Fear of the "No"

Mark Monlux created a presentation as a contract tutorial for graphic designers, providing guidance on how to negotiate contracts, but it also offers a lot of good information about contract negotiation in general. I particularly enjoyed the part about the reluctance of graphic designers to use the "Power Word" - No.

"Fear of the No", i.e. fear of losing a project by not agreeing to all client demands, can and does lead to contractors involving themselves in unprofitable projects and otherwise frustrating their best intentions.

A well placed, "No, I can't perform effectively on those terms" or like utterance can enhance your credibility and help lead to a more satisfying experience for all concerned.

Technology Negotiations Can Be Difficult

"Whether you're bargaining over the purchase of a new companywide network, coping with a possible infringement of patented technology, or seeking better customer service from a software supplier, technology negotiations have become a fact of managerial life.

How do such negotiations differ from those that are less technologically complex? You can anticipate four specific problems to crop up more often in the technology arena:

1. Complexity. Negotiations over new technology require sophisticated knowledge of hardware or software that's beyond the scope of most managers. If those trained in science and technology assume that others at the table speak their language, serious misunderstandings can result.

2. Uncertainty. When highly complex systems are at stake, no one can be sure whether they will perform as promised when configured for a particular business environment. Different estimates of how a technology will perform can lead to negotiation battles.

3. Egos. Those who design or advocate for a new technology often become additional players when they have a vested interest in the outcome of a negotiation. Technology advocates—and their egos—can complicate otherwise straightforward talks.

4. Organizational change. The various organizational changes required by negotiated agreements can provoke conflict between parties during implementation. Staffers may have trouble maintaining or repairing new technology, accessing its intellectual underpinnings, or acquiring replacement parts..."

Read more in this article from HBS Working Knowledge from which the foregoing was excerpted.

ZOPAs & BATNAs & WAPs Oh My!

"A "Zone of Possible Agreement" (ZOPA) exists if there is a potential agreement that would benefit both sides more than their alternative options do...

In order for disputing parties to identify the ZOPA, they must first know their alternatives, and thus their "bottom line" or "walk away position."...

Roger Fisher and William Ury introduced the concept of "BATNA" (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement). This is the best course of action that a party can pursue if no agreement is reached...

BATNAs determine each side's bottom lines... So, a zone of possible agreement exists if there is an overlap between these walk away positions. If there is not, negotiation is very unlikely to succeed...

If both sides know their BATNAs and walk away positions, the parties should be able to communicate, assess proposed agreements, and eventually identify the ZOPA. However, parties often do not know their own BATNAs, and are even less likely to know the other side's BATNA. Often parties may pretend they have a better alternative than they really do, as good alternatives usually translate into more power in the negotiations..."

Read more in this essay from beyondintractability.org .

Summary of "Getting to Yes"

In their classic text, Getting to Yes:

"Fisher and Ury explain that a good agreement is one which is wise and efficient, and which improves the parties' relationship. Wise agreements satisfy the parties' interests and are fair and lasting. The authors' goal is to develop a method for reaching good agreements. Negotiations often take the form of positional bargaining. In positional bargaining each part opens with their position on an issue. The parties then bargain from their separate opening positions to agree on one position. Haggling over a price is a typical example of positional bargaining.

Fisher and Ury argue that positional bargaining does not tend to produce good agreements. It is an inefficient means of reaching agreements, and the agreements tend to neglect the parties' interests. It encourages stubbornness and so tends to harm the parties' relationship. Principled negotiation provides a better way of reaching good agreements. Fisher and Ury develop four principles of negotiation. Their process of principled negotiation can be used effectively on almost any type of dispute. Their four principles are 1) separate the people from the problem; 2) focus on interests rather than positions; 3) generate a variety of options before settling on an agreement; and 4) insist that the agreement be based on objective criteria. [p. 11]

These principles should be observed at each stage of the negotiation process. The process begins with the analysis of the situation or problem, of the other parties' interests and perceptions, and of the existing options. The next stage is to plan ways of responding to the situation and the other parties. Finally, the parties discuss the problem trying to find a solution on which they can agree..."

Read more, including more detailed explanations of each the enumerated principles, in this excellent book summary from beyondintractability.org .

