Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Arts of negotiation and presentation techniques
9-10
AON 5-6
Neuman - Szabó – TanácsBME Filozófia és Tudománytörténet Tanszék2016/17. ősz
AON 9-10.
Exploration of possibilities-generating options. Cooperativemodel (RAMB), objective procedures and gaugesReality check. Negotiation viewed from three differentperspectives. Problem splitting, agenda planning.
Cooperative negotiationsFor a successful negotiation, if you follow the RAMB (RealisticAgreement of Mutual Benefit) strategy, you need to „dismantle”:▫ our own position: to find the original problem and the underlying system of
interests▫ our partners position: his/her original problem and the underlying system of
interests .
What we say...
What we want....
What we need...
Position
Interests
Needs, Wishes,
ExpectationsOverlapping
interests, needs: communication and
flexible solutions
3
Cooperative negotiation - cont’d• Example: from the movie „The life of Brian” Bargaining scene▫ Is this a tug of war os simple bargaining?▫ Behind the position of the seller (to maximize profit) you can
find a complicated system of interests, expectations, evenneeds: e.g. he forces Brian to bargain.▫ From the point of view of the seller it is a condition for a
successful negotiation to experience the bargaining processwithin a cooperative negotiation.
4
Exploring possibilities, generating options• The RAMB (Realistic Agreement of Mutual Benefit) method:
methodology of the win-win.• Based on: the BATNA and the possibilities developed jointly with the
other party.• Aiming at: maximal and most effective fulfillment of our own
interests.
• Taking into account individual interests, needs, expectations,including:▫ taking into account our own interests, needs, expectations.▫ taking into account the other party’s interests, needs, expectations.
5
• Discovering the common interests, needs,expectations. This is what we need to find andexplore.
Exploring possibilities,generating options –cont’dthe method, step by step:• Dismantling the position: finding the underlying problem, i.e. the
direct interests behid the position, exploration of the interests, needsand expectations▫ „Which of your basic needs will be fulfilled if you achieved what
you want to achieve,”
• „Making room for navigation”: exploration of further direct interests,needs connected to the already explored ones.▫ „What further needs are fulfilled with the fulfillment of the
original needs?”▫ „What further needs do you have that have not been tackled
yet?”• Finding the solutions: search for alternatives that not only take into
account the extended set of interests and expectations but also showthe way leading to the fulfillment of these
6
• In modern negotiation theory the method of generatingalternatives becomes important more than once:▫ First, when we determine the BATNA: exploration of the best,
realizable outcome for us, which is independent from thepartner.▫ Second, during the negotiation: joint (together with the
other party) efforts to find the possible outcomes.• Common mistake: mixing up, identifying the above mentioned
bluntly different acitivities:▫ If a person believes that his/her BATNA will be determined
jointly with the partner, does not really have a bestalternative independent of the negotiating partner, thereforefor him/her reaching an agreement is a MUST, in other words:his/her negotiating power is zero.
Exploring possibilities,generating options –cont’d
7
Case study: negotiation types(T: trainer) OK. let’s speak about the content of the planned
training. What skills would you like to train?
(C: client) We found you originally after searching for negotiationtrainings, but now that I see that you offer presentation skilldevelopments, as well, I am not so certain anymore. In fact, weneed presentation skills, too. Isn’t it possible to have the twotrainings squeezed into a two-day programme?
(T) Unfortunately, this way you will end up reaching less and notmore. Our trainings are to develop skills, which is almostimpossible if you don’t have enough time. The efficiency of thetraining will go down if you do not devote at least 2 days for onetopic. Thus the minimal goal in my opinion should be to focus onjust one subject during the first two-day session. Which subjectis the most important for you? Negotiations or presentations?
8
(C) Well, both of them are important, may be negotiations is the firstvpriority.
(T) Probably, we could be a bit more effective with a three-day programmebroken down as 2+1. 2 days for one and 1 day for the other field.
(C) Haven’t you just said that 2 days is the optimal solution and 1 day is tooshort?
(T) Yes. If you really insist, we can run one-day trainings, too. The reason whyI am saying that at least one of the topics should be covered in two days,is that as we have already discussed, not all of your employees arewelcoming the concept of the training. These people we need to convincethat this is useful, and it takes time. In other words, we need to fighttheir preconceptions. Experience tells us that the attitude change usuallyhappens on the second day. So, if we take into account your colleaguessentiments, expectations, attitudes, we should not go for 1-day runs....
