Description
Negotiating is the process of communicating back and forth, for the purpose of reaching a joint agreement about differing needs or ideas.
Negotiating is the process of communicating back and
forth, for the purpose of reaching a joint agreement
about differing needs or ideas.
It is a collection of behaviours that involves
communication, sales, marketing, psychology,
sociology, assertiveness and conflict resolution.
A negotiator may be a buyer or seller, a customer or
supplier, a boss or employee, a business partner, a
diplomat or a civil servant. On a more personal level
negotiation takes place between spouse’s friends,
parents or children.
? Title comes from remarks made by participants
at some of my negotiation workshops
? “that’s the opposite of what I do”
? “I know I should do that, but I find myself doing
exactly the opposite”
? “Its counter-intuitive”
? What are people saying ?
? They recognise the prudence of a particular strategy
? But they find it difficult to implement it
? Their natural inclination is to do the opposite of what
they recognise is the prudent strategy
Automatic gear Shift into manual
Focus on Positions Focus on interests
Dive into the negotiation Defer the negotiation to a time of our own
choosing, gather information first
When our proposals are rejected,
justify and defend them
Ask why our proposal doesn’t work, and
gather information
When a proposal is made to us that
is unacceptable, rejection
Instead of rejecting, ask why their proposal
is important, and gather information
What are
? some of the intuitive things we do in a negotiation
? the counter-intuitive thing we might consider as an alternative ?
? There are minimum 2 parties involved in the
negotiation process. There exists some common
interest, either in the subject matter of the
negotiation or in the negotiating context, that
puts or keeps the parties in contact.
? Though the parties have the same degree of
interest, they initially start with different
opinions and objectives which hinders the
outcome in general.
? In the beginning, parties consider that
negotiation is a better way of trying to solve
their differences.
? Each party is under an impression that there
is a possibility of persuading the other party
to modify their original position, as initially
parties feel that they shall maintain their
opening position and persuade the other to
change.
? During the process, the ideal outcome proves
unattainable but parties retain their hope of
an acceptable final agreement.
? Each party has some influence or power – real
or assumed – over the other’s ability to act.
? The process of negotiation is that of
interaction between people – usually this is
direct and verbal interchange.
? He should be a good learner and observer.
? Should know the body language of the
people at the negotiation process.
? Should be open and flexible and yet firm.
? Exercise great patience, coolness and
maturity.
? Should possess leadership qualities.
? Should control emotions and not
show his weaknesses.
? Should bargain from the position of strength.
? Should know and anticipate the pros and
cons of his each move and its repercussions.
? Should know how to create the momentum
for the negotiations and must know when to
exit and where to exit by closing the talks
successfully.
? Should build trust and confidence.
? Should be confident and optimist.
? Should have clear cut goals and objectives.
? If necessary, he should provide a face saving
formula for his counter party.
? Should be able to grasp the situation from
many dimensions.
? Should know human psychology and face
reading
? Should not be a doubting Thomas.
? Should plan and prepare thoroughly with
relevant data and information to avoid
blank mind in the process.
? Should radiate energy and enthusiasm and
must be in a position to empathize with his
opponents.
? Should be a patient listener.
? what negotiation means and the various
forms it can take
? that negotiating, in the fullest sense, means
forging long-term relationships
? the role that the individual personalities play
in negotiating
? that you must take a variety of approaches to
negotiation, since no single set of principles
will suffice in all circumstances
Types Parties
Involved
Examples
Day-to-day/
Managerial
Negotiations
1. Different levels of
Management
2. In between
colleagues
3. Trade unions
4. Legal advisers
1. Negotiation for
pay, terms and
working
conditions.
2. Description of the
job and fixation of
responsibility.
3. Increasing
productivity.
Types
Parties
Involved
Examples
Commercial
Negotiations
1. Management
2. Suppliers
3. Government
4. Customers
5. Trade unions
6. Legal advisors
7. Public
1. Striking a contract
with the customer.
2. Negotiations for the
price and quality of
goods to be
purchased.
3. Negotiations with
financial institutions
as regarding the
availability of capital
Types Parties
Involved
Examples
Legal
Negotiations
1.Government
2.Management
3.Customers
1.Adhering to
the laws of
the local and
national
government.
