Increase the probability of both short and long term success
• Exploit or re-engineer the network
• Leverage strategic communication

The Process Overview
• Clarify and prioritize your own interests

• Map all relevant players
• Identify all players’ key interests
• Identify and characterize relationships among the players
• Plan and implement a sequence of one-on-one negotiations that
leverage or shift the relationship map to serve your interests — short
and long term
• Consider patterns of deference, influence, and antagonism between
players
Consensus Building
Stakeholder Mapping
Key ally
Potential
challenger
Can we
mobilize?
Leave alone?
“Deference”
Party A will almost certainly

• Do what Party B does, or will
• Do what Party B advises, asks or directs Party A to do
Sources of “deference”
• Personal respect, admiration
• Mentorship, sponsorship
• Political power, raw strength, seniority
• Expertise, status, reputation, etc.
Watch for “patterns of deference” among the mapped players (i.e.,

who, if anyone defers to whom?)
“Influence”
Party A is likely to
Sources of “influence”
• Follow Party B’s lead, or
• Trust of judgment, best intentions
• Successful track record
• Shared interests, etc.
Watch for “patterns of influence” among the mapped players (i.e.,

who, if anyone can help secure agreement with others?)
“Antagonism”
Party A will not

• Follow Party B’s lead, or
Sources of “antagonism”
• Mistrust of judgment, intentions
• Unsuccessful track record
• Conflicting interests, etc.
Watch for “patterns of antagonism” among the mapped players (i.e.,

whose agreement might preclude agreement with others?)
Analyze Your Maps
• Which player’s or players’ agreements will advance our short, mid

and long term interests?
• What are their key interests?
• What are their BATNAs to agreements that serve our interests?
• Are they part of a pattern of deference, influence or antagonism?
• Might existing or potential coalitions affect their BATNAs? Our

BATNA?
Identify Coalitions
Identify groups of players (with shared or dovetailing interests) with

whom you might reach agreements that
• Directly serve your interests
• Improve your BATNA
• Worsen others’ BATNAs
Identify groups of players who might

• Undermine your interests
• Worsen your BATNA
• Improve others’ BATNAs
Plan Your Strategy
Use interests, BATNAs and patterns of deference, influence and
antagonism to create an optimal negotiation sequence.
• Consider
– Bootstrapping from “easier” parties to “harder” ones, exploiting
deference, influence, etc.
– Backward Mapping from needed decision makers to yourself,
exploiting overall patterns of deference, etc.
– Pyramiding from “hardest” and most impacting downward to other
parties
– Sequencing to conceal or reveal information
– Coalition Building to build momentum or disempower blockers
DEFINING THE “INSIDE/OUTSIDE” PROBLEM...
s
s s s s s Negotiations often
T involve multiple
s s organizations with their
s
s s s own ongoing internal
negotiations
N5 N1
Each of these group
s s s must send a
s s s representative “outsid
N4 T N2 e” to negotiate on their
s s s behalf.
Resulting
communication
N3 KEY challenges is the inside /
Negotiator outside dilemma
N
Negotiation
s T
Table
s s S Stakeholder
s s s Communication Links
Appendix
70
Readings on Negotiation and Consensus Building
Mutual Gains Negotiation
Breslin, J. & J. Rubin, eds., (1993). Negotiation Theory and Practice. Cambridge, MA: Program on
Negotiation Books.
Fisher, R. and W. Ury (1991). Getting to Yes. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Movius, Hallam and Lawrence Susskind (2009). Built to Win: Creating a World-class Negotiating
Organization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Lax, David and James Sebenius (2006). 3D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your
Most Important Deals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Malhortra, Deepak and Max Bazerman (2007). Negotiation Genius. New York, NY: Bantam Dell.
McKearnan, S. and D. Fairman (1999). “Chapter 8, Producing Consensus.” In Susskind, L.; S.
McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer, eds., (1999). The Consensus Building Handbook. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Potapchuk, W. & J. Crocker (1999). “Chapter 14, Implementing Consensus-Based Agreements.” In
Susskind, L.; S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer, eds., (1999). The Consensus Building Handbook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ury, William. (2007) The Power of a Positive No: Save the Deal Save the Relationship - And Still Say
No by William Ury. New York, NY: Bantam Dell.
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved. Appendix 71

Overview of Consensus Building in Public Policy Settings
Carpenter, S. & W. Kennedy (2001). Managing Public Disputes: A Practical Guide for Government,
Business, and Citizen’s Groups. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
De Jongh, P. & S. Captain, eds., (1999). Our Common Journey: A Pioneering Approach to Cooperative
Environmental Management. London: Zed Books.
Dukes, E.F. (1996). Resolving Public Conflict: Transforming Community and Governance. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Policy Consensus Initiative (1999). A Practical Guide to Consensus. Santa Fe, NM: Policy Consensus
Initiative.
Susskind, L.& J. Cruikshank (1987). Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public
Disputes. New York: Basic Books.
Susskind, L., S. McKearnan & J. Thomas-Larmer, eds.,(1999). The Consensus Building Handbook.
Wondolleck, Julia M., & Yaffee, Steven, L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from
innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Stakeholder Assessment
Carpenter, S. (1999). “Chapter 1, Choosing Appropriate Consensus Building Techniques and
Strategies.” In Susskind, L.; S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer, eds., (1999). The Consensus Building
Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Consensus Building Institute and The Land Use Law Center, Pace University School of Law. (2000).
Conducting Conflict Assessments in the Land Use Context: A Manual. The Land Use Law Center, Pace
University School of Law, and the Consensus Building Institute.
Susskind, L. and J. Thomas-Larmer (1999). “Chapter 2, Conducting a Conflict Assessment.” In
Susskind, L., S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer, eds., (1999). The Consensus Building Handbook.
London, UK: Sage Publications.
Setting Goals, Ground Rules and Decision Rules

Carlson, C. (1999). “Chapter 4, Convening.” In Susskind, L.; S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer, eds.,
(1999). The Consensus Building Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Laws, D. (1999). “Chapter 6, Representation of Stakeholding Interests.” In Susskind, L.; S.

McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer, eds., (1999). The Consensus Building Handbook. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Strauss, D. & M. Doyle (1993). How to Make Meetings Work. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Publishing Group.

Joint Fact Finding
Adler, P., R. Barrett, M. Bean, J. Birkhoff, C. Ozawa, & E. Rudin (2000). Managing Scientific and
Technical Information in Environmental Cases: Principles and Practices for Mediators and
Facilitators. Found on http://www.mediate.com/articles/wjc.cfm.
Andrews, C. (2002). Humble analysis: The practice of joint fact-finding. Westport,

CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
Conflict Research Consortium (2000). Treating Fact-Finding Problems: Strategies for Obtaining
Information About Facts and Uncertainties. Boulder, CO: Conflict Research Consortium, University of
Colorado.
Ehrman, J. & B. Stinson (1999). “Chapter 9, Joint Fact-Finding and the Use of Technical Experts.” In
Susskind, L.; McKearnan, S.; Thomas-Larmer, J. eds., (1999). The Consensus Building Handbook.
Lee, K. (1995). Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Ozawa, C. (1991). Recasting Science: Consensual Procedures in Public Policy Making.

Boulder, CO: Westview.

Independent Facilitation
Elliott, M. (1999). “Chapter 5, The role of Facilitators, Mediators, and Other Consensus Building
Practitioners.” In Susskind, L.; S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer, eds., (1999). The Consensus
Building Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Moore, C. (1996). The Mediation Process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schwartz, R. (1994). The Skilled Facilitator. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
Susskind, L.& J. Cruikshank (1987). Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public
Disputes. New York: Basic Books.

Negotiation Journal
Negotiation:
Date:
Your Role:
Issues:
What did the other person do well, and that perhaps helped you both do well?
Be specific and concrete - identify their actions and words
What 2 or 3 things would you do differently next time – If you had to conduct the conversation
over again?
Other significant learning points:

Going Forward…
As you look through the binder, the laminate card, and your notes we
encourage you to identify one specific thing you might “do differently”
For example:
 Set aside time to prepare using the Five Key Questions
 Understand the interests that underlie yours and the other side’s positions
 Explore what might be possible – invent many options for agreement
 Seek outcomes perceived as fair by all parties
 Prepare for predictable surprises
 Choose stakeholder engagement strategies wisely
 Role play with a colleague before an important conversation
 Use the Journal to reflect on your next negotiation
 Other?

Notes

Notes

Notes

WHO - Advanced Negotiation - PRINT BINDER

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WHO - Advanced Negotiation - PRINT BINDER

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Negotiation

© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved. 4

 Apply a mutual gains model of negotiation in a wide range of

© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved. Overview 9

© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved. Overview 10

These Tasks All Require Negotiation

The process by which

 two or more parties

 Down: Staff accountable to you

 Across/Out: Actors inside and outside WHO/UN system where

 Up: Management to whom you are accountable

 Formal Authority - Mandates

 Authorization for Areas Beyond Mandate

 Expectations and Conditions on Authority

 Develop Strategy to Influence Actions and Decisions

 In fast-changing situations, agency leaders often communicate

 Agency Leaders often manage several parallel, linked

 Organizational: understands organizational needs and constraints,

 Managerial: identifies specific actions needed at each step of the

 Interpersonal: deals with each negotiating partner as a whole

 Facilitative: manages meetings, conversations, and overall process

Satisfy the parties Outcome that meets

#1. PREPARE EFFECTIVELY

#2. CREATE VALUE

#3. DISTRIBUTE VALUE

#4. FOLLOW THROUGH

You are getting ready to sit down to negotiate:

What are the most important things for

Interests: Represent Our Underlying Needs…

 Positions vs. Interests

WHO Technical Officer:

“Your unit should

Not a Protect limited Equitable to Precedent

Other WHO Unit:

“No we will not fund”

Costs are Budget Cycle Joint Precedent?

 Once we have understood each other’s interests…

 We can brainstorm to see what’s possible…

 Key Question: What If…?

Realistic Shared Revised ????

 When relationships matter:

 Manage Uncertainty/Disagreement about the future:

If we want sustainable agreements…

 How can you minimize those chances?

 And discuss what will happen if it does go wrong…

1. What’s our BATNA (best alternative to a

asks many questions

 What’s more important?

Facilitate two-way COMMUNICATION

Rather than react to positions, probe for INTERESTS

Avoid a concessions strategy, generate OPTIONS for mutual gain

Use CRITERIA to make wise decision, even when interests conflict

Acknowledge ALTERNATIVES/BATNA as a choice

Make COMMITMENTS with care after learning all you can

2. Get beneath the surface

3. Describe your “Data”

• Where communication is difficult

• When you’re not sure you understand

• When you’re going around in circles

• When they aren’t listening to you

• Don't discard your current understanding -- hold it as a

• Through conversation, begin to build a new understanding

THINK: Prepare to lead