Case study: negotiation types – cont’d
9
(T) … exactly because the second day breakthrough is important. If this doesnot happen, the whole thing will not be as useful as you rightly expect.However, if we manage to reach a breakthrough on one field, it will beeasier to include a second field on the third day. So, their one day trainingon the third day will be as efective as a normal second day. Exactly,because of the attitude change of the participants
(C) Got it. But more days, more money, right?
(T) I suggest to come back to the price issue later. Let’s see first what furtherrequests, issues you have. Apart from the costs, is there any reason whyyou prefer a two-day training to a three-day one?
Case study: negotiation types – cont’d
(C) What is also important is that we cannot afford tohave three days without work. 2 is already on theedge, but more or less manageable.
10
(T) What do you think of organizing one of the training days on aSaturday? It’s okay with me.
(C) Sounds good. Moreover, we may have a three-day training Friday,Saturday, Sunday. In this case we only loose one day of work.
(T) You may end up losing more. In this case, your colleagues willhave no time to rest over the weekend, and will be tired on thenext Monday when they come to work. Moreover, since they willprobably no be happy about losing their weekend, they may bedemotivated and angry during the session. This will prevent themand us of running a successful training, probably already onFriday.
(C) This is true. So even the two-day training cannot be organized onSaturday-Sunday.
Case study: negotiation types – cont’d
11
(T) What if we divide the three days. We organize the first 2-daytraining now and have another one-day session later. The two-daysession will be on a Friday-Saturday, avoiding to lose more than oneday of work. Also, the employees will have the whole Sunday torest. As far as I am concerned, I will be happy to come to you againat another time for the one-day part.
(C) Sounds good to me. If possible, I would prefer a longer Friday and ashorter Saturday session, so that my colleagues can have half ofSaturday free..
Case study: negotiation types – cont’d
(T) Hoping that the first two-day training is successful,I will be able to boost the efficiency of the one-daypart by sending preparation material and problemsbefore we actually meet. A time-saving trick that isnot possible to try at first.
(M) OK, so let’s talk about the costs now…
12
• Which negotiation types can you identify?
• Who is using bargain/trade type method and where?
• Where does one of the negotiators use the technique of dismantleof position in order to find the underlying problem?
• Can you identify a preference-organizer question in theconversation? If yes, where?
• Can you find the part where the parties are expressing argumentsto defend their interests?
• Can you identify the part(s) where someone „argues” for the otherparty’s interest?
• Which are the most remarkable turning points of this negotiation?
• According to your opinion, which was the most important piece ofinformation leading to the agreement.
Review questions about the case study
13
What if it is not possible to reach win-win?
• If win-win is really not possible, than we are left with showing andusing strength, threats, etc..▫ If this is the case, the negotiation is almost certainly bound to
destroy the relationship of the partners.• Solution: negotiate in such a way the decision mechanism or the
method of gaugeing the results is not dependent of the individualwishes of the participants. Such a method will take care of the fairdistribution of content AND saves the relationship.
Tool: method of objective procedures and gauges• Objective, fair procedures: decisions independent of the presonal
wishes and interests of the individual parties.• Objective, fair gauges: gauges independent of the wishes and
interests of the individual parties.• Combination of these
14
Method of objective procedures and gaugesExample (Fisher and Ury): • Two parties could not reach an agreement about how to divide a certain
oil field below the sea. They wanted to divide it evenly and create thecorresponding piece of legislation accordingly:▫ the idea was that the resources are evenly shared by a private
company (in possession of the relevant expertise to analyze theresource), and the incumbant owner UN’s organization.
• Technological knowledge and expertise was in the possession of theprivate company, the UN organization was afraid that the company willabuse its knowledge:▫ by pretending that the part going to them is of less value than it
really is..
• Please note that this is a common problem, the problem of asymmetry sotypical to negotiations!▫ The UN organization did not have the sufficient technology and skill
to check if the proposal of the private company was fair or not..
15
Method of objective procedures and gauges – cont’dExample (Fisher and Ury):• According to the final agreement, it was the private companies in possession of the
relevant knowledge and technology, that were eligible to make a proposal for thedivide:▫ BUT: it was the UN organization that made the choice between the two
possibilities.
• Because the UN organization had equal chances to make one decision or the other(good or bad choice), the private companies had the same chance to benefit orsuffer, if the divide was not even value▫ thus, it became the interest of the private players to be fair and
offer equally good choices to the UN
16
▫ if their proposal was not fair, they couldcome out loser or winners from the dealwith equal probabilities, just like theircountepart.
