Advanced Negotiation
Participant Binder
Advanced Negotiation
This binder belongs to:
Table of Contents
Overview
4
The WHO Leader as Negotiator
10
The Mutual Gains Approach to Negotiation
19
Guidelines for Negotiation Behavior
37
Communications and Responding to Difficult
Tactics
44
Multi-Stakeholder Negotiations
53
Appendix
69
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
3
Overview
4
Advanced Negotiation: Objectives
By the end of this workshop, you will be able to:
 Apply a mutual gains model of negotiation in a wide range of
organizational contexts;
 Learn to prepare effectively for negotiations, as an individual and
as part of WHO staff teams;
 Maximize the potential for achieving mutual gains by exploring
interests and developing substantive options;
 Build more stable agreements using strategies that emphasize
objective criteria for distribution;
 Build more implementable agreements by anticipating
contingencies and aligning organizational capacities;
 Address challenges with negotiation partners who are not initially
able or willing to use a mutual gains approach;
 Assess the potential for multi-stakeholder consensus building on
projects and programs, and develop strategies for consensus
building.
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Overview
5
About The Bridgeway Group
The Bridgeway Group is a non-profit consulting firm based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
that acts as an advisor and trainer for organizations and individuals on negotiation, conflict
management, communication and the management of strategic external and internal
relationships. We bring to clients pragmatic methods, tools and skill sets developed at the
Harvard Negotiation Project, our sister organization CMPartners and in our twenty years of
individual and collective practice. The Bridgeway Group’s activities integrate one or more of
three sets of activities:
 Training. Bridgeway implements single side and joint training for parties to conflict,
parties in post-conflict situations, and/or for the purposes of institutional capacity
building.
 Consulting and advisory work. The Bridgeway Group offers real-time advice on
significant issues for parties to conflict. We assist our clients in the preparation, conduct,
and review of critical negotiations, and we assist our clients in improving the process by
which different internal organizations or teams collaborate and manage their differences
toward a common goal.
 Third party convening. We facilitate the creation and management of on-the-ground
partnerships, collaborations, and relationship networks.
Bridgeway consultants have extensive experience both in the health sector and in UN agencies
and other international organizations. Bridgeway has worked with WHO for over 15 years to
design and develop training, coaching and facilitation programs for both WHO staff and
member state officials.
Overview
6
About the Consensus Building Institute
The Consensus Building Institute (CBI) improves the way that leaders collaborate to make
organizational decisions, achieve agreements, and manage multi-party conflicts and planning
efforts. A nationally and internationally recognized not-for-profit organization, we work with
public, private, multilateral and non-profit organizations and their stakeholders in the U.S.
and around the world. CBI provides:



facilitation and mediation to resolve conflict and build consensus on public and
organizational issues;
training and organizational capacity building in negotiation and collaborative
leadership to the public, private, and non-profit sectors; and,
evaluative research on negotiation and consensus building practices in public and
organizational settings.
Since its inception, CBI has been providing a wide range of organizational services to
government agencies, private companies, and non-governmental organizations involved in
issues of public interest in New England, nationally, and internationally. CBI also plays a key
role in helping to build the intellectual capital in the fields of collaborative leadership,
negotiation and conflict resolution. Our contributions include Built to Win: Creating a World
Class Negotiating Organization (Harvard Business Press 2009), Breaking Robert’s Rules
(Oxford University Press 2006), the Workable Peace Curriculum Series (PON Books, 2008), the
award winning Consensus Building Handbook (Sage 1999) and Dealing with an Angry Public
(Free Press 1996).
Overview
7
Facilitator Bio: Stephan Sonnenberg
Consultant, Consensus Building Institute
As a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and a Clinical Instructor with the Harvard Negotiation
and Mediation Clinical Program, Mr. Sonnenberg works with law students on applied dispute
management, conflict analysis, and negotiation curriculum design projects. In the past two years, he
has supervised a variety of conflict management efforts, including a project to explore the use of
consensus building techniques to help resolve environmental disputes in China, a partnership with
Hewlett Packard to design grievance mechanisms at two of its supplier factories in southern China, a
training for village elders negotiating with representatives of major multinational oil companies in the
Niger Delta, and a consultancy with a Boston area hospital to redesign its patient complaint response
procedure. Stephan also co-teaches the Negotiation Workshop at Harvard Law School, among other
courses.
Before accepting his current position, Mr. Sonnenberg worked primarily in the non-profit sector,
focusing on human rights, international development, and conflict resolution. He has lived and
worked in Northern Uganda and the Caucasus region of southern Russia, consulting for Amnesty
International, the International Rescue Committee, the International Council on Human Rights Policy,
the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and Physicians for Human Rights, among others. His
research focuses on ways in which alternative dispute resolution procedures can be used to prevent
mass atrocities.
Mr. Sonnenberg is a graduate of Harvard Law School, and the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy. He also holds a degree in European Studies from the Institut d’Études Politiques in
Paris, and an undergraduate degree from Brown University.
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Overview
8
Facilitator Bio: Jim Tull
Senior Consultant, The Bridgeway Group
Jim Tull provides training and process assistance in the areas of negotiation, communication,
consensus building, mediation and dispute resolution. In the public sector, Mr. Tull has consulted
to the governments of Bolivia, Guyana, Venezuela and Colombia on their national conflicts. He
has advised and trained such diverse groups as OXFAM, Indonesia's Ministry of Trade, El Salvador's
Ministry of Education, and many of Canada's First Nations Communities including the Mi'Kmaq,
Samson Cree and Ermineskin Cree Nations. Mr. Tull has also worked extensively with the WHO,
WFP, FAO, IFAD, UNDP, OCHA and UNICEF branches of the United Nations.
In the private sector, Mr. Tull has designed and delivered training workshops throughout the world
for a wide range of companies and IFIs. Mr. Tull's teaching experience includes the Program on
Negotiation at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Education as well
as the Kennedy School of Government. Mr. Tull spent eight years working for Professor Roger
Fisher's Conflict Management Group (CMG). Prior to joining CMG, Mr. Tull spent several years
working as an International Partner for Habitat for Humanity in Central and South America. His
interest in negotiation theory was made very personal in Nicaragua when he was held hostage by
Recompa guerrillas and negotiated his own release, as well as that of his colleagues.
Mr. Tull received his BA with honors from Kenyon College, and his Master of Public Administration
from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Overview
9
The WHO Leader as Negotiator
10
Agency Leadership Tasks Include:


Working with HWCOs /CDs/ UN Partners
Working with Key National Counterparts
 Government
 Donors
 Civil Society
 Private Sector
Managing Cluster/Department Staff and Projects
Liaising with Regional Offices and Country Offices




In order to…
Advance WHO Goals
Support a National Development Agenda
Advance UN System Goals


These Tasks All Require Negotiation
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Who Leader as Negotiator
11
Negotiation: A Working Definition
The process by which




two or more parties
with conflicting and/or compatible goals
seek to reach agreement
that satisfies or improves their outcomes.
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Who Leader as Negotiator
12
Negotiation Happens When:
 Interdependence Exists
 Cannot Command Behavior
 Limited Authority
 Differences Exist
 In Interests, Priorities, Capacities, Resources
 Potential for Mutually Beneficial Exchange
 Communication is possible
 May be clear or unclear
 May be straightforward, strategic or misleading
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Who Leader as Negotiator
13
Negotiating DOWN, OUT, and UP
 Down: Staff accountable to you
 Technical and Administrative Staff
 Across/Out: Actors inside and outside WHO/UN system where
there is limited/no direct accountability
 Cross-functional counterparts, Regional/Country Office
counterparts, UN partners, Government, Donors, NGOs,
Others
 Up: Management to whom you are accountable
 Direct Supervisors, Cluster Directors, UN HQ
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Who Leader as Negotiator
14
Negotiating DOWN and UP: Direct Leadership

Formal Authority - Mandates
 Assigned and Negotiated
 Down: you mandate
 Up: you are mandated

Authorization for Areas Beyond Mandate
 Requires ongoing communication between principals and agents

Expectations and Conditions on Authority
 Stated and Unstated
 Assigned and Negotiated
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Who Leader as Negotiator
15
Negotiating OUT: Indirect Leadership
Degree of Control < Degree of Responsibility

Develop Objectives
 What is the desired result? (based on…)

Map Stakeholders
 Who is involved?
 What does each want and need?
 What can each contribute?