Depending on a scale of disagreement, the
level of preparation might be appropriate for
conducting the successful negotiation.
For a small disagreements, excessive
preparation could be counter-productive
because it do takes time which is better
focused in reaching the team goals.
If the major disagreement needed to be
resolved, preparing thoroughly for that is
required, and worthwhile.
Think through following points before you
could start negotiating.
? Goals:
What you want to get out from the negotiation?
What do you expect from the other person?
? Trading:
? What you and the other person have which
you can trade?
? What do you and the other person have so that
the other wants it?
? What might you both be prepared to give
away?
? Alternatives:
? If you do not reach the agreement with
him/her, what alternatives you have?
? Are these things good or bad alternatives?
? How much it matters if you do not reach the
agreement?
? Will the failure to reach the agreement cut out
future opportunities?
? What alternatives may the other person have?
? The relationship:
? What is a history of relationship?
? Can or should this history impact
negotiation?
? Will there be any of the hidden issues that
might influence negotiation?
? How you will handle these?
? Expected outcomes:
? What outcome would people be
expecting from the negotiation?
? What was the outcome in the past, and
what precedents been set?
? The consequences:
? What are the consequences of winning or
losing this negotiation by you?
? What are the consequences of winning or
loosing by the other person?
? Power:
? Who has the power in the relationship?
? Who do controls the resources?
? Who stands to lose most if agreement is not
been reached?
? What power does other person have to
deliver which you do hope for?
? Possible solutions:
Based on all considerations, what possible
compromises might be there?
Good negotiators are the people who
understand
? how to build key relationships
? how to identify what people need
? how to give them what they need and
? how to get what they want in return, all in a way
that seems effortless.
Autocratic managers typically hold the view that
they are going to get what they want when they
interact with subordinates, because their
inherent authority precludes the need to
negotiate.
These managers do not realize that, in the process
of handing out orders, they are engaged in a
kind of one-sided negotiation that can
antagonize others, with the result that the tasks
they wish to see completed may be carried out
improperly or not at all.
The Accommodating manager is more
concerned with what others want than with
their own needs.
In order to avoid conflict, they do not negotiate
at all and often end up overriding their own
interests.
BATNA
The Best Alternative To a Negotiated
Agreement; the lowest acceptable
value (outcome) to an individual for
a negotiated agreement.
Your BATNA "is the only standard which can
protect you both from accepting terms that are
too unfavourable and from rejecting terms it
would be in your interest to accept.”
In the simplest terms, if the proposed agreement
is better than your BATNA, then you should
accept it. If the agreement is not better than
your BATNA, then you should reopen
negotiations.
BATNAs are not always readily apparent. Fisher
and Ury outline a simple process for
determining your BATNA:
? develop a list of actions you might conceivably
take if no agreement is reached;
? improve some of the more promising ideas and
convert them into practical options; and
? select, tentatively, the one option that seems
best.
A community discovers that its water is being
polluted by the discharges of a nearby
factory.
Community leaders first attempt to negotiate a
cleanup plan with the company, but the
business refuses to voluntarily agree on a
plan of action that the community is satisfied
with.
The Role of Mood & Personality Traits in
Negotiation
? Positive moods positively affect negotiations
? Traits do not appear to have a significantly direct
effect on the outcomes of either bargaining or
negotiating processes (except extraversion, which
is bad for negotiation effectiveness)
Gender Differences in Negotiations
? Women negotiate no differently from men,
although men apparently negotiate slightly better
outcomes.
? Men and women with similar power bases use the
same negotiating styles.
? Women’s attitudes toward negotiation and their
success as negotiators are less favorable than
men’s.
Once parties establish a BATNA, they must
then compare the costs and benefits of the
BATNA to all of the settlement options on the
table.
Ask, "What's it going to cost you if you don't?"
? Most of the negotiation literature focuses on
two strategies, although they call them by
different names.
? One strategy is interest-based(or integrative,
or cooperative) bargaining, while the other is
positional (or distributive or competitive)
bargaining.
? Integrative bargaining in which parties
collaborate to find a “win-win" solution to
their dispute.
? This strategy focuses on developing mutually
beneficial agreements based on the interests
of the disputants.
? Interests include the needs, desires,
concerns, and fears important to each side.