• You either have a fair offer, or run equallylarge, risks symmetrically.
Therefore: the decision procedure and/or the gauge system of theresults have to be outside of the realm of the individual parties..
Objective, fair procedures:• You cut the cake, I choose the part:▫ Oil companies vs. UN
• Taking turns in making the choice
Objective, fair gauges:• External expert• Statisticsk, databases:▫ „How much is my motorcycle worth?”- calculator (see AON 6)
• Comparative analyses
17
Method of objective procedures and gauges – cont’d
Case study: the role of the reality check
Participants:M: employee of the Hungarian branch of a multinational company.C: negotiation coach, whose favorite method is to ask questions, thus
making the client find the solution on their own.
The dialogue:
(M) I have a meeting next Monday. How should I argue?
(C) What is the meeting about?
(M) It is about the introduction of a new internal data providing systemat our company. We will discuss issues, problems related to thelaunch of the new.
(C) What do you want to achieve? What is your goal?
18
The dialogue (cont’d)
(C) …What is your goal?
(M) Some of the managers would like to stay with the old system becausethey got used to e given type of data structure, different from thestructure provided by the new system. I would like to convince them tochange their preference and accept the new structure.
(C) Could you give me some more details? What exactly is the problem?
(M) We prepare the internal reports using a certain type of datastructure. We provide data, butit is the structure of the database thatdetermines what we can provide and in what form. The shift to thenew system will result in the introduction of a new type of datastructure. Some categories that used to be present, will not be thereany more.
Case study: the role of the reality check –cont’d
19
The dialogue (cont’d)(M) … Those managers who are users of our database stick to the what they
go used to in the past. They insist on receiving the data in the oldstructure, too. They achieve this by generating the old data structuresmanually, which is a waste of resources and which makes our new systemuseless. Moreover, these managers will instruct their colleagues to preparethe data in the obsolete old structure, thus overloading them with work,because generating these data structures will be tedious once the newsystem is introduced. All this will turn these colleagues enemies of thenew system because the launch will make thier life more difficult insteadof helping them...
Case study: the role of the reality check –cont’d
20
The dialogue (cont’d.)(M) The best solution for them would be to stop our porject and forget about introducing
the new system.On the other hand, this is not a real option if you consider the generalprocesses already introduced in the company. I think that the user side should give upsticking to the old structures..
(C) Ok, understood. How realistic do you think reaching such an outcome on Monday is?How much chance do you have to convince them about your opinion? And, if Iunderstood correctly, you don’t only have to convince the actual decision makers, butalso their colleagues. How much chance do you have for such a positive outcome?
(M) 20%.(C) But these people are reasonable, right? Normally they are cooperating?(M) Yes..(C) Can you think of a situation in which they would be able to admit that you are right?(M) Yes.(C) What would this situation be like? Describe it! What is it that can boost their
acceptance?
Case study: the role of the reality check –cont’d
21
The dialogue (cont’d.)(M) I think, that a few weeks later I could have better chances. I should give
them some time. May be later my chances will go up to 80%(C) Having all this in mind, what can be a realistic goal on Monday?(M) On the one hand, convincing the colleagues that we need another
unscheduled meeting in order to decide about this issue. The Mondaymeeting can decide about the framework of the decisions we are going tomake later. We will decie about the assessment procedures necessary toreach a final conclusion. On Monday we will decide about a checklist ofnecessary decisions to be made on the next meeting.
(C) How much chance do you think you have to achiveve these to goals onMonday?
(M) 80%.…..(C) Hello. How did it go? Did it go through?(M) Yep.
Case study: the role of the reality check –cont’d
22
The role of the reality check
Tools and conclusions:1. The success of a negotiation largely depends on how realistic our goals
are.▫ A realistic goal may have good chances to be achieved, which is not
the case with an unrealistic one.
2. It is worth to run a real reality check in each case:▫ Do we believe that we can achieve the goal?▫ How much chance do we have?
� If the chance is greater than 70%: realistic goal.� 40-60%: tossing coins kind of chance.� Below 30% : kb. throwing dice kind of chance
23
The role of the reality check – cont’dTools and conclusions:1. What happens if based on our reality check our chances are below
70%?▫ Do not panic, never be med at your partner!▫ Go to 2 !
2. Having in mind one single goal only, we often look at negotiations asone-step processes, i.e.:▫ We make the assumption that our negotiation goal can be
reached in one negotiation round.
