Learning and
Training
Learning and
Training
Professor E. Wertheim
http://www.cba.neu.edu/~ewertheim/
College of Business Administration
Northeastern University
In a successful negotiation, everyone wins. The objective should be agreement, not victory.Every desire that demands satisfaction and every need to be met-is at least potentially an occasion for negotiation; whenever people exchange ideas with the intention of changing relationships, whenever they confer for agreement, they are negotiating.
(Suggestion: This guide will be easier to follow if you think about a specific negotiation or conflict situation you have recently been involved in.)
In the course of a week, we are all involved in numerous situations that need to be dealt with through negotiation; this occurs at work, at home, and at recreation. A conflict or negotiation situation is one in which there is a conflict of interests or what one wants isn't necessarily what the other wants and where both sides prefer to search for solutions, rather than giving in or breaking-off contact.
Few of us enjoy dealing with with conflicts-either with bosses, peers, subordinates, friends, or strangers. This is particularly true when the conflict becomes hostile and when strong feelings become involved. Resolving conflict can be mentally exhausting and emotionally draining.
But it is important to realize that conflict that requires resolution is neither good nor bad. There can be positive and negative outcomes as seen in the box below. It can be destructive but can also play a productive role for you personally and for your relationships-both personal and professional. The important point is to manage the conflict, not to suppress conflict and not to let conflict escalate out of control. Many of us seek to avoid conflict when it arises but there are many times when we should use conflict as a critical aspect of creativity and motivation.
| Potential Positive Outcomes of Conflict | Potential Negative Outcomes of Conflict |
|
|
You will be constantly negotiating and resolving conflict throughout all of your professional and personal life. Given that organizations are becoming less hierarchical, less based on positional authority, less based on clear boundaries of responsibility and authority, it is likely that conflict will be an even greater component of organizations in the future. Studies have shown that negotiation skills are among the most significant determinants of career success. While negotiation is an art form to some degree, there are specific techniques that anyone can learn. Understanding these techniques and developing your skills will be a critical component of your career success and personal success.
Answering this questions results in the following five modes of conflict
resolution. None is these is "right" or "wrong". There are situations where
any would be appropriate. For example, if we are cut off driving to work, we
may decide "avoidance" is the best option. Other times "avoidance" may be a
poor alternative. Similarly, collaboration may be appropriate sometimes but
not at other times.
In general, most successful negotiators start off assuming collaborative
(integrative) or win-win negotiation. Most good negotiators will try for
a win-win or aim at a situation where both sides feel they won. Negotiations
tend to go much better if both sides perceive they are in a win-win situation
or both sides approach the negotiation wanting to "create value" or satisfy both
their own needs and the other's needs.
We will focus on the two most problematic types: Collaborative
(integrative) and Competitive (Distributive). Of the two the more
important is Collaborative since most of your negotiation and conflict
resolution in your personal and professional life will (or should) be of this
nature. This is because most negotiation involves situations where we want or
need an on-going relationship with the other person. While it is important to
develop skills in "competitive" bargaining (eg. when buying a car), or skills
that allow us to satisfy our concerns while ignoring the other's goals, this
approach has many
negative consequences for both our personal lives and for our professional
careers especially if we are to have an on-going relationship with the
other person..
Reducing Conflict that Already Exists Major Causes of Conflict
Opposing interests (or what we think are opposing interests) are at
the core of most conflicts. In a modern complex society, we confront these
situations many times a day.
The modern organization adds a whole new group of potential causes of conflict
that are already present:
The Five Modes of Responding to Conflict
It is useful to categorize the various responses we have to conflict in terms
of two dimensions:
The key to successful negotiation is to shift the situation to a "win-win"
even if it looks like a "win-lose" situation. Almost all negotiation have at
least some elements of win-win. Successful negotiations often depend on
finding the win-win aspects in any situation. Only shift to a win-lose mode
if all else fails.
Organizations also take steps to reduce conflict. The following list
suggests some of these ways:
Rational vs. the Emotional Components of
Negotiation
All negotiations involve two levels:
a rational decision making (substantive) process and a
psychological (emotional) process. The outcome of a negotiation is as
likely to be a result of the psychological elements as it is the rational
element. In most cases, the failure of two people to reach the "optimal"
resolution or best alternative stems from intangible factors such as:
Psychological Factors that will affect negotiations
This is made more difficult because norms in most organizations discourage
open expression of negative personal feeings. Thus intense emotional
onflicts are often expressed and rationalized as substnative issues.