Positional bargaining is one that involves
holding on to a fixed idea, or position, of what
you want and arguing for it and it alone,
regardless of any underlying interests.
Roles : Rita, a 15 year old girl. The Observer
becomes Rita’s parent. Others are Observers to
record use/abuse of “win/win” techniques.
Background: Rita is calling home from a payphone
on Hwy 401 to tell her parent she is hitch-hiking to
Hollywood to be a movie star. She has no money, is a
little afraid, and secretly wants to go to drama
school. The parent is worried about Rita being out
after curfew. Parent picks up the „phone, and has 3
minutes to effect a “win-win” approach before the
payphone times out.
Background:
Suresh has a Programmer off sick, and wants to negotiate
two weeks of Kunal?s time to work on the Company?s most
important project immediately, because Kunal is the best
programmer, and knows the tasks. Delays may affect
everyone?s bonus.
Kunal?s Manager is concerned the loss of Kunal will mean he
will not be able to complete tasks on another project their
department is committed to deliver (requiring one week of
work in the next 3 weeks), because Suresh has a reputation
of over-utilizing resources (and padding their schedule
contingency). Other commitments will also need juggling.
Background: Raima is not using the
car this weekend, but is concerned the
good friend is a fast driver. The friend is
generous, and has done Raima several
favours for Raima, including a recent
birthday gift.
Time: 3 minutes
? When quick, decisive action is vital (in
emergencies); on important issues.
? Where unpopular actions need implementing (in
cost cutting, enforcing unpopular rules,
discipline).
? On issues vital to the organization’s welfare.
? When you know you’re right.
? Against people who take advantage of
noncompetitive behavior.
? To find an integrative solution when both sets of
concerns are too important to be compromised.
? When your objective is to learn.
? To merge insights from people with different
perspectives.
? To gain commitment by incorporating concerns
into a consensus.
? To work through feelings that have interfered
with a relationship.
? When an issue is trivial, or more important issues
are pressing.
? When you perceive no chance of satisfying your
concerns.
? When potential disruption outweighs the
benefits of resolution.
? To let people cool down and regain perspective.
? When gathering information supersedes
immediate decision.
? When others can resolve the conflict effectively.
? When issues seem tangential or symptomatic of
other issues.
? When you find you’re wrong and to allow a
better position to be heard.
? To learn, and to show your reasonableness.
? When issues are more important to others than
to yourself and to satisfy others and maintain
cooperation.
? To build social credits for later issues.
? To minimize loss when outmatched and losing.
? When harmony and stability are especially
important.
? To allow employees to develop by learning from
mistakes.
? When goals are important but not worth the
effort of potential disruption of more assertive
approaches.
? When opponents with equal power are
committed to mutually exclusive goals.
? To achieve temporary settlements to complex
issues.
? To arrive at expedient solutions under time
pressure.
? As a backup when collaboration or competition
is unsuccessful.
? Behaviour
? Motivation: Analytic-autonomizing,
Assertive-directing, Altruistic-nurturing,
Flexible-cohering
? Personal strengths
? Personal weaknesses
1) Prepare, prepare, prepare
2) Pay attention to timing
3) Leave behind your ego.
4) Ramp up your listening skills.
5) If you don't ask, you don't get
6. Anticipate compromise
7. Offer and expect commitment
8. Don't absorb their problems
9. Stick to your principles
10. Close with confirmation.
? Speak more quietly than them.
? Have more space in between your words than
them.
? If they interrupt, pause for a few seconds
after they finish.
? Be critical of foul language.
? Do not rise to a bait if they attack or blame
you.
? Ignore all threats.
Emotional Challenges
Anger/exasperation
Insulted
Guilt
False flattery
Recommended Response
Allow venting. Probe for why
What wouldn’t be insulting?
Focus on issues
Re-focus
Tips:
•Don’t lose your cool .
•Try to defuse with acknowledgement, empathy, patience,
impartiality.
•Consider dealing with less emotional issues first
•Know your own “Hot Buttons”
•Practice
Exercise: List the last 3 times you felt someone pressed
your “Hot Button”.
Subject
discussed
Who pushed
your buttons?
Why did you feel
manipulated?
