400 final
Tamummy
Wk_7SU21.pptxLDSR 400 Managing Conflict
Lecture #8
Negotiation – Pt. 1
Professor R. Williams
What is negotiation?
What words or concepts do you think of when you hear the word negotiation?
Here are some definitions
Fisher & Ury define it this way:
“Negotiation is a back and forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed (as well as some that may be different).”
In her negotiation textbook The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, Leigh Thompson refers to negotiation as a
“interpersonal decision-making process” that is “necessary whenever we cannot achieve our objectives single-handedly.”
And in their book Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, Max H. Bazerman and Don A. Moore write, “When two or more parties need to reach a joint decision but have different preferences, they negotiate.”
Getting to yes
Unless otherwise stated, all material from this lecture are curated from the textbook, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (2011).
Fisher, R., Ury, W.L. & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York, NY: Penguin Group USA, Inc.
Everyone wants to participate in decisions that affect them; fewer and fewer people will accept decisions dictated by someone else.
Typically there are “two ways to negotiate:
soft or hard.
Soft negotiator
The SOFT NEGOTIATOR wants to avoid personal conflict and so make concessions readily to reach an agreement. He or she wants an amicable resolution; yet often ends up exploited and feeling bitter.
hard negotiator
The HARD NEGOTIATOR sees any situation as a contest of wills in which the side that takes the more extreme positions and holds out longer fares better.
He or she wants to win; yet often ends up producing an equally hard response that exhausts the negotiator and his or her resources and harms the relationship with the other side.
Principled negotiation = win-win
Principled negotiator
The method of principled negotiation suggests that you look for mutual gains whenever possible, and that where your interests conflict, you should insist that the result be based on some fair standards independent of the will of either side.”
“The method of principled negotiation is hard on the merits, soft on the people. It employs no tricks and no posturing.”
Principled negotiator
Principled negotiation shows you how to obtain what you are entitled to and still be decent.
It enables you to be fair while protecting you against those who would take advantage of your fairness.
It’s a negotiation! film: Intolerable Cruelty (2003)
The problem: typical positional bargaining doesn’t work
In typical bargaining, each side takes a position, argues for it, and makes concessions to reach a compromise. Or they end up in a battle where no one wins and everyone is frustrated.
So why is this approach flawed?
Compromise Can not be the Only Way to negotiate
A hostage negotiator plays a unique role: they have to win. Can they say a to a bank robber, “Okay, you’ve taken four hostages. Let’s split the difference – give me two, and we’ll call it a day?” (P.g. 18)
In negotiations:
Aim to reveal surprises
Test hypotheses
Process of discovery
Slow down
Be positive and approach it like a problem to solve
(P.g. 47)
Chris Voss, (2016) Never Split the Difference, Negotiating as If Your Life Depends On It.
So what’s the alternative to positional bargaining?
Since we all want o have a part of decision-making…and since we have different desired outcomes…what makes a good negotiation?
In principled negotiation, we use these three criteria to judge whether a negotiation is good:
It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible.
It should be efficient.
It should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties.”
3 criteria to judge a good negotiation
1. What is A wise agreement?
A wise agreement can be defined as one that meet the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durable, and takes community interests into account.
But often we produce unwise outcomes
Arguing over positions produces UNWISE OUTCOMES.
When negotiators bargain over positions, they tend to lock themselves into those positions.
The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the committed you become to it.
But often we produce unwise outcomes
Your ego becomes identified with your position. You now have a new interest in “saving face” making it less likely that any agreement will wisely reconcile the parties’ original interests.”
“The more attention is paid to positions, the less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties. Agreement becomes less likely.
Any agreement reached may reflect a mechanical splitting of the difference between final positions rather than a solution carefully crafted to meet the legitimate interests of the parties.”
2. Arguing over positions is INEFFICIENT
In positional bargaining you try to improve the chance that any settlement is favorable to you by starting with an extreme positions…
“…By stubbornly holding to it, by deceiving the other party as to your true views, and by making small concessions only as necessary to keep the negotiation going.”
3. What about the ongoing relationship?
“Arguing over positions ENDANGERS AN ONGOING RELATIONSHIP – positional bargaining becomes a contest of will and strains and sometimes shatters the relationship between the parties.”
When there are several parties involved…
“When there are many parties, positional bargaining is even worse – the more people involved in a negotiation, THE MORE SERIOUS THE DRAWBACKS to positional bargaining.
But being nice is no answer either.
Many people recognize the high cost of hard positional bargaining, particularly on the parties and their relationship.”
| Problem Positional Bargaining: Which Game Should You Play | |
| Soft Participants are friends. The 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. Disclose bottom line. Accept one sided losses to reach agreement. Search for the single answer. Insist on agreement. Try to avoid contest of wills. Yield to pressure. | Hard Participants are advisories. The goal is victory. Demand concessions as a condition of the relationship. Be hard on the problem and the people. Distrust others. Dig into your position. Make threats. Mislead as to your bottom line. Demand one-sided gains as the price of agreement. Search for the single answer. Insist on your position. Try to win a contest of will. Apply pressure. |
Is there an alternative?
If you do not like the choice between hard and soft positional bargaining, you can change the game.
“The game of negotiating takes place at two levels. At one level, negotiation addresses the SUBSTANCE; at another, it focuses on the PROCEDURE for dealing with the substance.”
Before We Start A Negotiation
What’s a B.A.T.N.A.?
A bottom line in negotiation is the line we draw in the sand and stay stubbornly stuck, not wanting to move or give-in. But that does not serve our interests well.
BATNA: Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement is the process of deciding BEFORE a negotiation what it is you really want, what you might be willing to give up and what you would walk away with and feel like your interests and outcomes have been protected.
BATNA helps protect us from accepting an agreement you should reject and rejecting an agreement you feel pressured to accept.
Create a BATNA
B.A.T.N.A. in Action
Video Resouces William Ury http://www.williamury.com/willow-creek-national-leadership-summit/
Negotiation 101
For next Class
READ & BE PREPARED:
Getting to Yes (2011).
Intro, Chapter 1 & 2
DQ Forum #2