The First Offer Anchoring Advantage

Common wisdom for negotiations says it’s better to wait for your opponent to make the first offer. This article from HBS Working Knowledge, that is well worth reading in its entirety, suggests that in fact, you may win by making the first offer yourself, stating:

"Because of the inherent ambiguity of most negotiations, some experts suggest that you should wait for the other side to speak first. By receiving the opening offer, the argument goes, you'll gain valuable information about your opponent's bargaining position and clues about acceptable agreements. This advice makes intuitive sense, but it fails to account for the powerful effect that first offers have on the way people think about the negotiation process...

In situations of great ambiguity and uncertainty, first offers have a strong anchoring effect—they exert a strong pull throughout the rest of the negotiation... But why?

The answer lies in the fact that every item under negotiation (whether it's a company or a car) has both positive and negative qualities—qualities that suggest a higher price and qualities that suggest a lower price.

High anchors selectively direct our attention toward an item's positive attributes; low anchors direct our attention to its flaws. Hence, a high list price directed real estate agents' attention to the house's positive features (such as spacious rooms or a new roof) while pushing negative features (such as a small yard or an old furnace) to the back recesses of their minds. Similarly, a low anchor led mechanics to focus on a car's worn belts and ailing clutch rather than its low mileage and pristine interior..."

Reframing Provides Opportunity for Agreement

"Psychologists and therapists have long used a technique called reframing to assist patients with changing problem attitudes and behaviors. The idea behind reframing is 'to change the conceptual and/or emotional setting or viewpoint in relation to which a situation is experienced and to place it in another frame which fits the "facts" of the same concrete situation equally well, or even better, and thereby changes its entire meaning.'

Further, it has been stated that "‘our experience of the world is based on categorization of the objects of our perception into classes,’ and that ‘once an object is conceptualized as the member of a given class, it is extremely difficult to see it also as belonging to another class.’

With reframing, once we see ‘alternative class memberships,’ it is difficult to go back to our previously limited view of ‘reality.’” Reframing allows an idea or object to be thought of as fitting into a different category...

The role of the mediator is much like the role of the psychotherapist. Neither really possesses much power beyond that of persuading the people involved to accept the mediator’s/therapist’s frame of the problem. At the heart of this power for the mediator is not rational or logical argument. There exist rational arguments for each viewpoint.

But, the mediator can wield much influence if he or she does so indirectly in order to avoid hostile confrontation. A key element here is the ability to reframe...taking the framework that each participant in a conflict holds from one of negativity to one that focuses on the positive opportunities for resolution."

Read more in this mediate.com article from which the foregoing was excerpted.

Negotiating TIPs for Fun and Profit

"The first thing you must learn are the three variables of negotiation: time, information, and power. You can remember these easily with the acronym "TIP," so the next time you have to negotiate an agreement, you'll remember the "TIP" to think in terms of time, information, and power...The rule of time is that whoever has the loosest time constraints has an advantage in any negotiating situation...The rule of information is that whichever party has the best information has an advantage...The rule of power is that whichever party has the greatest perceived power has an advantage...The hungry person isn't going to get a good deal when negotiating for food, nor will the person who doesn't know what food is supposed to cost, nor will the person who has only one source for food.

Go for win-win or no deal...
Decide what you want in advance...
Commit everything to paper...If you don't get it down on paper, it's as if it didn't exist.
Never negotiate against yourself...
Everything is negotiable...Well, almost everything...
Realize and accept that not every deal is worth having..."

Read more in this article from Steve Pavlina from which the foregoing was excerpted.

Why Should I Settle?

As Perry Itkin points out, reasons exist to settle even a substantively "good case," commenting a recent lawsuit settlement with Wen Ho Lee, the American nuclear scientist once identified in news reports as the target of a government spying investigation.

Welcome to The Third Side

"No more critical challenge faces each of us, and all of us together, than how to live together in a world of differences. So much depends on our ability to handle our conflicts peacefully - our happiness at home, our performance at work, the livability of our communities, and, in this age of mass destruction, the survival of our species.

The Third Side offers a promising new way to look at the conflicts around us. The Third Side is the community - us - in action protecting our most precious interests in safety and well-being. It suggests ten practical roles any of us can play on a daily basis to stop destructive fighting in our families, at work, in our schools, and in the world.

