1.

Separate the people from the problem Before working on the substance, people problems should be disentangled and dealt with before they intervene with the negotiation. Perceptions What type of people problems involved? Tend to focus on facts that confirm with their prior perceptions, and disregard and misinterpret others Deeply held views and values, that cause people to see only the merits of their case, and only the faults of the other sides

Results in blaming. Under attack, other party becomes defensive and will resist what you have to say. This firmly entangles people with problem. Draw inferences about peoples intentions and attitudes, which may not be true Inferences are unconscious, hence automatically eliminating other explanations that may be equally valid

Confuse perceptions with reality, misunderstandings occur; rational exploration of possible solutions fails A habit of putting the worst interpretation on what the other party says or does Suspicious interpretation

Causes fresh ideas in the direction of agreement to be spurned, reflect bad on the other party in front of spectators. How to resolve? Put yourself in their shoes Not enough to know that they see things differently If you want to influence them, you need to understand empathetically the power of their views and to feel the emotional force with which they believe in Understanding Agreeing But better understanding is a benefit to allow you to reduce the area of conflict, and allow you to revise your own views about the merits of a situation

Don't deduce their intentions from your fears Don't blame them for your problems Separate the symptoms from the person with whom you are talking

Face-saving Maintaining good image and dignity of negotiators even when they have made a mistake All parties should work to defuse face-losing situation of either side to maintain relationship, reduce tension and continue negotiation

Losing face may cause people to shut down and refuse to proceed If the substance can be phrased so that it seems a fair outcome, they will then accept it Perhaps there are other reasons that I am not aware of Here is some information that you probably did not have access to I understand your conclusion, but have you considered this
rd

If you can blame a 3 party such as someone who left the company, it will take the ego issue off the table.

Emotions Emotional Awareness/ intelligence Become emotionally aware of our feelings, as well as others Although emotions tend to masquerade as other feelings (anger can mask shame, fear, hurt and self-doubt), familiarized with ours and theirs emotions may trigger a flash of recognition

Do not treat people as mere mouthpieces of their organization without emotions Problems are not limited to negotiators, constituents have emotions too

Their careers may be at stake. There may be issues to which they are very sensitive

Control emotional outburst Emotions are contagious. Our reaction to problems or others emotions can influence how the other party will feel They may catch the strong negative emotions, and result in a quarrel

Gestures & Facial expressions Most information about emotion is transmitted non verbally If the other party shows an angry face, then we might have to address their concerns before continuing with the negotiation Sudden leaning forward or backwards may indicate the level of interest in the discussion An apology is most rewarding and least costly

Allow the other side to let off steam Listen quietly without responding to their attacks, until they have finished their last words Offer little support and encouragement

Communication 3 Big Problems in communication 1. Negotiators may not be talking to each other, or at least not in such a way as to be understood 2. 3. When each side has given up on the other, and is merely to impress third parties or their constituency Try and talk spectators into taking sides

May be talking but no one is hearing you or paying enough attention Misunderstanding What one says is misinterpreted When parties speak different languages, the possibility of misinterpretation is greater.

How to resolve? Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said Listening enables you to understand their perceptions, feel their emotions and hear what they are trying to say If you pay attention and interrupt occasionally, the other party will feel the satisfaction of being heard and understood Did I understand correctly that you are saying that

Speak about yourself, not about them More persuasive to describe a problem in terms of its impact on you than in terms of what the other party did. I feel let down instead of You broke your word We feel discriminated against instead of You are a racist

If you make a statement about them that they believe is untrue, they will ignore you or get angry, and will not focus on your concern Speaking about how you feel is hard to challenge, and provoke a less defensive reaction

Build a working relationship Knowing the other side personally The more quickly you can turn a stranger into someone you know, the easier a negotiation is likely to become Have a foundation of trust, and easier to defuse tension with a joke or an informal side Develop such a relationship before the negotiation begins Arriving early to chat Benjamin Franklin's favorite technique was to ask an adversary if he could borrow a certain book. This would

flatter the person and give him the comfortable feeling of knowing that Franklin owed him a favor. 2. Focus on Interests, not positions People often think that the stated positions of both parties are the only possible solutions, so they tend to think and focus on positions, resulting in position conflicts But the problem often lie in the interests rather than positions, because interests are the underlying reasons that led to the development of positions

Behind opposed positions lie many shared and compatible interests, which we have to recognize to produce wise agreements. Sometimes when interests differ, agreements are possible too. (Shoemaker example) Dovetail differing interests E.g. you may care more about the present while the other side cares more about the future. In the language of business, you discount future value at different rates. An installment plan works on this principle. The buyer is willing to pay a higher price for the car if he can pay later; the seller is willing to accept payment later if he gets a higher price. Different beliefs, values placed on time, forecast, aversion to risk.