Develop Strategy to Influence Actions and Decisions
 What can we offer that would motivate them to meet our
objectives? (a Mutual Gains Approach…)
 How could we coordinate all the stakeholders? (Consensus
Building…)
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Who Leader as Negotiator
16
Negotiating in 3-D
 In fast-changing situations, agency leaders often communicate
and re-negotiate mandates up and down while negotiating out
 Communication protocols become critical
 Agency Leaders often manage several parallel, linked
negotiations up, down and out
 Sequencing and trading become critical
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Who Leader as Negotiator
17
Negotiation Skills for Leaders

Organizational: understands organizational needs and constraints,
and helps mediate between and balance different needs

Managerial: identifies specific actions needed at each step of the
work; works with staff and stakeholders to assign responsibility,
time and resources

Interpersonal: deals with each negotiating partner as a whole
person; responds to individual interests and concerns while keeping
each person focused on the overall goals

Facilitative: manages meetings, conversations, and overall process
to maximize contributions from each member; resolves conflict
when necessary
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Who Leader as Negotiator
18
The Mutual Gains Approach (MGA)
to Negotiation
19
What are the goals of successful negotiation?
Satisfy the parties
(stakeholders)
Realize efficiency
with respect to
time, effort, and
mutual gains
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Outcome that meets
goals and principles
Build relationships
and institutions
The Mutual Gains Approach
20
Seeking Mutual Gains through Negotiation
#1. PREPARE EFFECTIVELY
#2. CREATE VALUE
#3. DISTRIBUTE VALUE
#4. FOLLOW THROUGH
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
The Mutual Gains Approach
21
Effective Preparation
You are getting ready to sit down to negotiate:
What are the most important things for
you to know in order to prepare
effectively for a negotiation?
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
The Mutual Gains Approach
22
Effective Preparation

Mandate
 Clarify your authority
 Maximize your flexibility

Interests
 Know your interests
 Think about their interests

Alternatives
 Estimate Your Best Alternative
 Improve Your Alternative (if possible)
 Analyze their Alternative

Options
 Prepare to suggest mutually beneficial options
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
The Mutual Gains Approach
23
Big Idea #1: Best Alternative to a Negotiated
Agreement (BATNA)
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
The Mutual Gains Approach
24
Big Idea #2: Move from Positions to Interests
Interests: Represent Our Underlying Needs…
Positions: Represent One Way to Achieve Them

Positions vs. Interests
→ Position: “Follow my organizational policies…”
→ Position: “I need to meet my performance goals…”
→ Position: “Your division should provide funding…”
Key Question:
“Why is that important to you?”
Of all the things we’ve discussed, which is most
important to you?
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
The Mutual Gains Approach
25
#2: From Positions to Interests
WHO Technical Officer:
“Your unit should
fund”
Not a
priority
Protect limited
budget
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Equitable to
benefits
Precedent
The Mutual Gains Approach
26
#2: From Positions to Interests
Other WHO Unit:
“No we will not fund”
Costs are
excessive?
Budget Cycle
passed?
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Joint
ownership?
Precedent?
The Mutual Gains Approach
27
What Kinds of Interests (for projects)?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Money
Time of Completion
Commitment of staff
Relationship
Development Impact(!)
Risk
Credit / Visibility
Sustainability
Ownership/Control
Transaction Costs, etc
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
The Mutual Gains Approach
28
Big Idea #3: Asking what might be possible

Once we have understood each other’s interests…

We can brainstorm to see what’s possible…

Key Question: What If…?
 What if we tried it this way…? How would that work for
you?