Each of our individual actions is like a single spider web, fragile perhaps but, when united with others, capable of halting the lion of war. Although the Third Side is in its infancy in our modern-day societies, it has been used effectively by simpler cultures for millennia to reduce violence and promote dialogue."

Find out what it means to take the Third Side and who are the thirdsiders in any conflict by following this link to The Third Side a beautiful website from Global Negotiation Project at Harvard University.

Articles on Negotiating from Kauffman eVenturing

This collection of articles from Kauffman eVenturing "provides lessons learned in how to negotiate effectively to grow your company and practical philosophies on succeeding in the art of negotiations."

The collection includes an article by William Ury, distinguished global expert on negotiations and cofounder of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, in which he observes that people negotiate something daily in every part of their lives -- whether in the family, with friends, at work, or, as Kaufmann eVenturing stresses, especially in leading a growth company.

The Hidden Cost of Unhealthy Workplace Conflict

"Whenever people work together, conflict is an inevitable result...

In healthy conflict the issues are on the table being discussed with objective language. Each party is empowered to state his or her position with confidence that the other party is genuinely listening, wanting to understand. Possible solutions are explored with open minds, and ripple effects are considered and weighed for each solution offered.

It's an easy process to understand, but more often than not it's incredibly difficult to do...As a result, unhealthy conflict is common...People can get visibly angry and feelings get hurt. Words can become weapons that leave nasty scars.

In its most subtle form, unhealthy conflict disintegrates into tension...[that]results in chronically unresolved problems...

Daniel Dana, Director of Program Development for Mediation Training Institute International, identifies eight "hidden" costs of conflict that...every employer should be aware of...

1. Wasted time...
2. Reduced quality of decisions...
3. Loss of skilled employees...
4. Restructuring inefficiencies...
5. Sabotage/theft/damage...
6. Lower levels of motivation...
7. Absenteeism...
8. Health costs..."

Read more in this excellent article by Don Bobinski from which the foregoing excerpts were taken.

Metaphorically Speaking

I watched recently an episode of Star Trek the Next Generation in which an alien people spoke only using metaphors drawn from the stories and mythologies of their culture. Communication between the humanoids on the Enterprise with the aliens was impossible at first because the Enterprise crew did not know the stories. By the end of the show, Picard and crew had figured out enough to communicate important shared ideas that saved the Enterprise from destruction. The idea of using metaphors to communicate in conflict situations is the subject of this mediate.com article that explains:

"In conveying ideas we resort to metaphors which are very useful linguistic tools. In mediation, language is almost all we have to work with. Thus, an understanding of the metaphors we use in every day life is helpful in increasing the positive use of them in ways that enhance the mediation process. It is not a question of whether we use metaphors. The question is, which ones we use...

We each have an organizing metaphor we use for conflict. War is the most common metaphor for argument or conflict and people who use it as their organizing metaphor draw from the human experience of war. If we think that argument is war, we will use metaphors drawn from the human experience of war.

Lawyers engage in the adversarial process and most commonly use the conflict is war metaphor. They come to the session armed with the facts: the holster is transformed into a briefcase. They are ready to shoot down your argument. Is this why participants in a legal argument are often casualties? There are many injuries and, as with most wars, a victor and a loser, or two losers.

An alternative metaphor is that conflict is a journey. We have a destination (goals). We take the first steps towards an agreement. In looking at a problem we say "Well let's see where we go from here." Of course, not all journeys are smooth. We can run into heavy seas or hit a bump in the road...

There are a number of other useful categories:

conflict is a game: "would you like me to mediate your dispute or referee your fight?"
conflict is a chemical: If we can't find an immediate solution perhaps the problem will simply dissolve away."
conflict is a building: "You're not on firm ground." "Let's see if we can structure an agreement."
conflict is a gamble: "I'll take my chances in court. The odds are in my favor."

The choice of metaphor has an influence on the behavior of the participants because it sets tone to the negotiations...Mediation participants who invoke the war metaphor often also believe that all is fair in love and war. There will be a winner and a loser and the war tactics used to achieve victory are acceptable.

On the other hand, participants who invoke the argument-is-a-journey metaphor will take the first steps together; they will share the goal of the journey. When they get lost they will help each other find the way back to the common goal. They will, in fact, have to cooperate to complete the journey...

When people use a metaphor that is not consonant with their general view of the world, the metaphor can convey a belief that the individual does not hold. It also signals to the listener to expect a behavior that matches the metaphor...Thus, one task for the mediator is to help the clients use the metaphors that most closely express their view of the conflict and/or develop an organizing metaphor that is more conducive to cooperation and productive negotiations. When doing this I believe that indirect messages, such as careful use of alternative metaphors are usually more successful in creating change than direct or confronting messages. I operate under the assumption that my influence is best exercised through metaphors which influence the participant's metaphors..."

The Debate vs. Dialogue Debate

Here is a table from HBS Working Knowledge that lays out in a format easily grasped a point-counterpoint comparison of two approaches to conflict: debate vs. dialogue.

For example:

Debate involves assuming there is a right answer, and that you have it. Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of the answer. Debate is about winning. Dialogue is about exploring common ground.

Tricks in the Trade

From an article from Warwickshire College:

You already know all the tricks people use in negotiations, because you've already heard them all or used them all yourself. Let's have a look at the more common ones.

"But that's all I can afford"

This may be absolutely true, or this may be a ruse to get you to discount or meet someone's price demand. If this is true then the person genuinely cannot afford what they want and should not be looking. If this is false then it's a nice try. In either case, standing up to this will force them to either back away or offer more...

From the other point of view, sales people will tell you that their price is already at rock bottom and they can't afford to discount any further. In that case, you have to decide if you are looking at products that you really can't afford, or if this is a trick. In either case, walk away and see what happens.

"You'll have to ask my husband/wife/boss"

...As with all the tricks, this works both ways. A salesperson will defer to a boss - real or imaginary - to make a decision, and may even come back from that conversation with a tempting special offer if you sign right away. Don't be fooled by this.

A buyer will often find the final decision is just too much pressure and will defer to someone with more authority - often a trick to give themselves time or to back away completely.

"That's expensive, I only paid x last time"

That was last time, this is this time. If the previous supplier was willing to give away the product or service at a ridiculous price then that's their lookout. It's always better to negotiate some good business than lots of bad business.

"The other guy said it would be cheaper"

Other guys have a tendency to do that...Ask "which other guy? What did he look like? When was this?" If they can tell you, there may well be another guy. If they can't remember, they're probably making it up.

"I'll meet you half way"

A very reasonable and fair sounding offer that gets you to pull your selling price down or your buying price up. You can't say no, because it sounds so fair. Or can you?

"How much for just this bit? And this bit? And this bit?"

Breaking a package down into components is an excellent way to erode the price...Remember - if your product or service is a package, keep it that way. You can achieve the same result by asking a supplier to itemise their quote.

"I just don't want to pay that much"

Well, at least they're honest. What can you do? They've effectively given you an ultimatum. You either accept their price or walk away. In fact, what they're really telling you is "I want your product or service but you haven't created enough value yet".

You have a simple choice - either build up the perceived value or remove cost in order to meet their target price...

Time or availability limited offers

If an offer is valid today, it will be valid tomorrow - if they want your business enough. You'll see this in general terms, in retail - "sale must end Saturday" - and you'll see it in specific terms too - "if you agree to this now then I will do x". Remember - "now" is a very flexible thing, so don't allow yourself to be put under pressure. There are very few products in this world that are so variable in price that you can't afford to make a proper decision. The same applies to "buy now, limited quantities available". Remember, there's only a limited quantity of everything on the planet, so it's not a good reason to give in!

"I'll think about it"

This means "no". Treat it as a "no" and act accordingly. Either write off the negotiation or challenge them directly - "what can I do to help you make the right decision?"

"No"

This means maybe, but you haven't completely convinced me yet. The key is in their behaviour, not in their words. If they are still talking to you, they're still interested."

Technorati Tags: mediation, adr, negotiation, disputeresolution, alternativedisputeresolution

We Honor the Fallen on Memorial Day

Poppies
TigerTigerTiger.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

"The poem 'In Flanders Fields' by the Canadian army physician John McCrae remains to this day one of the most memorable war poems ever written. It is a lasting legacy of the terrible battle in the Ypres salient in the spring of 1915.

The most asked question is: why poppies?

Wild poppies flower when other plants in their direct neighbourhood are dead. Their seeds can lie on the ground for years and years, but only when there are no more competing flowers or shrubs in the vicinity (for instance when someone firmly roots up the ground), these seeds will sprout.

There was enough rooted up soil on the battlefield of the Western Front; in fact the whole front consisted of churned up soil. So in May 1915, when McCrae wrote his poem, around him bloodred poppies blossomed like no one had ever seen before."

Find much more on this poem and its author at The Heritage of the Great War

Understand Conflict Resolution Styles in Dealing with Workplace Disputes

"Conflict in the workplace can be incredibly destructive to good teamwork.

Managed in the wrong way, real and legitimate differences between people can quickly spiral out of control, resulting in situations where co-operation breaks down and the team's mission is threatened. This is particularly the case where the wrong approaches to conflict resolution are used.

To calm these situations down, it helps to take a positive approach to conflict resolution, where discussion is courteous and non-confrontational, and the focus is on issues rather than on individuals. If this is done, then, as long as people listen carefully and explore facts, issues and possible solutions properly, conflict can often be resolved effectively. "

So states this article from MindTools.com that stresses understanding and recognizing different approaches people take to resolving conflict and using that information in an interest-based relational approach to dispute resolution, explaining:

"In the 1970’s Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Killman identified five main styles of dealing with conflict that vary in their degrees of cooperativeness and assertiveness...

Competitive: People who tend towards a competitive style take a firm stand, and know what they want. They usually operate from a position of power, drawn from things like position, rank, expertise, or persuasive ability. This style can be useful when there is an emergency and a decision needs to be make fast; when the decision is unpopular; or when defending against someone who is trying to exploit the situation selfishly. However it can leave people feeling bruised, unsatisfied and resentful when used in less urgent situations.

Collaborative: People tending towards a collaborative style try to meet the needs of all people involved. These people can be highly assertive but unlike the competitor, they cooperate effectively and acknowledge that everyone is important. This style is useful when a you need to bring together a variety of viewpoints to get the best solution; when there have been previous conflicts in the group; or when the situation is too important for a simple trade-off.

Compromising: People who prefer a compromising style try to find a solution that will at least partially satisfy everyone. Everyone is expected to give up something, and the compromiser him- or herself also expects to relinquish something. Compromise is useful when the cost of conflict is higher than the cost of losing ground, when equal strength opponents are at a standstill and when there is a deadline looming.

Accommodating: This style indicates a willingness to meet the needs of others at the expense of the person’s own needs. The accommodator often knows when to give in to others, but can be persuaded to surrender a position even when it is not warranted. This person is not assertive but is highly cooperative. Accommodation is appropriate when the issues matter more to the other party, when peace is more valuable than winning, or when you want to be in a position to collect on this “favor” you gave. However people may not return favors, and overall this approach is unlikely to give the best outcomes.

Avoiding: People tending towards this style seek to evade the conflict entirely. This style is typified by delegating controversial decisions, accepting default decisions, and not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings. It can be appropriate when victory is impossible, when the controversy is trivial, or when someone else is in a better position to solve the problem. However in many situations this is a weak and ineffective approach to take.

Once you understand the different styles, you can use them to think about the most appropriate approach (or mixture of approaches) for the situation you're in. You can also think about your own instinctive approach, and learn how you need to change this if necessary."

What is Alternative Dispute Resolution Anyway?

"'Adjudication' is a term that can include decision making by a judge in a court, by an administrative tribunal or quasi-judicial tribunal, a specially appointed commission, or by an arbitrator. An adjudicator determines the outcome of a dispute by making a decision for the parties that is final, binding and enforceable. The parties present their case to the adjudicator (or tribunal, commission or arbitrator) whose role is to weigh the evidence and make a decision that is final, binding and enforceable..."

Alternatives to adjudication processes are available to resolve disputes and include "consensual dispute resolution...[meaning] that the disputants themselves decide the process and the outcome. Consensual dispute resolution processes include negotiation, facilitation, mediation...

Negotiation is a process in which two or more participants attempt to reach a joint decision on matters of common concern in situations where they are in actual or potential disagreement or conflict...Negotiators may use a variety of approaches. "Power negotiation" involves a negotiator's understanding and strategic use of various sources of power to achieve a negotiator's bargaining goals. Interest-based negotiation (Fisher, Ury and Patton 1991) attempts to reach solutions that meet the interests of all parties.

An assumption of interest-based negotiation is that a variety of interests or motivations may underlie parties' positions. The goal of the interest-based approach is to satisfy those interests rather than bargain over bargaining positions. This style of negotiation may also be called "problem-solving" negotiation, "all gain" negotiation or "value creating" negotiation (Mnookin et al 2000). Some approaches to negotiation use game theory, including "tit-for-tat" approaches which use strategic combinations of cooperation and aggression...

Mediation is a process in which an impartial third party helps disputants resolve a dispute or plan a transaction, but does not have the power to impose a binding solution (LeBaron Duryea 2001, 121). Mediators use a variety of processes. Some mediators use "interest-based" approaches (Fisher, Ury and Patton 1991), while others use "rights-based" approaches. Some mediators are "facilitative," providing only process assistance for negotiation and using interest-based approaches. Facilitative, interest-based mediation is taught widely in North America for the purposes of community, family and commercial mediation and tends to foster the avoidance of mediator recommendations or suggestions in order to preserve mediator neutrality and to encourage party control of outcomes.

Other mediators, including many labour mediators and commercial mediators, may use an "evaluative" style, providing suggestions or recommendations (for comparison see Waldman, 1997, 1998). Evaluative, rights-based mediation processes are similar to adjudicative processes such as non-binding arbitration. Other mediators may be "activist," intervening to ensure all parties are represented and that power balances are addressed (Forester 1994; Forester and Stitzel, 1989), but activist mediators do not necessarily make specific recommendations. Other mediators consider themselves to be "transformative" mediators, working less toward settlements and more toward transformation of relationships (Bush and Folger 1994; Folger and Bush, 2001; Lederach 1995).

Still others foster "narrative" mediation processes in which the mediator is more of a joint participant with the parties in the joint creation of new possibilities for the future (Cobb, 1994; Winslade and Mo nk 2000). There is considerable debate in the field of conflict resolution about these differing approaches and styles of mediation. Many mediators are familiar with all these approaches and design mediation processes to suit the particular parties and the situation (Waldman 1997, 1998)..."

Read much more in this article by Catherine Morris from which the foregoing quotations were excerpted.

Mediation Mindset Named One of Top Five Blogs

I am very pleased to announce that this blog has been named one of the top five mediation blogs by the National Institute for Advanced Conflict Resolution. I am humbled to be in the company of the other great blogs cited. The Institute stated:

"The advent of blogging as a form of internet communication has begun to revolutionize how information is disseminated on the web. The mediation field has not been immune from this development, and there are a growing number of blogs relating to the mediation field popping up on the internet. In recognition of the efforts of these blog pioneers, we have surveyed the field and our findings are presented below...

4. Mediation Mindset
(Written by Anthony Cerminaro, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) This newcomer to the field promises to be a rising star. With a focus on negotiation, this blog presents its information in a compelling and informative style. Of particular note was a recent article on negotiating in China which was as fascinating as it was informative. We predict this blog will become a staple for mediators interested in keeping abreast of developments in this area..."

More details are available at this NIACR page.

Dealing with Negotiation Mind Games

"Most of us think of negotiation as a purely rational exercise. The reality is just the opposite. Personality, emotions and strategic moves play a large role in most negotiations and can be responsible for the success or failure to reach agreement. Mind games can also play out behind the scenes so that negotiating your relationship with the other side, including your legitimacy and credibility, can play as large a part as what is going on in the main negotiating event. Thus is it important to learn how to “hold your own” in difficult negotiations and with “difficult people”.

Below are set out just some of the ways to become a more successful and effective negotiator when dealing with mind games.

1. Preparation...Learn to prepare in a way that allows you to anticipate how the negotiation will go, where obstacles will arise and what information you need from the other side...

2. Increased Awareness. This includes being aware not only of how you react to conflict but also how the other side reacts...The importance of this is that you will be able to convey information to other persons in a way that suits them, predict what will frustrate them during the negotiation, and generally be better able to understand their interests and goals...