Next time I
will…..
doc_880364062.ppt
Negotiating is the process of communicating back and forth, for the purpose of reaching a joint agreement about differing needs or ideas.
Negotiating is the process of communicating back and
forth, for the purpose of reaching a joint agreement
about differing needs or ideas.
It is a collection of behaviours that involves
communication, sales, marketing, psychology,
sociology, assertiveness and conflict resolution.
A negotiator may be a buyer or seller, a customer or
supplier, a boss or employee, a business partner, a
diplomat or a civil servant. On a more personal level
negotiation takes place between spouse’s friends,
parents or children.
? Title comes from remarks made by participants
at some of my negotiation workshops
? “that’s the opposite of what I do”
? “I know I should do that, but I find myself doing
exactly the opposite”
? “Its counter-intuitive”
? What are people saying ?
? They recognise the prudence of a particular strategy
? But they find it difficult to implement it
? Their natural inclination is to do the opposite of what
they recognise is the prudent strategy
Automatic gear Shift into manual
Focus on Positions Focus on interests
Dive into the negotiation Defer the negotiation to a time of our own
choosing, gather information first
When our proposals are rejected,
justify and defend them
Ask why our proposal doesn’t work, and
gather information
When a proposal is made to us that
is unacceptable, rejection
Instead of rejecting, ask why their proposal
is important, and gather information
What are
? some of the intuitive things we do in a negotiation
? the counter-intuitive thing we might consider as an alternative ?
? There are minimum 2 parties involved in the
negotiation process. There exists some common
interest, either in the subject matter of the
negotiation or in the negotiating context, that
puts or keeps the parties in contact.
? Though the parties have the same degree of
interest, they initially start with different
opinions and objectives which hinders the
outcome in general.
? In the beginning, parties consider that
negotiation is a better way of trying to solve
their differences.
? Each party is under an impression that there
is a possibility of persuading the other party
to modify their original position, as initially
parties feel that they shall maintain their
opening position and persuade the other to
change.
? During the process, the ideal outcome proves
unattainable but parties retain their hope of
an acceptable final agreement.
? Each party has some influence or power – real
or assumed – over the other’s ability to act.
? The process of negotiation is that of
interaction between people – usually this is
direct and verbal interchange.
? He should be a good learner and observer.
? Should know the body language of the
people at the negotiation process.
? Should be open and flexible and yet firm.
? Exercise great patience, coolness and
maturity.
? Should possess leadership qualities.
? Should control emotions and not
show his weaknesses.
? Should bargain from the position of strength.
? Should know and anticipate the pros and
cons of his each move and its repercussions.
? Should know how to create the momentum
for the negotiations and must know when to
exit and where to exit by closing the talks
successfully.
? Should build trust and confidence.
? Should be confident and optimist.
? Should have clear cut goals and objectives.
? If necessary, he should provide a face saving
formula for his counter party.
? Should be able to grasp the situation from
many dimensions.
? Should know human psychology and face
reading
? Should not be a doubting Thomas.
? Should plan and prepare thoroughly with
relevant data and information to avoid
blank mind in the process.
? Should radiate energy and enthusiasm and
must be in a position to empathize with his
opponents.
? Should be a patient listener.
? what negotiation means and the various
forms it can take
? that negotiating, in the fullest sense, means
forging long-term relationships
? the role that the individual personalities play
in negotiating
? that you must take a variety of approaches to
negotiation, since no single set of principles
will suffice in all circumstances
Types Parties
Involved
Examples
Day-to-day/
Managerial
Negotiations
1. Different levels of
Management
2. In between
colleagues
3. Trade unions
4. Legal advisers
1. Negotiation for
pay, terms and
working
conditions.
2. Description of the
job and fixation of
responsibility.
3. Increasing
productivity.
Types
Parties
Involved
Examples
Commercial
Negotiations
1. Management
2. Suppliers
3. Government
4. Customers
5. Trade unions
6. Legal advisors
7. Public
1. Striking a contract
with the customer.
2. Negotiations for the
price and quality of
goods to be
purchased.
3. Negotiations with
financial institutions
as regarding the
availability of capital
Types Parties
Involved
Examples
Legal
Negotiations
1.Government
2.Management
3.Customers
1.Adhering to
the laws of
the local and
national
government.