Negotiation Tip:
 Explore interests BEFORE you start proposing options.
 This can help us to propose more creative solutions that
more effectively meet the key interests of all parties.
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
The Mutual Gains Approach
29
#3: From Interests to Options
Realistic
Cost-Share
Shared
Benefits
Revised
budget/scope
????
Shared Commitment,
Ownership
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
The Mutual Gains Approach
30
Big Idea #4: Fairness is a Source of Power
and a Means for Decision-Making
 When relationships matter:
 Offer rationales for why we should ‘divide the pie’ this
way or that…
 Don’t tell me that it’s fair…
 Tell me why and how it’s fair.
 Jointly develop the criteria we will use…
 This helps each side “sell” the agreement back to their
people
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
The Mutual Gains Approach
31
Criteria of Legitimacy
• Fairness is Relative
• Develop & agree on
criteria for evaluating
• How did you arrive at
options
that?
• CCS
• What is the theory
• MDGs
behind this?
• Greatest Need
• What makes that fair?
• Equal treatment
• How are others (people,
• Efficiency
organizations) handling
• Reciprocity
this problem?
• Prior commitment
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
The Mutual Gains Approach
32
Use Contingent Commitments
 Manage Uncertainty/Disagreement about the future:
 If Perceptions of the future are different, don’t argue
about uncertainties
 Use If-then formulations to account for multiple potential
outcomes
 Allow time needed to implement change well
 Develop monitoring arrangements and clear assessment
strategies
 Set follow-up plan: come back together to assess results
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
The Mutual Gains Approach
33
Big Idea #5: Prepare for “Predictable Surprises”
If we want sustainable agreements…
 Ask: “What might go wrong?”
 How can you minimize those chances?
→ Incentivize compliance and commitment
→ Identify organizational / resource gaps
→ And seek to build this into your agreement…
 And discuss what will happen if it does go wrong…
→ How will you monitor implementation?
→ What do you agree to do about it if it does happen
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
The Mutual Gains Approach
34
MGA Summary: Five Key Questions
1. What’s our BATNA (best alternative to a
negotiated agreement/"Plan B")?
2. Why is that important to you?
3. What if…?
4. What makes that fair?
5. What might go wrong?
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
The Mutual Gains Approach
35
The Mutual Gains Approach
36
Guidelines for
Negotiation Behavior
37
NEGOTIATION STYLE
NEGOTIATION
BEHAVIOR
TOUGH
Soft
Asking Questions
About Others
Asks few questions, mostly
rhetorical
asks some questions
Giving Information
provides information mainly Provides information about
as demands, sometimes as
interests, may reveal own
threats
bottom line
Brainstorming
(Inventing Options)
Tends to present options as
“take it or leave it”
demands
Trading
doesn't want to trade
Using Fair Standards
more interested in gain than may settle for an outcome
in fairness
that seems more fair to
others than to self
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
SMART
asks many questions
clarifying "what" others
interests are and "why" they
are important
provides information about
interests but not bottom
line
creates/explores many
open to other's options, may
"what if" options meeting
suggest some others
everyone's needs
willing to give up a lot in
trades to preserve
relationship
trades things less important
in order to get things more
important
Seeks agreement on
standards that seem fair to
self and others
Guidelines for Behavior
38
You ALWAYS want to be SMART;
When can you be tougher? Softer?