How to identify interests? Ask Why? Put yourselves in their shoes Examine or ask why the other party takes a certain position. If you do, make sure you are asking not for justification, but for an understanding of the needs, wants and fears.

Ask Why not? Realize that each side has multiple interests On each side, there are more than one interests, whether is towards employee, employer, client or colleague To understand negotiators interests means to understand the range of differing interests of everyone on the other side

The most powerful interests are basic human needs Security Economic well being A sense of belonging Recognition Control over ones life

We tend to think that the only interest is money. But more can be involved. What is the logic behind the particular amount?

How to discuss interests constructively? Be specific and use concrete examples Acknowledge their interests as part of the problem People listen better if they feel that you have understood them. They think that those who have understood them are intelligent and sympathetic people whose opinions may be worth listening to If you want the other side to appreciate your interests, begin by demonstrating that you appreciate theirs. As I understand it, your interests as a construction company are basically to get the job done quickly a t minimum cost and to preserve the reputation for safety and responsibility in the city. Have I understood you correctly? Do you have other important interests?

Be concrete but flexible Be hard on the problem, soft on the people It is unwise to commit to your position, but wise to commit to interests When negotiators push hard for their interests, it will stimulate creativity in thinking up mutually advantageous solutions One rule of thumb is to give positive support to other side equal to the energy at which you attack the problem.

To prevent people from feeling personally threatened. Listen to them with respect, show them courtesy, express your appreciation for their time and effort, emphasize your concern with meeting their basic needs, and so on. Show them that you are attacking the problem, not them.

3. Invent Options for mutual gain After you have settled the people problem and understood the underlying interests of both parties, you then went on to invent many options/solutions that fulfilled all interests. Obstacles that inhibit the inventing of abundant of options 1. 2. Premature judgment People make judgments that other party will criticize on any new ideas they were to propose Under this pressure, creativity becomes more stifled Practical and serious negotiation often call for practical thinking, not wild ideas Fear that inventing options reveal some piece of information that will jeopardize your bargaining position Searching for a single answer (Premature closure) Close your mind to many options in order to short circuit decision making process Were having a hard enough time agreeing as it is. The last thing we need is a bunch of different ideas Since the end product of negotiation is a single decisions, they fear that free floating discussion will only delay and confuse the process The assumption of a fixed pie Each party sees the situation as either/or (Either I get it, or you get it) Why bother to invent if all the options are obvious and I can satisfy you only at my own expense Thinking that solving their problem is their problem Each side is only concern with their immediate interests Psychological reluctance to accord any legitimacy to the views of the other side Shortsighted self-concern leads a negotiator to develop only partisan positions, partisan arguments and one-sided solutions

3. 4.

To invent creative options Separate inventing from deciding Since judgment hinders imagination, separate the creative act from the critical one Invent first, decide later Brainstorming sessions

Broaden your options Circle Chart The task of inventing options involves 4 types of thinking: 1. 2. 3. 4. What is the problem? What caused this problem? What possible solutions are there? Come up with a specific plan

Look for mutual gain 5. Insist on Using Objective criteria But however well we understand the interests of other side, there will always be interests that conflict. When this happens, we use objective criteria to negotiate.

How to develop objective criteria? Fair standards Use an independent standards to reach an agreement Standards must be independent of each sides will, legitimate and practical Market value Scientific judgment Costs What the court would decide Moral standards Traditions Reciprocity Test of reciprocal: ask the other party if they would use the same standards on themselves

Fair procedures One cuts, the other chooses: for the parties to negotiate what they think is a fair arrangement before they continue to decide their respective roles Taking turns, drawing lots, letting someone else decide.. Mediator, arbitrator