Reflection on Negotiation

LDRS 400 MANAGING CONFLICT

Lecture #8 Negotiation – Pt. 1

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.

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.”

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)

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?

THE PROBLEM: TYPICAL POSITIONAL BARGAINING DOESN’T WORK

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:

1. It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible.

2. It should be efficient. 3. 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.”

“This method, called PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION. It can be summarized in

four principles.

These four principles define a straightforward method of negotiation that can be used under almost any circumstance.

Each principle deals with the basic element of negotiation, and suggests what you

should do about it.

4 PRINCIPLES OF NEGOTIATION

THE 4 PRINCIPLES

OF NEGOTIATION

“PEOPLE: separate the people from the problem.”

“INTERESTS: focus on interests, not positions.”

“OPTIONS: invent multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to do.”

“CRITERIA: insist that the result should be based on some objective standard.”

Problem Positional Bargaining: Which Game Should You Play

Solution Change the Game – Negotiate on Principles

Soft Participants are friends.

The goal is agreement.

Make concessions to cultivate the relationship.

Be soft on the people and the problem.

Trust others.

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.

Principled Participants are problem solvers. The goal is a wise outcome reached efficiently and amicably.

Separate the people from the problem.

Be soft on the people and hard on the problem.

Proceed independent of trust.

Soft Hard Principled

Change your position easily.

Make offers.

Disclose bottom line.

Accept one sided losses to reach agreement.

Search for the single answer.

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.

Focus on interests not positions.

Explore interests.

Avoid having a bottom line.

Invent options for mutual Gain.

Develop multiple options to choose from; decide later.

Soft Hard Principled

Insist on agreement.

Try to avoid contest of wills.

Yield to pressure.

Insist on your position.

Try to win a contest of will.

Apply pressure.

Insist on using objective criteria.

Try to reach a result based on standards independent of will.

Reason and be open to reason; yield to principle, not pressure.

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.

B.A .T.N

.A . in A

ction

3 STAGES OF NEGOTIATION

THE 3 STAGES OF NEGOTIATION #1. ANALYSIS

During the analysis stage you are simply trying to diagnose the situation – to gather information, organize it, and think about it.

You will want to consider the people problems of partisan perceptions, hostile emotions, and unclear communication, as well as to identify your interests and those of the other side.

THE 3 STAGES OF NEGOTIATION #2. PLANNING

During the planning stage you deal with the same four elements a second time, both generating ideas and deciding what to do. Ø How do you propose to handle the

people problems? Ø Of your interests, which are the most

important? Ø And what are some realistic objectives?

THE 3 STAGES OF NEGOTIATION #3. DISCUSSION

During the discussion stage, when the parties communicate back and forth, the same four elements are the best subjects to discuss.”

WILLIAM URY H T T P : / / W W W. W I L L I A M U R Y. C O M / W I L L O W - C R E E K - N A T I O N A L -

L E A D E R S H I P - S U M M I T / Negotiation 101

“To sum up, in contrast to positional bargaining, the principled negotiation method of focusing on basic interests,

mutually satisfying options, and fair standards typically result in a wise agreement.

The method permits you to reach a gradual consensus on a joint efficiently without all the transactional costs of

digging into a position only to have to dig yourself out of them.

And separating the people from the problem allows you to deal directly and emphatically with the other negotiator as a human being regardless of any substantive differences,

thus making possible an agreeable outcome.”

IN-CLASS REFLECTION

Based on the learning so far in this course, our examination of

negotiation today and William Ury’s excellent lecture,

thoughtfully answer the

questions posted in today’s class

reflection. Upload it to the

dropbox by March 18th 11:55

PM.