What’s more important?
→ Ongoing Relationship  softer and smart
→ Outcome of this particular negotiation  tougher and smart
What’s your BATNA? (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement)?
→ Your BATNA is bad  softer and smart
→ Your BATNA is great  tougher and smart
How much joint gain may be possible?
→ Lots of joint gain possible  softer and smart
→ Not much joint gain possible  tougher and smart
Who is your negotiating partner?
→ Tough  tougher and smart
→ Softer  softer and smart
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Guidelines for Behavior
39
A Guide for SMART Behavior: The Strategic Compass
Communication
Relationship
Interests
Options
Criteria
If “No”
Alternatives
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
If “Yes”
Commitment
Guidelines for Behavior
40
Smart Behavior: Guidelines 1 of 3
Facilitate two-way COMMUNICATION
 Lead or explicitly negotiate the process: Purposes, Products, Place, Parties to
involve and the Process of our discussion
 Listen actively and inquire
 Frame what we say in light of what they will hear
 Reframe their positions and attacks as statements of interest and concern
Deal with RELATIONSHIP and substance issues each on their own merits
 Do not threaten or buy the relationship
 Be soft on the people, firm on the substance
 Create communication and relationship strategies for people problems
Rather than react to positions, probe for INTERESTS
 Inquire vertically “Why?”; horizontally “What else?”, and prioritize “In what order”
 Share some of your own interests
 Share your understanding of theirs and ask for feedback
 Ask for criticisms and suggestions, not demands or concessions
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Guidelines for Behavior
41
Smart Behavior: Guidelines 2 of 3
Avoid a concessions strategy, generate OPTIONS for mutual gain
 Jointly brainstorm multiple options
 Separate inventing from deciding
 Consider informal processes for brainstorming
Use CRITERIA to make wise decision, even when interests conflict
 Explain your reasoning, inquire into theirs
 Consider how they might explain any agreement to their constituents
 Focus on why an option is “fair” or “appropriate”
 Remember, parties can use different criteria to explain a shared decision to their
respective constituencies
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Guidelines for Behavior
42
Smart Behavior: Guidelines 3 of 3
Acknowledge ALTERNATIVES/BATNA as a choice
 Discuss BATNAs in order to unearth interests and invite better options
 Reality test theirs – how well does it satisfy their interests?
 If useful, explain yours as a choice you need to make
Make COMMITMENTS with care after learning all you can
 Commit early on process (and re-negotiate as you go), late on substance
 Build towards your objectives in stages: Design a chain of framework products for
each step of the process
 Break-up “decision making”
 Sequence: Delegate roles, invent many options, evaluate, refine, then seek
agreement
 Verify that parties know what they are committing to, how they will keep their
commitments, and how implementation can be verified
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Guidelines for Behavior
43
Communications and Responding
to Difficult Tactics
44
Why Inquiry Matters …
Why Inquiry Matters …
Canadians
Americans
“Please divert your course 15 degrees
to the south to avoid a collision.”
“Recommend you divert your course 15
degrees to the north to avoid a
collision.”
“Negative. You will have to divert
your course 15 degrees to the
south to avoid a collision.”
“This is the Captain of a U.S. Navy ship.
I say again, divert YOUR course.”
“No, I say again, you divert YOUR
course.”
“This is a lighthouse.
Your call.”
“This is the Aircraft Carrier U.S.S.
Lincoln, the second largest ship in
the United States Atlantic Fleet. We
are accompanied by three destroyers,
three cruisers, and numerous support
vessels. I demand that you change
your course 15 degrees north. I say
again, that’s one-five degrees north,
or counter-measures will be
undertaken to ensure the safety of
this ship.
Three Rules for Good Communication
1. Listen Actively
--Verbal and non-verbals
2. Get beneath the surface
-- ask questions to learn
3. Describe your “Data”
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Responding to Difficult Tactics
47
When to Use Active Listening
• Emotional situations
• Where communication is difficult
• When you’re not sure you understand
• When you’re going around in circles
• When they aren’t listening to you
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Responding to Difficult Tactics
48
INQUIRY
Low
A
D
V
O
C
A
C
Y
High
High
Imposing
Mutual
Learning
Withdrawal
Easing In
Low
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Guidelines for Behavior
49
Understanding
CAUTION: Understanding Does Not Mean Agreement!
• Don't discard your current understanding -- hold it as a
hypothesis
• Through conversation, begin to build a new understanding
in light of what you learn.
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Responding to Difficult Tactics
50
Pause, Think, then Act
PAUSE: Do not react blindly
 Take a breath, step back for a moment
 Recognize what is happening within and around you
 Acknowledge: What are you feeling? What might they be feeling? Why?
 “Does this conversation threaten how I/they would like to be perceived?”
THINK: Prepare to lead
 Reaffirm your goal
 What needs to happen next?
 Diagnose: What “game” that is forming
 Which of the Seven Elements are in play? How? Which are absent? Why?
ACT: Lead with purpose
 The choices: Time-out, play their game, or LEAD
 Lead to a new game unilaterally, or negotiate the ground rules
 Build communication that enables understanding and joint problem-solving
 The less you agree, the more you need to understand
 Remember the Strategic Compass