3. Dividing the goals tool– questions leading to this:▫ Shouldn’t we have more than one round to achieve our goal?▫ How many new negotiation rounds do you need to have?▫ How can these newly introduced steps help us achieve what
we want to achieve? What are the individual goals in theindividual rounds? How do these interim goals help us go tothe next round?
24
Changing the perspectivesNegotiation seen from 3 different points: usually we switch betweenthree different „observation” points during a negotiation in order thatwe influence the negoatiation and arrive at the right assessment of theresults.
1. First person (I) perspective: our own perspective, looking at our interests,goals.
2. Second person (You) perspective: perspective of the negotiation partnerlooking at the partners interests, goals. It is necessary not only to explorethe other persons goals, interests, but also to find the common interestsand goals.
3. Third person (He/She, They) perspective: looking at the negotiation froman external point, objective way of assessment. Necessary to check andguarantee fairness, deciding about the reality of the forthcomingagreement. It is this perspective from which we can evaluate an agreementproposal given by our counterpart.
25
26
First person (I) perspective
Second person (You) perspective Third person (He/She, They) perspective
Changing the perspectives–cont’d
Changing the perspectives– cont’d• If we ”sit in” the second person’s perspective or using questions to
explore interests, goals can we dicover the mutual, common interestsand goals.▫ This perspective gives us fresh knowledge, that we are unable
to see from our own perspective. Looking at the problem fromour perspective will screen away these important pieces ofinformation.
• The three different perspectives need three different mental andbehavioral state. It also has external signs, posture, body language,angle between our upper and lower body, position of our center ofmass, gestures, loudness etc. stb.▫ Most important of all: to mentally access important pieces of
information in relation with the conflict, relationship,negotiation content.
27
Changing the perspectives and thereality checkWhen?• when we make preparations for the negotiation,• during the negotiation• after the negotiation!
• Irrealistic negotiation goals: make it difficult, sometimes prevent theconduct of the negotiation, even if you think that you achievedsuccess, they usually destroy the relationship.
Realistic agreements of mutual benefitscan only be reached if:• the negotiation handles our interests and needs, AND• it takes care about the other party’s interests and needs, to.
• To define the framework of the RAMB it is inevitable to understandthe interests and the needs of our counterpart, and to gain all theinformation leading to this.
Simple tools to explore the other party’s interests:• to „sit in his/her chair”. to decide what his/her goals can bei?• ask her/him questions about her/him goals.
28
Agenda planningIts role:• another possibility to get in touch, to communicate.• constructive tool to plan the negotiation and keep it
organized.• Avoid surprises!• Makes it possible to have an idea about a structure
supporting mutual satisfaction: finding the agreementand the conflict points.
• List all the critical issues that may arise!• We may ask the other party to set the agenda for the
negotiation. We will have the chance for modificationsbefore agreeing about it.
29
Determination of the agenda pointsIt is usually worth starting with the easier points, becausethis will contribute to start the cooperation. Once we haveseen that we are able to cooperate we can tackle themore sensitive, more difficult issues.
1. Problem splitting:▫ weighting the agreement and the conflict points
2. Order of the agenda points:▫ ordering the agreement and conflict points
30
1. Problem splittingSeparating and weighting the problems:• It is possible that we cannot find a way out from a very complex and
complicated set of problems. However, parts of the problems can be solvedand agrre upon.
• It is not important to find solution to all the problems in the same time.Success does not mean that we have to agree immediately in all the details,moreover, final success does not depend on initial agreement ordisagreement.
• This method helps us finding the central element of the problem. Thelocation where the real conflict that we ultimately need to solve is hiding,and it makes possible :
31
▫ to find and identify the so called agreementpointst, and▫ to identify those points of conflict which are
relatively easy to solve
2. Order of agenda points• Start from the easier problems, go towards the hardest conflicts:▫ In the case of a minor problem it is easier to reach an agreement, The
experience of solving a conflict together will give us self confidence tofind solutions to the harder ones.
▫ Once we invested energy in solving the minor problems will incentiveus to go further.
• Ordering the agreement and conflict points:1. Start with agreement points (reviewing the past, the project
achievements),2. continue with the conflict points,3. conclude with agreement.
(Deciding about the price, costs, financials should be the last or one of the lastconflict points to be resolved!)
32
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
Neuman Péter: [email protected]ó Krisztina: [email protected]
Tanács János: [email protected]
33
