Negotiation: Strategy and Planning
| 1. | Understand the importance of setting goals for an upcoming negotiation. |
| 2. | Explore the major elements of a negotiation strategy and a process for selecting a strategy. |
| 3. | Consider how most negotiations evolve through understandable stages and phases. |
| 4. | Gain a comprehensive set of tools for effectively planning for an upcoming negotiation. Overview In this chapter, we discuss what negotiators should do before opening negotiations. Effective strategy and planning are the most critical precursors for achieving negotiation objectives. With effective planning and target setting, most negotiators can achieve their objectives; without them, results occur more by chance than by negotiator effort. The discussion of strategy and planning begins by exploring the broad process of strategy development, starting with defining the negotiator’s goals and objectives then moves to developing a strategy to address the issues and achieve one’s goals. Finally, we address the typical stages and phases of an evolving negotiation and how different issues and goals will affect the planning process. Learning Objectives 1. Goals – The focus that drives a negotiation strategy. 2. Strategy – The overall plan to achieve one’s goals. 3. Getting ready to implement the strategy: The planning process. I. Goals – The Focus That Drives a Negotiation Strategy A. Direct effects of goals on choice of strategy 1. There are four important aspects to understand about how goals affect negotiations: a. Wishes are not goals, especially in negotiation. b. Goals are often linked to the other party’s goals. c. There are boundaries or limits to what goals can be. d. Effective goals must be concrete, specific and measurable. If they are not, then it will be hard to: (1) Communicate to the other party what we want (2) Understand what the other party wants (3) Determine whether an offer on the table satisfies our goals. 2. Goals can be intangible or procedural. 3. The criteria used to determine goals depend on your specific objectives and your priorities among multiple objectives. B. Indirect effects of goals on choice of strategy 1. Short-term thinking affects our choice of strategy; in developing and framing our goals, we may ignore the present or future relationship with the other party in a concern for achieving a substantive outcome only. 2. Negotiation goals that are complex or difficult to define may require a substantial change in the other party’s attitude. In most cases, progress will be made incrementally, and may depend on establishing a relationship with the other party. II. Strategy – The Overall Plan to Achieve One’s Goals A. Strategy versus Tactics 1. A major difference between strategy and tactics is that of scale, perspective or immediacy. 2. Tactics are short-term, adaptive moves designed to enact or pursue broad strategies, which in turn provide stability, continuity, and direction for tactical behaviors. 3. Tactics are subordinate to strategy: they are structured, directed, and driven by strategic considerations. B. Unilateral versus bilateral approaches to strategy 1. A unilateral choice is made without the active involvement of the other party. 2. Unilaterally pursued strategies can be wholly one-sided and intentionally ignorant of any information about the other negotiator. 3. Unilateral strategies should evolve into ones that fully consider the impact of the other’s strategy on one’s own. C. The dual concerns model as a vehicle for describing negotiation strategies. This model proposes that individuals have two levels of related concerns: a concern for their own outcomes, and a level of concern for the other’s outcomes. 1. Alternative situational strategies a. There are at least four different types of strategies when assessing the relative importance and priority of the negotiator’s substantive outcome versus the relational outcome: competitive, collaboration, accommodation, and avoidance 2. The nonengagement strategy: Avoidance a. There are many reasons why negotiators may choose not to negotiate: (1) If one is able to meet one’s needs without negotiating at all, it may make sense to use an avoidance strategy (2) It simply may not be worth the time and effort to negotiate (although there are sometimes reasons to negotiate in such situations (3) The decision to negotiate is closely related to the desirability of available alternatives – the outcomes that can be achieved if negotiations don’t work out 3. Active-engagement strategies: Competition, collaboration, and accommodation a. Competition is distributive win-lose bargaining. b. Collaboration is integrative or win-win negotiation. c. Accommodation is as much a win-lose strategy as competition, although it has a decidedly different image it involves an imbalance of outcomes, but in the opposite direction. (“I lose, you win” as opposed to “I win, you lose.”) d. There are drawbacks to these strategies if applied blindly, thoughtlessly or inflexibly: (1) Distributive strategies tend to create “we-they” or “superiority-inferiority” patterns, which may result in a distortion of the other side’s contributions, as well as their values, needs and positions. (2) If a negotiator pursues an integrative strategy without regard to the other’s strategy, then the other may manipulate and exploit the collaborator and take advantage of the good faith and goodwill being demonstrated. (3) Accommodative strategies may generate a pattern of constantly giving in to keep the other happy or to avoid a fight. III. Understanding the Flow of Negotiations: Stages and Phases A. Greenhalgh (2001) suggests that there are seven key steps to an ideal negotiation process: 1. Preparation: deciding what is important, defining goals, thinking ahead how to work together with the other party. 2. Relationship building: getting to know the other party, understanding how you and the other are similar and different, and building commitment toward achieving a mutually beneficial set of outcomes. 3. Information gathering: learning what you need to know about the issues, about the other party and their needs, about the feasibility of possible settlements, and about what might happen if you fail to reach agreement with the other side. 4. Information using: at this stage, negotiators assemble the case they want to make for their preferred outcomes and settlement, one that will maximize the negotiator’s own needs. 5. Bidding: the process of making moves from one’s initial, ideal position to the actual outcome. 6. Closing the deal: the objective here is to build commitment to the agreement achieved in the previous phase. 7. Implementing the agreement: determining who needs to do what once hands are shaken and the documents signed. IV. Getting Ready to Implement the Strategy: The Planning Process A. Defining the issues 1. Usually begins with an analysis of what is to be discussed in the negotiation. 2. The number of issues in a negotiation, along with the relationship between the negotiator and the other party, are often the primary determinant of whether one uses a distributive or integrative strategy. 