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Responding to Difficult Tactics
51
Act: Three Smart Responses to Difficult Tactics
Reframe their actions and statements
 From positions, demands, and threats to interests
 “Is your concern about follow-through, or public perceptions?”
 “How would working with another partner be good for you?”
 From positions to options
 “That’s one option, let’s explore others.”
 From positions to criteria
 “How did you develop that number?” “Let’s consider other possible standards.”
Name the game and change it
 Describe the current dynamic and its consequences
 Negotiate the process
 Explain and/or demonstrate the value of the mutual gains approach
Change the players
 Suggest more useful roles: Advising, brainstorming, educating, framing
 Delegate issues and decisions to more appropriate parties
 Add or replace one or more parties
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Responding to Difficult Tactics
52
Multi-Stakeholder Negotiations
53
Goals for Policy Decisions
Support well-informed,
transparent and
representative public
decision-making
Resolve disagreements
among stakeholders
Maximize joint
gains (economic,
environmental,
social, political)
Minimize need for
trade-offs
(Re)Build relationships and institutions
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Multi-stakeholder Negotiations
54
Multiparty Negotiations: A Strategic Challenge
Achieving “success” when
• Dealing with multiple parties in a web of interconnected relationships
• No single agreement with any one party can satisfy all key parties or interests
• The parties in this complex network have widely disparate interests
• Negotiations with any one party impact negotiations with others, yet…
• A common agreement or consensus among all parties seems impossible
Multi-stakeholder Negotiations
From Bilateral to Multilateral Negotiations
Complicating Factors
Relationship
Process
Substance
 Number of actors increases
 Principal-agent tensions become more pronounced
 Coalitions become important
 Decision-making rules are challenging to establish
 Communication (trust) is hard to build
 Roles change
 Complexity of information increases (number of interests
to satisfy)
 Lowest common denominator solutions become the
norm
 Resources can be more limited
 Alternatives (a “kaleidoscope” of possibilities)
The Tactical Challenge
How do we apply the Mutual Gains framework & tools in a multi-party
environment?
Sequencing: with whom do we negotiate first? How, and to what end? Second?
Third?
How do we deal with the uncertainties of
 a changing political landscape, or
 concealed, inaccurate or vague information about players’ interests,
relationships, etc.?
Multi-stakeholder Negotiations
A Common Approach
In crisis, we generally…
• Use whatever leverage we have on as many parties as possible
concurrently
• Resort early to BATNA – compete to see which single player can exert
the most pressure immediately
Consequences…
• Hard on working relationships
• Fails to build a sustainable capacity to prevent or efficiently manage
future surprises
Multi-stakeholder Negotiations
A SMART Approach
Systematically maximize both your efficiency and leverage
• Organize and clarify the network of parties
• Sort the parties’ motivations: their interests, possible BATNAs and
key relationships
• Increase the probability of both short and long term success
• Exploit or re-engineer the network
• Leverage strategic communication
Multi-stakeholder Negotiations
The Process Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
Clarify and prioritize your own interests
Map all relevant players
Identify all players’ key interests
Identify and characterize relationships among the players
Plan and implement a sequence of one-on-one negotiations that
leverage or shift the relationship map to serve your interests — short
and long term
Consider patterns of deference, influence, and antagonism between
players
Consensus Building
Stakeholder Mapping
Potential
challenger
Key ally
Can we
mobilize?
Leave alone?
“Deference”
Party A will almost certainly
• Do what Party B does, or will
• Do what Party B advises, asks or directs Party A to do
Sources of “deference”
• Personal respect, admiration
• Mentorship, sponsorship
• Political power, raw strength, seniority
• Expertise, status, reputation, etc.
Watch for “patterns of deference” among the mapped players (i.e.,
who, if anyone defers to whom?)
Multi-stakeholder Negotiations
“Influence”
Party A is likely to
• Do what Party B advises, asks or directs Party A to do
Sources of “influence”
• Follow Party B’s lead, or
• Trust of judgment, best intentions
• Successful track record
• Shared interests, etc.
Watch for “patterns of influence” among the mapped players (i.e.,
who, if anyone can help secure agreement with others?)
Multi-stakeholder Negotiations
“Antagonism”
Party A will not
• Follow Party B’s lead, or
• Do what Party B advises, asks or directs Party A to do
Sources of “antagonism”
• Mistrust of judgment, intentions
• Unsuccessful track record
• Conflicting interests, etc.
Watch for “patterns of antagonism” among the mapped players (i.e.,
whose agreement might preclude agreement with others?)
Multi-stakeholder Negotiations
Analyze Your Maps
• Which player’s or players’ agreements will advance our short, mid
and long term interests?
• What are their key interests?
• What are their BATNAs to agreements that serve our interests?
• Are they part of a pattern of deference, influence or antagonism?
• Might existing or potential coalitions affect their BATNAs? Our
BATNA?
Multi-stakeholder Negotiations
Identify Coalitions
Identify groups of players (with shared or dovetailing interests) with
whom you might reach agreements that
• Directly serve your interests
• Improve your BATNA
• Worsen others’ BATNAs
Identify groups of players who might
• