Section 1.

Integrative Negotiations and Collective Decision Making: Principles and Concepts

 Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 2

What Is Negotiation?
Let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, that sincerity is always subject to proof. t us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. John F. Kennedy

Negotiation Is Collective Decision Making

Collective decision making occurs when more than one entity is required to make a decision. Simply stated, negotiation is the process by which collective decisions are made. In our organizational lives we encounter negotiations when making decisions both within the organization and with entities external to the organization. The word "negotiation" is from the Latin expression, "negotiatus" meaning "to carry on business". When managers consider how they spend their time carrying on business they soon realize that they much of their time is spent in negotiation -related activity, whether preparing for negotiations, negotiating agreements or implementing those agreements. It is what managers and others in an organization do. Working on teams, coordinating projects, and getting cooperation just getting our work done all require negotiation. Indeed, negotiation is the way in which we address and define challenges and opportunities, craft strategies, policies and solutions, and ensure the understanding and commitment to implement them. It is a major determinant of our success.

Internal Negotiations
Within the organization there are two primary decision rules: 1. I have the authority to make the decision. 2. Someone else will make the decision for me. However, decisions are often complex and, even if we have the authority to make a decision, we may not have exclusive authority over the entire scope of the matter affected by that decision. Unless we are the final decision maker we are making decisions with delegated authority and our decisions are subject to review. We may not have all of the information to make a decision. Even though we have authority to make a decision its success may rely upon the implementation of others. As a result, a third decision making rule is becoming common within organizations: 3. We choose to share decision making with others.

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 3

One indicator of the extent to which we share decision making within an organization is the number of work groups, project teams and committees we are a part of and the many meetings we attend where decisions are made. All require negotiation. 1 Shared decision making is the result of a choice made by a decision maker to involve others in the decision making process. The goal of the decision maker may be to improve the information brought to bear on a matter, to increase the knowledge and skill available, to ensure buy -in when the decision is made, or some other motivating factor. Generally, internal negotiation decision is more likely to engage those with a significant level of common knowledge and goals. It is built on an expectation that a solution (agreement) that considers the concerns or interests of all parties may be possible. As a result, this can lead to a problem -solving atmosphere where there is a shared effort to generate alternatives. There is an expectation that there may synergies that could lead to expanding the pie. The goal can become to find the common ground rather than the middle ground. This type of negotiation is often referred to as interest based negotiations. The consequence of not agreeing in internal negotiation is that a decision will be made by the decision maker. Ideally, that decision will be informed and improved by the failed attempt to negotiate a shared agreement.2

External Negotiation
When our decisions involve entities that are external the organization there is no common authority structure. Rather, each participating entity has its own authority and structure for making decisions and the independent authority to agree or disagree. Therefore, there is one predominant decision -making rule: 1. We will make a joint decision with agreement based upon our independent internal decisions. Joint decision making in an external negotiation context proceeds from a very different set of realities than does shared decision making in the internal negotiation context. It is the result on necessity, not choice: Two or more entities with independent decision making authority must come together to reach a mutually acceptable agreement or joint decision. They are much less likely to share goals and perspectives. They may be proceeding from a different set of assumptions and information base. There is less expectation of shared intent to cooperate for mutual benefit. As a result, it is often more difficult to employ a problem solving approach when negotiating in a joint decision making context. The tendency is to for the negotiators to
1

It is important to differentiate between shared decision making and a consultative decision making process. In shared decision making the decision maker enters the process for the purpose of reac a mutually agreed upon outcome. The decision maker must engage in the process and be prepared to agree solutions that result from the negotiations that meet defined objectives and constraints. This is different from a consultative process where a decision maker seeks input and advice but makes the decision independently. 2 The consequences of failure to agree are a very important consideration in negotiation. On page ? in this section we will discuss the concept of Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 4

pursue their own proposals and predetermined positions rather than search for commonalities and synergies. They will typically begin negotiation with their own proposals for a decision or agreement based on internal planning and processes. There is a tendency to see the issues in win -lose terms, assuming that any concessions to the other side are a corresponding loss for themselves. They may be concerned about leaving something on the table. They may define their efforts as seeking the middle ground, a softer way of describing compromise. This type of negotiation is often referred to as positional bargaining. The consequence of a failure to agree in external negotiation is for each party to make its own decision on how to proceed, independent of and without their negotiating partner.

Negotiation Is Agreement Building And Dispute Settlement

There are two general foci in negotiation: agreement uilding and dispute settlement. In agreement building negotiations the primary focus is on the future. There is the opportunity to create or build on a relationship and anticipation of gains to be made. In dispute settlement negotiations the parties are focused backward on problems that have arisen. The issues may be in the context of a prior agreement where problems have arisen or may be the first negotiations between the parties. The question being addressed is, Whose fault is it? If there is an existing relationship the challenge is to resolve the dispute in a manner that salvages the relationship. Determining who is at fault in the situation can further damage the relationship. It is possible to shift dispute settlement negotiations to agreement building by redefining the question as, How do we fix the problem and ensure it doesnt happen again? Conversely, agreement building negotiations can shift dispute settlement mode by constantly focusing on differences and pursuing an adversarial strategy that leads to challenges and accusations creating disputes within the negotiations themselves which must then be addressed.

Negotiation Is Building Relationships

Unfortunately, for some the term negotiate has come to mean haggling over a used car or the worst excesses of a divisive labor-management relationship. In the first situation it is a one-time relationship with little or no opportunity for shared gain. In the second there is a failed relationship where the parties have lost sight of long term shared

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 5

interests. However, perhaps 90% of all negotiations are within the context of an ongoing relationship. As we will explore in greater depth later, when negotiating in a continuing relationship it is important to consider the value of that relationship and the cost of a failed relationship. The relationship may be more important than prevailing on a particular issue. In military terms, it is important to differentiate between prevailing in a battle and winning the war. Externally , we may have a choice of those with whom we will have relationship. Internally, however, we must learn to work within the lationships that exist. An important concern for the negotiator is the impact of the negotiation process on the relationship. Negotiation will always impact an existing relationship, for better or worse. An adversarial approach will shift the relationship in an adversarial direction. A problem solving or shared decision making approach will shift it in a collegial direction. Some negotiations are over matters where the agreement concludes the effort as, for example, in a simple purchase agreement with no warranties, delivery requirements or other future interaction. Most negotiation agreements, however, create or affect an ongoing relationship. In general, the more complex the implementation tasks, the more important it is that the agreement have the informed support of all the parties and that the expectations, tasks and responsibilities pertaining to the implementation are clear. Success in negotiations is reaching an agreement that all parties are committed to honoring. The purpose is not to defeator even do better thanthe other side. It is to achieve your goals and meet your interests. Where agreements require shared implementation, success will be enhanced if the other are also successful in achieving their goals and addressing their interests.

Negotiation Is a Process
Negotiation is often perceived as more art than science. As a result, there is a risk of entering into negotiation trusting to luck or intuition rather than doing the kind of analysis and preparation that characterizes successful negotiators. One of the most important perspectives of successful negotiators is viewing the negotiations as a process that can be made more predictable and more efficient. At the macro level, the negotiation process can be understood as a series of stages. At the micro lev l the agreeing process can be designed to maximize shared rather than joint decision by specifying a problem solving approach

The Four Stages of Negotiations

The negotiation process has a series of distinct phases or stages. The first stage is assessing the situation to ensure that it is appropriate for negotiation, that you are prepared to enter into negotiations and that the other party has some reason to negotiate with you.

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 6

The second stage is developing and agreeing upon the process by which the negotiations will proceed. Matters that may require discussion and prior agreement between the parties include the scope of the issues, participants, timelines, and understandings regarding how the negotiators will approach the issues and each other. The third state is negotiating the substantive agreement. In this stage the negotiator will make a number of strategic decisions regarding tactics and acceptable outcomes. We will discuss, below, how to ensure a shared decision making process that maximizes the quality of agreements for both parties.

Figure 1. Negotiation Stages Assessing

Structuring

The fourth stage is implementing the agreement. This is the real purpose for entering into the negotiations and it is important that agreements reached will be and can be implemented. Experienced negotiators will consider what understandings are required to ensure timely and effective implementation and make them a part of the agreeing process. Failure to proceed through these stages in an orderly manner can result in wasting time and resources on a situation where agreement is not possible or reaching agreements that cannot be implemented. Following this structure can build a solid foundation for addressing difficult issues, building the relationship and ensuring that implementation of agreements is successful.

Agreeing

Implementing

Figure 2 is a checklist of some of the questions that might be considered at each stage of the negotiation process.

The Process of Decision Making in Negotiations

As we noted, negotiation is a shared or shared decision -making process. That is, the decision is made collectively rather than by an individual. This not only complicates the decision-making process both substantively in terms of the array of issues, amount of information that must be considered, etc. and in terms of process the need to engage others and communicate with the, etc. but it requires an orderly, agreed upon approach to making decisions. There are a variety of approaches to orderly decision making, many
Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 7

characterized by the illustrated in Figure 3.

steps

Figure 2. Negotiation Stage Strategy Questions

Assessing the Situation

In a typical negotiation this process is first applied within the organization or team as they prepare for negotiation. It can also be used as a format for the negotiation process. he first step is to clearly define the problem. This will identify the issues or specific subjects on which agreement must be achieved. One challenge at this point is to focus on underlying problems and goals rather than on symptoms or assumptions. The second step is to define success and set criteria for measuring that success. How will we know we have solved the problem? What constraints and objectives must be considered (cost, time, quality, breadth of acceptance, etc.)? The third step is to assemble the necessary information and data to develop solutions. What information is presently available? How complete and reliable is the information? What additional information is required? How should it be acquired?

Am I clear regarding my internal goals, authority, and expectations? Have I identified my interests and constraints? Have I defined criteria for agreements? Have I prioritized the issues? Do I know my Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)? Do I have internal agreement on the above? Have I considered the interests and constraints of the other party?

Establishing the Process

Have we agreed on the issues? Have we identified who needs to be engaged? Do we understand how agreements will be ratified? Are we in agreement on schedule and deadlines? Have we discussed o how we will negotiate ? o information that may be required and its use? o how meetings will be managed

Negotiating the Agreement

Am I focusing on my interests -- not positions? Am I keeping decision-makers informed? Are we identifying mutual interests and expanding the

pie? Do my proposals meet my interests? Do my proposals address their interests? Am I open to new ideas? Are we building a relationship that will support implementation?

Implementing the Agreement

The fourth step in the process is to generate alternative solutions. implementation? There is always the danger of identifying a possible solution, Are there procedures for resolving disputes in a timely manner? seizing upon it, and making it fit How will we maintain our relationship? as a solution to the problem. It is usually more effective to identify several possible solutions and compare and contrast them. The result is more likely to be a best choice informed by a variety of possible solutions.

Are agreements clearly spelled out in writing? Did we test drive the implementation? Are responsibilities for implementation clear? Is there a provision for assessing and improving

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 8

Figure 3 Stages in a Decision Process

Define the Problem

The fifth step is to compare and evaluate the alternatives using the criteria and measures that were established in step two and other criteria that may have emerged as a result of the process.
At step six , a result of careful evaluation will often be to identify an alternative that is an improvement upon any of those originally identified. Finally and, perhaps, most important, we must implement the decision. Ideally, the process and responsibilities for implementation have been identified as part of the decision making process. In a negotiation the implementation is contingent upon the acceptance of the other parties with whom you will be negotiating.

Establish Criteria for Success

Assemble the

Information

Develop
Alternatives

From Internal to External Negotiations

Internal agreement on a best solution will typically precede negotiations. Meanwhile, the Evaluate other negotiating team has been employing a Alternatives similar process to identify the best solution to their problem and issues. Those separately derived solutions will be based Select on different problem definitions, different sets of Preferred Alternative information and differing priorities and perspectives. If they form the only basis for proposals brought to the negotiation, the discussions will be focus on reconciling different Convey preferred alternative to other answers to different problems! It should not come party as a surprise that such discussions end in compromises and statements like, It must be a good solution, everybody is unhappy! Arguing about different answers to different problems will never lead to innovative solutions and will seldom result true success for either party. Other complications can arise. The internal shared decisions can lead to a strong commitment to a single preferred solution. The negotiator may then be faced with an expectation that he or she deliver on that solution. Achieving the specific answer rather than finding the best solution to the underlying issues and problems then becomes the goal of the negotiations. The situation can arise where a better solution emerges in negotiation but it is impossible for the negotiator to agree to it because of internal commitment to a differing solution .

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 9

One strategy for avoiding this problem is to agree that internal discussions will not result in a single preferred alternative. Rather, the strategy is to craft two or three alternative solutions that are roughly equivalent: that is, where achieving any one of the alternatives will be perceived as a success. This approach has several advantages. First, it helps to keep the focus on the underlying problem and criteria rather than on a single solution. Second, it fosters an internal awareness that there is no single right answer to most problems and a greater willingness to consider new alternatives that may emerge during negotiation. Third, the negotiator has a much better likelihood of getting an innovative agreement ratified and viewed as successful.

are the specific topics of discussion that are expected to arise within a negotiation. In labormanagement negotiation the issues typically include wages, benefits and hours. In a sales negotiation they may include price, quality and delivery. They may also include specific tasks, milestones, and funding arrangements. Experienced negotiators increase the range of issues that are on the table. Less effective negotiators are more concerned with what they leave on the table.
Issues

Position describes the solution for addressing an issue or issues developed by one party and conveyed to the other. When each party places a position on the table as a basis for discussions, the result is li ly to be positional negotiations or joint decision making where each tries to achieve as much of its proposal as possible. The issues on the table are less likely to be expanded and shared benefits are unlikely. A demand describes the manner in which a position is presented. The more formally and specifically a position is placed before the other party, the more likely it is to be perceived as a demand. And, when a position is perceived as a demand, it tends to meet increased resistance, whatever its actual acceptability.

The structured approach to decision making illustrated in Figure 4 can also serve as an agenda for the negotiation process and provide a template for shared rather than joint decision making. When discussing how they will address the issues, the negotiators can establish and agree on an for the process based upon working through the steps together. The steps can be scheduled over a series of meetings or, if appropriate, provide the agenda for a single meeting. Starting the negotiations by agreeing on a joint definition of the problem which encompasses both mutual and separate interests provides a strong basis for a problem sol- vying approach. Understanding the nature of the goals and constraints of each party helps to ensure realistic alternatives are developed. Assembling and sharing information and jointly developing additional information prevents the source of the information and its reliability becoming an issue. Developing alternatives together can then lead to building a single preferred approach or agreement that maximizes both mutual and separate interests.

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 10

Three Negotiation Lenses

We view and interpret situations through a set of lenses shaped by our experience, education and values and beliefs. Many managers use the lenses of organization structure, authority and responsibility to interpret how things work in an organization. Similarly experienced negotiators have developed a set of lenses that they use to analyze interactions and behaviors in negotiations. 1. Interests are those matters that are of fundamental importance.. 2. Power is our ability to influence the choices and behavior of others. 3. Relationships are the set of authorities, commitments, expectations and behaviors through which we engage with others. These three lenses reveal critical aspects of negotiation analysis, strategy and practice which not may be discerned using other lenses.

Figure 4 Decision Process and Negotiation

Define the Problem

SOC IAL/SUB TAN TIVE IN TERES TS W AN TS/FE ARS

Establish Criteria for Success

O BJECTIVE S CRITERIA CON S TR AIN TS

Assemble the

Information

OURS/ THE IRS

Develop
Alternatives

Evaluate
Alternatives

The Interests Lens

Select Alternatives

SING LE OR M ULTIP LE AL TERN ATIVE S? a=b=c

Viewing a situation through the lens Implement P OSITION / DEM AN D of interests is fundamental to OR Solution effective decision -making in both CHOICES? internal and external negotiations. People will act in their self interest, as M IDDLE G ROUND OR they understand it. If we are unaware COM M ON G ROUND? of the interests of others we are likely to be surprised by their actions and responses. Similarly, if others are not aware of our we are in danger of being misunderstood and misinterpreted. As illustrated in Figure 4, it is only if we are clear on our own interests that we can begin to establish criteria and build effective solutions. And,
Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 11

if we are to build mutual solutions, we must be aware one anothers interests An interest based approach will consider the following elements:

Interests describe those matters of fundamental concern that underlay the issues in negotiation. Interests can be categorized as substantive or personal and social. Substantive interests are directly related to the issues which are being negotiated. Personal and social interests are those matters that related to the negotiators own needs and to relationships with others. They will include such factors as reputation, respect, perceptions of fairness, a sense of success, and perso lationships.
Both substantive and personal/social interests can also be differentiated in terms of what we want and what we fear or wish to avoid. We want to achieve a set of substantive objectives in the negotiations but we may wish to avoid uncertainties. We want to be respected and seen as successful but we wish to avoid loss of face. It is important to consider carefully all aspects of our interests. Substantive interests and objectives or goals are usually explicit matters for discussion. Personal/social interests and what we fear or wish to avoid are much less likely to be discussed and addressed. However, it is personal interests and fears that are often motivating the negotiators. They are as likely to be the cause of failed negotiations as are differences over to substantive matters.

Unfortunately, there is an almost genetic fear that providing information about our real interests to the other party somehow weakens our hand and strengthens theirs. However, considerable experience indicates that those negotiators who are most effective in conveying their interests tend to be most successful in achieving them. If the other party is aware of what is important to us and why it is important, they may be able to suggest alternative ways of delivering on th ose interests at less cost to themselves. If they are unaware of our interests, it is impossible for them to make proposals on how to achieve them.

The Power or Influence Lens

Simply stated, power in negotiations is our ability influence the other partys choices and actions. Often, power is thought of only in terms of bringing pressure on the other party in a attempt to overcome their resistance to what we want to achieve. It is often expressed and perceived as a direct or implied threat: If you dont let me pitch, Ill take my bat and ball and go home. or My Dad is bigge than your Dad. or Ill take my business elsewhere. or Ill turn this over to my attorneys.

Power is a critical dynamic in negotiations. We are not likely to achieve our goals if the other party do es not perceive a reason to engage with us. To base our negotiation strategy solely on the fact that an outcome is fair or that we deserve something is to rely o charity, not to enter into agreement as partners or co-equals.

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 12

Some of us are uncomfortable discussing power managers because they see it as an exchange of threats and counter-threats. Fortunately, there is an often overlooked facet of power that can be even more effective than bringing pressure and making threats.

Power Is Relative
Power in negotiations is Figure 5 always relative. That is, Relative Power and Influence in Negotiations we have more power over some parties than over Ability to influence choices others. If those we are and behavior of other party negotiating with have other, good choices, they are less likely to be affected by our power. decrease resistance Our power may also vary inc rease pressure over time. Therefore, it is important to consider both your own Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) 3 and that of the party you are negotiating with. If you fail to do so, you are at risk of agreeing to s hing that is not as good as your alternative or failing to agree to something that is better than your alternative. Power may also be affected by time. A party may react quite differently when they are facing a deadline than they might when time is not an immediate issue. Our concern is with the relative balance of power between them at any point in time. There are two very different ways in which we can bring influence to bear in negotiation. As illustrated in Figure 5, we can apply more pressure in an attempt to overcome e resistance of the other party or we can use strategies that reduce the resistance of the other party to our proposals.

Increasing Pressure
The use of increasing pressure to overcome resistance an effective strategy. It may be most appropriate in one-time negotiations where there is no expectation of any ongoing relationship, such as buying a used car from a private party. It may also be appropriate where the cost of not gaining the acquiescence of the party is disproportionately large. An example might be where agreement on an immediate issue with one party is necessary to success on a much larger set of issues with some other entity.