People often drum up disagreements on trivial issues to provide justification
for an emotional conflict with another individual (Ware and Barnes).
Basic Issues in Conflict Management
|
All bargaining situations can be divided into two categories:
It needs to be emphasized that many situations contain elements of both distributive and integrative bargaining.. For example, in negotiating a price with a customer, to some degree your interests oppose the customer (you want a higher price; he wants a lower one) but to some degree you want your interests to coincide (you want both your customer and you to satisfy both of your interests-you want to be happy; you want your customer to be happy). The options can be seen in the table below:
Do some thinking ahead of time:
Planning for the Negotiation
Before the negotiation it is helpful to plan. Know whether you are in a win-win or win-lose situation.
Be sure of your goals, positions, and underlying interests. Try to figure out the best resolution you can expect, what is a fair and reasonable deal and what is a minimally acceptable deal. What information do you have and what do you need. What are your competitive advantages and disadvantages. What is the other's advantages and disadvantages. Give some thought to your strategy.
It is very important to be clear on what is important to you. Be clear about your real goals and real issues and try to figure out the other person's real goals and issues. Too many negotiations fail because people are so worried about being taken advantage of that they forget their needs. People who lose track of their own goals will break off negotiations even if they have achieved their needs because they become more concerned with whether the other side "won."
It is helpful to have a min-max strategy. Have a "walk-away" position.
When entering a negotiation or conflict resolution, make sure you have
already thought about answers to these questions:
Planning for the negotiation: The min-max approach
It is important to know your competitive advantage-your strongest points. Also you need to know the advantages to the other's argument. Similarly, know your weaknesses and the other's weaknesses.
In most conflict resolution or negotiation situations you will have a continuing relationship with the other person so it is important to leave the situation with both sides feeling they have "won." It is very important that the other person doesn't feel that he or she "lost." When the other person loses, the results are often lack of commitment to the agreement or even worse, retaliation. The most common failure is the failure of negotiating parties to recognize (or search for) the integrative potential in a negotiating problem ; beneath hardened positions are often common or shared interests.
Address problems, not personalities: Avoid the tendency to attack your opponent personally; if the other person feels threatened, he defends his self-esteem and makes attacking the real problem more difficult; separate the people issues from the problem
Maintain a rational, goal oriented frame of mind: if your opponent attacks you personally, don't let him hook you into an emotional reaction; let the other blow off steam without taking it personally; try to understand the problem behind the aggression
Even in what appears to be win-lose situaitons, there are often
win-win solutions; look for an integrative solution; create additional
alternatives, such as low cost concessions that might have high value
to the other person; frame options in terms of the other person's
interests; look for alternatives that allow your opponent to declare
victory
Find underlying interests
A key to success is finding the "integrative" issues--often they can be
found in underlying interests.
We are used to identifying our own interests, but a critical element in negotiation is to come to understanding the other person's underlying interests and underlying needs. With probing and exchanging information we can find the commonalities between us and minimize the differences that seem to be evident. Understanding these interests is the key to "integrative bargaining." The biggest source of failure in negotiation is the failure to see the "integrative" element of most negotiation. Too often we think a situation is win-lose when it is actually a win-win situation. This mistaken view causes us to often use the wrong strategy. Consider a situation where your boss rates you lower on a performance appraisal than you think you deserve. We often tend to see this as win-lose-either he/she gives in or I give in. There is probably a much higher chance of a successful negotiation if you can turn this to a win-win negotiation.
A key part in finding common interests is the problem identification. It is important to define the problem in a way that is mutually acceptable to both sides. This involves depersonalizing the problem so as not to raise the defensiveness of the other person. Thus the student negotiating a problem with a professor is likely to be more effective by defining the problem as "I need to understand this material better" or "I don't understand this" rather than "You're not teaching the material very well."
Try to have the result be based on some objective standard.
Make your negotiated decision based on principles and results, not
emotions or pressure; try to find objective criteria that both parties
can use to evaluate alternatives; don't succumb to emotional please,
assertiveness, or stubborness
Try to understand the other person: Know his/her situation
Often we tend to focus on our needs, our goals, and our positions. To successfully resolve conflict, it is important to focus also on the other person. We need to figure out what the other's goals, needs, and positions are as well as their underlying interests. We need to think about the personality of the other person, how far we can push, how open or concealed we should make our positions.
Acquire as much information about the other's interests and goals; what are the real needs vs. wants; what constituencies must he or she appease? What is her strategy? Be prepared to frame solutions in terms of her interests.