3. Strategies. Not only is it important to know what types of negotiating strategies are available, you also need to know when to use them...What happens when different negotiation strategies meet is also important to know. Of course, selecting the most appropriate strategy is the first step, knowing how to implement it is the next.

4. Effective Communication Skills...By communication skills we mean not only what we say and what we ask but also, and perhaps more importantly, how we listen to the other side. Knowing the elements of successful communication such as the structure of the message, delivery style, the type of language used, body language, impressions and biases, will greatly assist you in negotiating better...

5. Emotions...Sometimes dealing appropriately with...emotions...is best achieved by...maintaining emotional distance...in other circumstances, it may be best to make the emotions explicit and acknowledge them...

6. Difficult People and Heavy Subjects...There are different ways and techniques of dealing with difficult people depending on the problematic behavior...Each one requires knowing how to stay in control and conscious of what you are doing to avoid automatically reacting to the other side...

7. Tactics and Strategic Moves...Most tactics are based on manipulation and used with competitive strategy. However, almost all of them are ineffective once they have been exposed. Strategic moves are more complicated and are not based on manipulating the other side or putting them at a disadvantage. Using empathy, stepping to the other side of the table, active listening, and reframing are all strategic moves that enhance the chance of a win/win agreement and do not harm relationships.

8. Hidden Agendas. It is important to understand that there are a whole array of hidden attitudes and agendas that drive the negotiations as much as the explicit differences over the issues. Before you reach a good agreement these masked assumptions and unvoiced views must be brought to the surface...Culture is another area where hidden agendas arise. By learning more about, and becoming more conscious of these hidden agendas and the masked assumptions that are just “behind the scenes” in many negotiations, you will become a more effective and successful negotiator."

Read more in this article by Delee Fromm.

Technorati Tags: mediation, adr, negotiation, disputeresolution, alternativedisputeresolution

Negotiating in China

Westerners need to know more than basic Chinese etiquette to negotiate successfully with the Chinese according to an article co-written by John L. Graham and M. Mark Lam. According to the article, westerners negotiating with the Chinese must always be mindful of the following eight important elements underpinning the Chinese negotiation style:

"Guanxi (Personal Connections)
While Americans put a premium on networking, information, and institutions, the Chinese place a premium on individuals’ social capital within their group of friends, relatives, and close associates.

Zhongjian Ren (The Intermediary)
Business deals for Americans in China don't have a chance without the zhongjian ren, the intermediary. In the United States, we tend to trust others until or unless we’re given reason not to. In China, suspicion and distrust characterize all meetings with strangers.

Shehui Dengji (Social Status)
American-style, "just call me Mary" casualness does not play well in a country where the Confucian values of obedience and deference to one’s superiors remain strong. The formality goes much deeper, however—unfathomably so, to many Westerners.

Renji Hexie (Interpersonal Harmony)
The Chinese sayings, "A man without a smile should not open a shop." and "Sweet temper and friendliness produce money." speak volumes about the importance of harmonious relations between business partners.

Zhengti Guannian (Holistic Thinking)
The Chinese think in terms of the whole while Americans think sequentially and individualistically, breaking up complex negotiation tasks into a series of smaller issues: price, quantity, warranty, delivery, and so forth. Chinese negotiators tend to talk about those issues all at once, skipping among them, and, from the Americans’ point of view, seemingly never settling anything.

Jiejian (Thrift)
China’s long history of economic and political instability has taught its people to save their money, a practice known as jiejian. The focus on savings results, in business negotiations, in a lot of bargaining over price—usually through haggling. Chinese negotiators will pad their offers with more room to maneuver than most Americans are used to, and they will make concessions on price with great reluctance and only after lengthy discussions.

Mianzi ("Face" or Social Capital)
In Chinese business culture, a person’s reputation and social standing rest on saving face. If Westerners cause the Chinese embarrassment or loss of composure, even unintentionally, it can be disastrous for business negotiations.

Chiku Nailao (Endurance, Relentlessness, or Eating Bitterness and Enduring Labor)
The Chinese are famous for their work ethic. But they take diligence one step further—to endurance. Where Americans place high value on talent as a key to success, the Chinese see chiku nailao as much more important and honorable."

For additional commentary and a link to the article, see this post from China Law Blog.