A limiting factor in the use of increased pressure is that the target will almost invariab ly react by pushing back, requiring the application of even more pressure. Thus, it is necessary to determine before using this strategy that you have sufficient power to over3

Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes, Penguin: New York, 1983. Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 13

whelm the other side. Even in this circumstance there are risks. For example, the other party may prefer to not agree even at apparent significant cost in order to ensure that you are not successful the classic lose-lose scenario. The use of pressure will usually damage a relationship. A party that feels it has been coerced into an agreement has little commitment to its successful implementation.

Decreasing Resistance
We decrease resistance when we employ strategies and develop proposals that make it easier for the other party to agree with us. There are a number of ways of achieving this, all of which are based on an understanding of what is important to the other party. In marketing it is said that, You dont know what you are selling if you dont know what they are buying. Our effective power in a negotiation is, therefore, directly related to our understanding of the interests (substantive and personal/social, wants and fears) of those we are negotiating with.
We can apply this knowledge in two key ways: 1. By ensuring that our proposals are crafted in a manner that avoids their fears while addressing their desires and objectives. With careful thought we m ay find that we can accomplish this at little or no cost to achieving our own interests. 2. By adding elements to our proposal that directly address the key desires or fears of the other party. We may be able to identify specific proposals that meet their needs, again at little or no cost to us.

A major state agency contracted for a complete overhaul of its information technology systems and equipment. They entered into a contract with a reputable national firm to undertake the project. Unfortunately, 18 months later the new system was not yet in place. Files were lost, scheduling was in chaos and the budgeting process was in danger of collapse. The media published a series of highly critical investigative articles and the legislature held a series of hearings on the matter. As a result, the contract was cancelled (and litigation commenced). The agency then prepared an RFP seeking proposals to take the current state of affairs and build a functioning IT system. The RFP specified a number of criteria for consideration including, performance specifications for hardware and software, price, time, service and other standard items. A number of responses were received. One company thought carefully about the interests of the agency managers, not only in terms of the goals specified in the RFP, but in terms of their major fears or concerns. They concluded that assurances that this contact would be completed successfully and on time would be at the top of the list. Therefore, after carefully responding to all of the substantive criteria, they laid out a process for ensuring that a series of clearly defined deadlines were met. Trigger points were spelled out that would lead to meetings between senior management of both parties to ensure that the contract stayed on track. They also proposed a performance bond, even though such a bond was not contemplated in the RFP.

As illustrated in the side-bar vignette, it is often the unspoken concerns that will become apparent to the This company won the contract even negotiator who carefully considers the interests of though their price proposal was higher the other party. The other proposers offered than that of several other proposals. assurances of their reliability in terms of past experience and references. However, their proposals still added up to trust us.

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 14

Conversely, the winning bidder dispensed with the need for trust from an agency that experience had taught to be untrusting and instead gave guarantees. By putting together a timeline with clear goals they indicated their concern for staying on track and on time. They reduced resistance at little or no cost o themselves. Indeed, in their conversations they had discovered that one of the problems that the original contractor had encountered was an inability to get timely responses from senior agency managers. The series of targets and required meetings with senior managers when targets were not met was as much benefit to them as it was to the agency!

The Relationship Lens

The third lens in our triumvirate is relationships. Relationships are one of our most valuable assets. Within an organization both formal and informal relationships are the key to accomplishing goals. They are the linkages through which information, ideas and commitments flow between and among individuals. Formal relationships, those established in organization charts for example, have more or less defined parameters of authority and responsibility. However, it is often the less formal relationships that can have the biggest impact on our success. When managers are asked to identify those individuals or groups who have most influence their ability to be successful, many of those relationships will not be represented by lines on an organization chart. Indeed, many including clients, suppliers, advisors, colleagues, and competitors will not be within the organization. In the public sector external influences include elected and appointed officials and their staffs and the various publics that are being served.
Positive relationships indicators: predictable responses a mutual desire to identify mutually acceptable solutions being given the benefit of the doubt priority attention and commitment to the process
Negative relationship indicators:

uncertain reactions and unexpected resistance a lack of concern for the interests of the other party assume the worst presumptio ns a lack of focus and time

The first question we ask when we use this lens is, How important is this relationship to me? Continuing relationships will tend to be more important than one-time interactions. They vary in terms of how important they are in our ability to accomplish our goals. If we carefully consider our relationships we may discover that some have great potential and we should spend more time on them. It is also important to consider the costs of a poor relationship. It is necessary to consider what type of relationship agreement will require. As we discussed earlier, in a one time negotiation where the implementation of the agreement is completed with the exchange of cash for a product the ionship has little importance. On the other hand, the more the success of the agreement relies on working together to implement it, the longer the time frame, the greater the uncertainty, the more central the
Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 15

agreement to the success of the parties and the greater the need to learn while doing, the more important will be the relationship. There are a variety of typical relationships within which negotiation and shared or joint decision making take place. They differ widely in respect to the importance of the relationship as a part of the agreement. Typical relationships, ranked in terms of their importance, are illustrated in Figure 6.
Figure 6 Relationship Types Team: the primary purpose is to attain a common objective. On an effective team personal interests may be subordinated to that common objective. Partnership: independent partners work together to achieve success on shared goals important to both organizations. A true partnership is, in effect, a new entity whether or not a formal structure is created.
Joint venture : an agreement important to both parties but less likely to be critical to their central goals than in a partnership. A joint venture will usually result in the creation of a new, formal entity.

Professional/client: an independent, continuing, contractual relationship where trust and respect are especially important. The relationship will be of primary importance to one partner (the professional) and important to the other.
Continuing contract: buyer/seller/supplier relationships are typical exa The intent is an ongoing relationship with benefits to both parties. Ho he relationship may be replaced with relative ease. Competitive continuing relationship: these relationship are characterized by potentially divergent goals can separate the parties. Labor-management relations are an example. There is the possibility of focusing instead on common interests and changing the nature of the relationship to more of a joint venture. Competitive one -time relationship: seen as essentially win-lose with the agreement ending the relationship and no expectations regarding mplementation. An example is the classic used car buy-sell negotiation.

The importance of the relationship should be reflected both in strategic choices and in making proposals that build and enhance the relationship.

Relationships and Power:

Relationships have a direct influence on relative power. A positive relationship will tend to reduce resistance while a negative relationship wil tend to increase resistance. We all have colleagues or clients that we like to work with and others we avoid. When we have
Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 16

an inbox full of messages we respond to some immediately while others always seem to slip to the bottom of the list. This is a simple indicator of the quality of a relationship.

In a continuing relationship there will a series of negotiations. Each negotiation experience will either enhance or detract for the quality of the relationship. Therefore, the negotiator must prioritize and value his or her interest in the relationship as an asset. Each negotiation will either enhance or detract from the quality of the relationship. The negotiator should consider success in each negotiation in the context of the overall relationship.
There are a number of relationships with which the negotiator should be concerned: between the negotiator and their internal team, organization or reference group between the negotiator and those who will ultimately be responsible for approving the agreement between the negotiator and those who will implement the agreement between the negotiator and the representative (negotiator) for the other party between the parties being represented in the negotiations the other negotiators internal relationships It is important to ensure that the relationships that will be required to implement the agreement are established Airline pilots are said to have one rule that is inviolate if you before final agreements are reached. The negotiators may have established a good working relationship but are not on the plane for takeoff, you will not be permitted to take they will be handing-off the agreement to others for the controls for landing! implementation. If the implementers do not have a relationship with those they must work with implementation will be rocky at best and may ultimately fail. An example is corporate mergers where senior executives and financial and legal representatives put together the agreement and then hand it off for implementation to those who are at best uninformed and, at worst threatened by or opposed to the agreement. Often such mergers fail to achieve their potential. Effective negotiators will consider when and how to involve those that need to be part of the implementation in the negotiation process. This can include involving implementers in the design of the specific implementation procedures and/or test-driving the agreement to identify unforeseen problems and challenges or opportunities that may be encountered in the implementation process. Using these three lenses to view and assess negotiating and shared decision making situations can lead to important insights into both your own motivations and goals and the motivations of those with whom you will be working. Interests, power or influence and relationships are closely intertwined. We increase our influence when we help others to meet their interests. A good relationship increases our influence while a poor relationship decreases it. One of our key interests will be creating, maintaining and improving our relationships.