An important part of this is to recognize that people place very different values on issues than ourselves. For example, a clean room may be much more important to you than it is to your roommate. We must understand how the other person sees reality, not just how we see reality.
If through pressure, deception or sheer aggressiveness, we push people to the point where they see themselves as likely to lose, this creates problems. The opponent will retaliate and fight back; losers often lose commitment to their bargain. Also negotiators get reputations that can backfire. Remember that settlements which are most satisfactory and durable are the ones that address the needs of both parties.
Try to explore the other side's BATNA and certainly be aware of your own. See if you can change the other person's BATNA. If the other person's BATNA is poor (the alternatives to reaching an agreement with you are unattractive), you are in a better position.
Paying Attention to the Flow of Negotiation:
There is a tendency to think about conflict or the negotiating
situation as an isolated incident. It is probably more useful to
think about conflict as a process, or a complex series of events
over time involving both external factors and internal social and
psychological factors. Conflict episodes typically are affected by
preceding and in turn produce results and outcomes that affect the
conflict dynamics.
A negotiation usually involves a number of steps including the
exchange of proposals and counter proposals. In good-faith negotiation,
both sides are expected to make offers and concessions. Your goal
here isnot only to try to solve the problem, but to gain information-
information that will enable you to get a clearer notion of what the true
issues might be and how your "opponent" sees reality. Through offers and
counter offers there should be a goal of a lot of information exchange
that might yield a common definition of the problem.
Such an approach suggests the importance of perception-conflict is in
the eye of the beholder. Thus, situations which to an outside observer
should produce conflict may not if the parties either ignore or choose
to ignore the conflict situation. Conversely, people can perceive a
conflict situation when in reality there is none.
Next, once aware of the conflict, both parties experience emotional
reactions to it and think about it in various ways. These emotions and
thoughts are crucial to the course of the developing conflict.
For example, a negotiation can be greately affected if people react in
anger perhaps resulting from past conflict.
Then based on the thoughts and emotions that arise in the process of
conflict resolution, we formulate specific intentions about the strategies
we will use in the negotiation. These may be quite general (eg. plan to
use a cooperative approach) or quite specific (eg. use a specific
negotiating tactic).
Finally, these intentions are translated into behavior. These behaviors
in turn elicit some responde from the other person and the process recycles.
This approach suggests we pay particular attention to these generalizations:
The Intangibles:
Intangibles are often the key factors in many negotiations. Some of these
intangibles are:
Good communication skills are critical although it is easy to forget them
in the "heat of battle." Try to separate the problem from the person.
Focus on the problem (eg. "this accounting concept is unclear to me") not
the person (eg. "you did a lousy job explaining this"). When we tie the
person to the problem, the other person gets defensive and communication
tends to become very difficult.
How can I change what seems like a "win-lose" situation
to a "win-win" (or what if the other person doesn't play by these rules?)
There are many advantages to trying to shift a win/lose situation to
a win/win. Yet we will be in situations where the other person either
doesn't wish to reach a "win-win" or doesn't realize it is in his or her
best interest to achieve a collaborative solution. In these situations it
is necessary for us to open lines of communication, increasing trust and
cooperativeness.
Sometimes conflicts escalate, the atmosphere becomes charged with anger,
frustration, resentment, mistrust, hostility, and a sense of futility.
Communication channels close down or are used to criticize and blame the other.
We focus on our next assault. The original issues become blurred and
ill-defined and new issues are added as the conflict becomes personalized.
Even if one side is willing to make concessions often hostility prevents
agreements. In such a conflict, perceived differences become magnified,
each side gets locked into their initial positions and each side resorts
to lies, threats, distortions, and other attempts to force the other
party to comply with demands.
It is not easy to shift this situation to a win-win but the following
lists some techniques that you might use:
Some Tricks that Skilled Negotiators Use
We constantly trade-off in negotiations. An examples is when a
union negotiation trades wage gains for job security.
An important ingredient of negotiation is assessing the trade-offs.
In general, we start by identifying the best and worst possible
outcomes, and then specify possible increments that trade-offs can reflect,
and finally, consider how the increments relate to the key issues.
If we pursue "integrative bargaining," we try to create gains for
both parties. An example is offering something less valuable to us but
more valuable to the other person (eg., the other person may highly value
payment in cash rather than through financing whereas we may be indifferent
to this). The following are ways of creating joint gains.
When to reveal your position: This depends on the other person.
It is not a good idea to reveal your minimum position if the other person
needs to feel he has worked hard to reach it; the other person may need to
feel he or she has worked very hard to move you to your position.
Case from a workshop on negotiation: First, he identified our interests as the selling of a program at a
decent price and the maintenance of a good relationship with Mary
and her law firm (focus on interests, not positions). Next, he completely
ignored Mary's obnoxious personality (separate people from problems).
And he offered to sell Mary only the latest program, with a price break
for a quick sale (options for mutual gain).
But his most effective technique was the "jujitsu." When the other
side pushes, don't push back. When they attack, don't counterattack; rethink
their attack as an attack on mutual problems. Two tools are used--ask questions
instead of making statements, and respond with prolonged silence in the face
of unreason. Chuck used them both, and we completed the sale and got a
better price than we had hoped for.
Other Techniques you can use
What if I want "to win" and I don't care about the
other person's interests (Distributive or win-lose Bargaining)
In this situation, strategy is different than in integrative bargaining.
In this mode, one seeks to gain advantage through concealing information,
misleading, or using manipulative actions. Of course, these methods have
serious potential for negative consequences. Yet even in this type of
negotiation, both sides must feel that at the end the outcome was the
best that they could achieve and that it is worth accepting and supporting.
Most critical in this mode is to set one's own opening target and
resistance points and to learn what the other's starting points, target
points, and resistance points are. Typically, the resistance point
(the point beyond which a party will not go) is usually unknown until
late in negotiation and is often jealously concealed by the other party.
This is what you need to find out.
The range between resistance points is typically the bargaining
range; if this number is negative, successful negotiation is usually
impossible. For example, if you are willing to pay up to $3,000 and
the seller is willing to go as low as $2800, there is a $200 positive
spread or bargaining range if the negotiators are skillful enough to
figure it out. The goal of a competitive bargaining situation is to
get the final settlement to be as close to the other party's resistance
point as possible.
The basic techniques open to the negotiator to accomplish this include
The answer to this question depends on one's values, one's culture, and
the situation. What might be acceptable in poker would probably
not be acceptable in most business situations. What might be acceptable
in Cairo might not be acceptable in Boston. Different cultures and
different situations contain inherent "rules" about the degree to which
bluffing or misrepresentation is deemed acceptable.
In poker and in general negotiations one is not expected to reveal
strength or intentions prematurely. But discretion in making claims
and statements syhould not be confused with misrepresentation.
In general, in our culture, our "rules" forbid and should penalize
outright lying, false claims, bribing an opponent, stealing secrets,
or threatening an opponent. While there may be a fine line between
legitimate and illegitimate withholding of facts, there is a line and
again we are distinguishing between the careful planning of when and how
to reveal facts vs. outright lying.
Bluffing, while it may be ethical, does entail risk. The bluffer who
is called loses credibility and it can get out of hand. Also remember, that
most negotiations are carried out with people with whom you will have
a continuing relationship. Again, while our culture supports and
encourages those who are careful about how and when to disclose facts,
out culture does not condone outright lying.
An old British Diplomat Service manual stated the following and it
still might be useful.
Nothing may be said which is not true, but it is as unnecessary as it is
sometimes undesirable to say everything relevant which is true;
and the facts given may bve arrange din any convenient order. The perfect
reply to an embarassing question is one that is brief, appears
to answer the question completely (if challenged it can be proved to be
accurate in every word), gives no opening for awkward follow-up
questions, and discloses really nothing.
Skilled negotiators develop techniques to do this. A favorite one is to
answer a question with a question to deflect the first question.
All of us engage in many negotiations during a week but that
doesn't mean we become better at it. To become better we need to become
aware of the structure and dynamics of negotiation and we need to think
systematically, objectively, and critically about our own negotiations.
After engaging in a negotiation, reflect on what happened and figure out
what you did effectively and what you need to do better.
There is no one "best" style; each of us has to find a style that is
comfortable for us. Yet, everyone can negotiate successfully; everyone
can reach agreements where all sides feel at least some of their needs
have been satisfied. This involves a lot of alertness, active listening,
good communication skills, great flexibility, good preparation, and
above all it involves a sharing of responsibility for solving the
problem, not a view that this is "their" problem.
To summarize the most important keys to successful conflict resolution:
Sweet gentle krunches
Middle of the Road Krunches
What techniques did the other person use in dealing with the
conflict/negotiation
In the interaction, did you........ win, lose, deadlock, both win,
both lose?