3. In any negotiation, a complete list of the issues at stake is best derived from the following sources: a. An analysis of all the possible issues that need to be decided. b. Previous experience in similar negotiations. c. Research conducted to gather information. d. Consultation with experts in that industry. B. Assembling the issues and defining the bargaining mix 1. The combination of lists from each side in a negotiation determines the bargaining mix. 2. There are two steps a negotiator can use to prioritize the issues on an agenda: a. Determine which issues are most important and which are less important. b. Determine whether the issues are linked together or are separate. C. Defining Interests 1. Interests may be: a. Substantive, that is, directly related to the focal issues under negotiation. b. Process-based, that is, related to how the negotiators behave as they negotiate. c. Relationship-based, that is, tied to the current or desired future relationship between the parties. 2. Interests may also be based on intangibles of negotiation. D. Knowing limits and alternatives 1. Good preparation requires that you establish two clear points: a. Resistance point – the place where you decide that you should absolutely stop the negotiation rather than continue. b. Alternatives – other agreements negotiators could achieve and still meet their needs. Alternatives define whether the current outcome is better than another possibility. E. Setting targets and openings (asking prices) 1. Two key points should be defined in this step: a. The specific target point where one realistically expects to achieve a settlement b. The asking price, representing the best deal one can hope to achieve. 2. Target setting requires positive thinking about one’s own objectives. 3. Target setting often requires considering how to package several issues and objectives. 4. Target setting requires an understanding of trade-offs and throwaways. F. Assessing constituents and the social context of a negotiation 1. When people negotiate in a professional context, there may be more than two parties. a. There may be more than two negotiators at the table. Multiple parties often lead to the formation of coalitions. b. Negotiators also have constituents who will evaluate and critique them. c. Negotiation occurs in a context of rules – a social system of laws, customs, common business practices, cultural norms, and political cross-pressures. 2. “Field analysis” can be used to assess all the key parties in a negotiation. a. Who is, or should be, on the team on my side of the field? b. Who is on the other side of the field? c. Who is on the sidelines and can affect the play of the game? Who are the negotiation equivalents of owners, managers and strategists? d. Who is in the stands? Who is watching the game, is interested in it, but can only indirectly affect what happens? e. What is going on in the broader environment in which the negotiation takes place? f. What is common and acceptable practice in the ethical system in which the deal is being done? G. Analyzing the other party 1. Learning the other’s issues, preferences, priorities, interests, alternatives and constraints is almost as important as determining one’s own. 2. Several key pieces of background information will be of great importance, including: a. The other party’s resources, issues, and bargaining mix – investigate: (1) Other party’s business history or previous negotiations. (2) Financial data. (3) Inventories. (4) Visit or speak with the other party’s friends and peers. (5) Question past business partners. b. The other party’s interests and needs. (1) Conduct a preliminary interview including a broad discussion of what the other party would like to achieve in the upcoming negotiations. (2) Anticipating the other party’s interests. (3) Asking others who know or have negotiated with the other party. (4) Reading how the other party portrays him/herself in the media. c. The other party’s limits (resistance point) and alternative(s). (1) Understanding the other party’s limits and alternatives is important because it will provide information as to how far you can “push” them. d. The other party’s targets and openings. (1) Systematically gather information directly from the other party. e. Constituents, social structure, and authority to make an agreement. (1) The most direct impact of the broader social context is on the other negotiator’s ability to make binding agreements. (2) The negotiator needs to know how the other party’s organization makes decisions to support or ratify an agreement. f. Reputation and negotiation style. (1) A negotiator’s typical style (integrative or distributive approach) is an important determinant of how to approach the other party in the negotiation. (2) One’s impression of the other party’s reputation may be based on several factors: (i) How the other party’s predecessors have negotiated with you in the past. (ii) How the other party has negotiated with you in the past, either in the same or in different contexts. (iii) How the other party has negotiated with others in the past. g. Likely strategy and tactics. (1) Information collected about issues, objectives, reputation, style, alternatives, and authority may indicate a great deal about what strategy the other party intends to pursue. H. Presenting issues to the other party 1. What facts support my point of view? 2. Whom may I consult or talk with to help me elaborate or clarify the facts? 3. Have these issues been negotiated before by others under similar circumstances? 4. What is the other party’s point of view likely to be? 5. How can I develop and present the facts so they are most convincing? I. What protocol needs to be followed in this negotiation? 1. The agenda 2. The location of negotiation 3. The time period of negotiation 4. Other parties who might be involved in the negotiation 5. What might be done if negotiation fails? 6. How will we keep track of what is agreed to? 7. How do we know whether we have a good agreement? Summary Planning is a critically important activity in negotiation. Effective planning allows negotiators to design a road map that will guide them to agreement. While this map may frequently need to be modified and updated as discussions with the other side proceed, and as the world around the negotiation changes, working from the map is far more effective than attempting to work without it. We began this chapter with a basic understanding of the concepts of strategy, and discussed the importance of setting clear goals, based on the key issues at stake. We then presented a model of negotiation strategy choice, returning to the familiar framework of the dual concerns model. When negotiators are able to consider and evaluate each of ten factors of protocol, they will know what they want and will have a clear sense of direction on how to proceed. This sense of direction, and the confidence derived from it, is a very important factor in affecting negotiating outcomes. |
No comments:
Post a Comment