Depending on a scale of disagreement, the
level of preparation might be appropriate for
conducting the successful negotiation.
For a small disagreements, excessive
preparation could be counter-productive
because it do takes time which is better
focused in reaching the team goals.
If the major disagreement needed to be
resolved, preparing thoroughly for that is
required, and worthwhile.
Think through following points before you
could start negotiating.
? Goals:
What you want to get out from the negotiation?
What do you expect from the other person?
? Trading:
? What you and the other person have which
you can trade?
? What do you and the other person have so that
the other wants it?
? What might you both be prepared to give
away?
? Alternatives:
? If you do not reach the agreement with
him/her, what alternatives you have?
? Are these things good or bad alternatives?
? How much it matters if you do not reach the
agreement?
? Will the failure to reach the agreement cut out
future opportunities?
? What alternatives may the other person have?
? The relationship:
? What is a history of relationship?
? Can or should this history impact
negotiation?
? Will there be any of the hidden issues that
might influence negotiation?
? How you will handle these?
? Expected outcomes:
? What outcome would people be
expecting from the negotiation?
? What was the outcome in the past, and
what precedents been set?
? The consequences:
? What are the consequences of winning or
losing this negotiation by you?
? What are the consequences of winning or
loosing by the other person?
? Power:
? Who has the power in the relationship?
? Who do controls the resources?
? Who stands to lose most if agreement is not
been reached?
? What power does other person have to
deliver which you do hope for?
? Possible solutions:
Based on all considerations, what possible
compromises might be there?
Good negotiators are the people who
understand
? how to build key relationships
? how to identify what people need
? how to give them what they need and
? how to get what they want in return, all in a way
that seems effortless.
Autocratic managers typically hold the view that
they are going to get what they want when they
interact with subordinates, because their
inherent authority precludes the need to
negotiate.
These managers do not realize that, in the process
of handing out orders, they are engaged in a
kind of one-sided negotiation that can
antagonize others, with the result that the tasks
they wish to see completed may be carried out
improperly or not at all.
The Accommodating manager is more
concerned with what others want than with
their own needs.
In order to avoid conflict, they do not negotiate
at all and often end up overriding their own
interests.
BATNA
The Best Alternative To a Negotiated
Agreement; the lowest acceptable
value (outcome) to an individual for
a negotiated agreement.
Your BATNA "is the only standard which can
protect you both from accepting terms that are
too unfavourable and from rejecting terms it
would be in your interest to accept.”
In the simplest terms, if the proposed agreement
is better than your BATNA, then you should
accept it. If the agreement is not better than
your BATNA, then you should reopen
negotiations.
BATNAs are not always readily apparent. Fisher
and Ury outline a simple process for
determining your BATNA:
? develop a list of actions you might conceivably
take if no agreement is reached;
? improve some of the more promising ideas and
convert them into practical options; and
? select, tentatively, the one option that seems
best.
A community discovers that its water is being
polluted by the discharges of a nearby
factory.
Community leaders first attempt to negotiate a
cleanup plan with the company, but the
business refuses to voluntarily agree on a
plan of action that the community is satisfied
with.
The Role of Mood & Personality Traits in
Negotiation
? Positive moods positively affect negotiations
? Traits do not appear to have a significantly direct
effect on the outcomes of either bargaining or
negotiating processes (except extraversion, which
is bad for negotiation effectiveness)
Gender Differences in Negotiations
? Women negotiate no differently from men,
although men apparently negotiate slightly better
outcomes.
? Men and women with similar power bases use the
same negotiating styles.
? Women’s attitudes toward negotiation and their
success as negotiators are less favorable than
men’s.
Once parties establish a BATNA, they must
then compare the costs and benefits of the
BATNA to all of the settlement options on the
table.
Ask, "What's it going to cost you if you don't?"
? Most of the negotiation literature focuses on
two strategies, although they call them by
different names.
? One strategy is interest-based(or integrative,
or cooperative) bargaining, while the other is
positional (or distributive or competitive)
bargaining.
? Integrative bargaining in which parties
collaborate to find a “win-win" solution to
their dispute.
? This strategy focuses on developing mutually
beneficial agreements based on the interests
of the disputants.
? Interests include the needs, desires,
concerns, and fears important to each side.