Look at these Overall Guidelines for Effective Negotiation
and rank how well you did (5=excellent); rank your "opponent" --- --- Consider the other party's situation:
--- --- Have a concrete strategy:
--- --- Begin with a positive approach:
--- --- Address problems, not personalities:
--- --- Maintain a rational, goal oriented frame of mind:
--- --- Pay little attention to initial offers:
--- --- Emphasize win-win solutions:
--- --- Insist on using objective criteria:
(on the back) What specific suggestions can you give the other person to help
him or her be more effective in negotiations.
Negotiation is a sequence of events
Other Elements that affect negotiation
Be an active Listener:
Don't: Talk at the other side, focus on the past, blame the other
person.
Do: Be an "active listener.
We had to sell a training
program to Sue, a former member of our law firm We knew she needed to
purchase a program and she also held a grudge against our firm.
Mary heaped abuse on us. I wanted to punch her, but Chuck (my partner) just
smiled and began applying some standard negotiating principles.
Is it ethical to "lie or bluff" in negotiations?
Final Advice
Be unconditionally constructive. Approach a negotiation
with this-- 'I accept you as an equal negotiating partner;
I respect your right to differ; I will be receptive.' Some criticize
my approach as being too soft. But negotiating by these principles is a
sign of strength.
R. Fisher and R. Ury,"Getting to Yes"
Have unlimited patience. Never corner an opponent and always assist
the other person to save his face. Put yourself in his shoes-so as to
see things through his eyes. Avoid self-righteousness like the devil-nothing
is so self-blinding.
B. H. Liddell Hart, historian
Appendix 2: Three Styles: Soft, Hard, and Principled Negotiation
Some Principles of Third Person Mediation
from Negotiation to Win
If your approach is a win-lose or distributive bargaining approach, you might
prefer these ideas:
The Critical Rules
The Important but Obvious Rules
Krunchlist
This is a brief list and I encourage you to add your own suggestions:
Regional and Ethnic Krunches
More aggressive krunches
Inflammatory krunches (be sure to smile)
Nonverbal krunches
Responses to krunches
Evaluating Your Negotiation Skills
Negotiation Exercise: _______________My Name ___________ Partner
Fill this out after the interaction/negotiation; you are encouraged to
discuss your critique directly with your partner. You can learn a lot from
each other.
What are your key impressions of the other person:
rank from 1 (not true at all) to 5 (Very true)
The negotiation was very effective___
I left the negotiation satisfied ___
My "opponent" was easy to understand___
She/he made me feel comfortable___
She/he listened well___
She/he was credible___
He/she created a cooperative climate___
What style of interaction was used: (tell and sell,
tell and listen, problem solving)
Rank the other person (your "opponent") on these variables:
Cooperative
1 2 3
4 5
Competitive
Judgmental
1 2 3
4 5
Empathetic
Controlling
1 2 3
4 5
Problem Oriented
Supportive
1 2 3
4 5
Defensive
Comfortable
1 2 3
4 5
Suspicious
Cautious
1 2 3
4 5
Open/trusting
Credible
1 2 3
4 5
not credible
listened
1 2 3
4 5
Tuned out
Honest
1 2 3
4 5
Dishonest
Interested in me
1 2 3
4 5
Not interested
Easy to understand
1 2 3
4 5
Hard to understand
Me Opponent
acquire as much information about the other's interests and goals;
what are the real needs vs. wants; what constituencies must he or she
appease? What is her strategy? Be prepared to frame solutions in terms of
her interests.
Negotiations are like a chess match; have a strategy; anticipate how the
other will respond; how strong is your position, and situation; how important
is the issue; how important will it be to stick to a hardened position.
Try to establish rapport and mutual trust before starting; try for a small
concession early.
Avoid the tendency to attack your opponent personally; if the other
person feels threatened, he defends his self-esteem and makes attacking
the real problem more difficult; separate the people issues from the
problem
if your opponent attacks you personally, don't let him hook you into
an emotional reaction; let the other blow off steam without taking it
personally; try to understand the problem behind the aggression.
these are points of departure; they tend to be extreme and idealistic;
focus on the other person's interests and your own goals and principles,
while you generate other possibilities.
Even in what appears to be win-lose situaitons, there are often win-win
solutions; look for an integrative solution; create additional alternatives,
such as low cost concessions that might have high value to the other person;
frame options in terms of the other person's interests; look for alternatives
that allow your opponent to declare victory
Make your negotiated decision based on principles and results, not emotions
or pressure; try to find objective criteria that both parties can use to
evaluate alternatives; don't succumb to emotional please, assertiveness, or
stubborness
REFERENCES
Last modified: Wed Nov 21 16:24:09EST
1996
by SJN.
Please send us your comments!