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 17

 Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 18

THE FOUR STAGES OF NEGOTIATIONS: TICKLER REFERENCE GUIDE

The negotiation process has a series of discreet stages. Successfully addressing the requirements of each stage establishes a solid foundation for moving to the next. The inability to achieve the key components of a prior stage suggests that it may not be possible to achieve agreement. Note the use of the three negotiating lenses.
ASSESSING STRUCTURING AGREEING IMPLEMENTING

Q U E S T I O N S

Am I clear regarding my internal goals, authority, and expectations? Have I identified my interests and constraints? Have I defined criteria for agreements? Have I prioritized the issues? Do I know my Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)? Do I have internal agreement on the above? Have I considered the interests and constraints of the other party? Get internal commitments early. Ensure that your priorities and organizational priorities are in sync. Consider early, informal discussions about possibility of working together

Have we agreed on the issues? Have we identified who needs to be engaged? Do we understand how agreements will be ratified? Are we in agreement on schedule and deadlines? Have we discussed o How we will negotiate? o How meetings will be managed? o Information that may be required and its use?

Am I focusing on my interests - not positions? Am I keeping decision-makers informed? Are we jointly identifying mutual interests and expanding the pie? Do my proposals meet my interests? Do my proposals address their interests? Am I open to new ideas? Are we building a relationship that will support implementation?

Are agreements clearly spelled out in writing? Did we test drive the implementation? Are responsibilities for implementation clear? Is there a provision for assessing and improving implementation? Are there procedures for jointly resolving disputes in a timely manner? How will we maintain our relationship?

T I P S

Review the questions who, what, when, where and how together. Jointly draft a memo or notes that set forth expectations and ground rules for the process. During the negotiations set aside time to discuss improvements to the process.

Provide opportunities for informal discussions. Present proposals as packages. Consider offering alternatives. Reach agreement at a conceptual level, and then move to details. Develop a joint working Document. Keep decision-makers informed. Use joint agendas. Consider meeting notes.

Assign specific responsibilities for implementation. Check that implementation schedules are realistic. Establish points of contact. Consider timely, scheduled meetings to implementation challenges and opportunities. Create an expectation for change and improvement.

 Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 20

THE THREE NEGOTIATING LENSES: EXPRESS REFERENCE GUIDE

INTERESTS Interests are those fundamental POW ER AND INFLUENCE Power is our ability to influence others RELATIONSHIPS

Quick Summary

concerns and desires which motivate a negotiator. Issues are matters which need to be addressed in the negotiations. Proposals are ways to address the issues and meet the interests.

in negotiations. There are two broad options: overcome resistance to our proposals by increasing pressure or reduce resistance by addressing the interests of the other party.

The type of relationship we wish to create affects our negotiating strategies. The more it will be necessary to work together and the greater the uncertainties faced, the more important is the quality of the relationship.

Ask

What do we most want to achieve? Why? What do we most want to avoid? Why? What are my personal interests? Ask the same questions for them Do our proposals reflect our interests? What do their proposals tell us about their interests?

Have I considered my Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)? 4 How might my proposals better meet their interests? If their proposals arent acceptable, have I made my interests clear? Are they agreeing with me because they want to or because they feel they have to?

What type of the relationship are we intending to establish? Will our relationship be effective when implementing the agreement? Are there a common expectations regarding our future relationship? Do we accept as legitimate our mutual and our separate interests? Do we feel safe to raising concerns and trying out ideas? Share ownership of and responsibility for the process. Provide informal opportunities for relationship building. Be predictable. Follow through on commitments Talk about how you will work together under the agreement.

Tips

Personal interests are often unstated. Fears are often unexpressed. If you think someone is acting irrationally, you dont know their interests! Bad behavior in negotiations often results from fears regarding personal interests.

Agreements based on meeting interests (reducing resistance) are easier to implement? Agreements reached by overcoming resistance damage relationships. When presenting a proposal be specific on how it is intended to meet their interests. When unable to accept a proposal suggest how it could be changed to meet your interests.

Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes, Penguin: New York, 1983.

 Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Integrative Negotiations: Principles and Concepts Page 22