Positional bargaining is one that involves
holding on to a fixed idea, or position, of what
you want and arguing for it and it alone,
regardless of any underlying interests.
Roles : Rita, a 15 year old girl. The Observer
becomes Rita’s parent. Others are Observers to
record use/abuse of “win/win” techniques.
Background: Rita is calling home from a payphone
on Hwy 401 to tell her parent she is hitch-hiking to
Hollywood to be a movie star. She has no money, is a
little afraid, and secretly wants to go to drama
school. The parent is worried about Rita being out
after curfew. Parent picks up the „phone, and has 3
minutes to effect a “win-win” approach before the
payphone times out.
Background:
Suresh has a Programmer off sick, and wants to negotiate
two weeks of Kunal?s time to work on the Company?s most
important project immediately, because Kunal is the best
programmer, and knows the tasks. Delays may affect
everyone?s bonus.
Kunal?s Manager is concerned the loss of Kunal will mean he
will not be able to complete tasks on another project their
department is committed to deliver (requiring one week of
work in the next 3 weeks), because Suresh has a reputation
of over-utilizing resources (and padding their schedule
contingency). Other commitments will also need juggling.
Background: Raima is not using the
car this weekend, but is concerned the
good friend is a fast driver. The friend is
generous, and has done Raima several
favours for Raima, including a recent
birthday gift.
Time: 3 minutes
? When quick, decisive action is vital (in
emergencies); on important issues.
? Where unpopular actions need implementing (in
cost cutting, enforcing unpopular rules,
discipline).
? On issues vital to the organization’s welfare.
? When you know you’re right.
? Against people who take advantage of
noncompetitive behavior.
? To find an integrative solution when both sets of
concerns are too important to be compromised.
? When your objective is to learn.
? To merge insights from people with different
perspectives.
? To gain commitment by incorporating concerns
into a consensus.
? To work through feelings that have interfered
with a relationship.
? When an issue is trivial, or more important issues
are pressing.
? When you perceive no chance of satisfying your
concerns.
? When potential disruption outweighs the
benefits of resolution.
? To let people cool down and regain perspective.
? When gathering information supersedes
immediate decision.
? When others can resolve the conflict effectively.
? When issues seem tangential or symptomatic of
other issues.
? When you find you’re wrong and to allow a
better position to be heard.
? To learn, and to show your reasonableness.
? When issues are more important to others than
to yourself and to satisfy others and maintain
cooperation.
? To build social credits for later issues.
? To minimize loss when outmatched and losing.
? When harmony and stability are especially
important.
? To allow employees to develop by learning from
mistakes.
? When goals are important but not worth the
effort of potential disruption of more assertive
approaches.
? When opponents with equal power are
committed to mutually exclusive goals.
? To achieve temporary settlements to complex
issues.
? To arrive at expedient solutions under time
pressure.
? As a backup when collaboration or competition
is unsuccessful.
? Behaviour
? Motivation: Analytic-autonomizing,
Assertive-directing, Altruistic-nurturing,
Flexible-cohering
? Personal strengths
? Personal weaknesses
1) Prepare, prepare, prepare
2) Pay attention to timing
3) Leave behind your ego.
4) Ramp up your listening skills.
5) If you don't ask, you don't get
6. Anticipate compromise
7. Offer and expect commitment
8. Don't absorb their problems
9. Stick to your principles
10. Close with confirmation.
? Speak more quietly than them.
? Have more space in between your words than
them.
? If they interrupt, pause for a few seconds
after they finish.
? Be critical of foul language.
? Do not rise to a bait if they attack or blame
you.
? Ignore all threats.
Emotional Challenges
Anger/exasperation
Insulted
Guilt
False flattery
Recommended Response
Allow venting. Probe for why
What wouldn’t be insulting?
Focus on issues
Re-focus
Tips:
•Don’t lose your cool .
•Try to defuse with acknowledgement, empathy, patience,
impartiality.
•Consider dealing with less emotional issues first
•Know your own “Hot Buttons”
•Practice
Exercise: List the last 3 times you felt someone pressed
your “Hot Button”.
Subject
discussed
Who pushed
your buttons?
Why did you feel
manipulated?
Next time I
will…..
doc_880364062.ppt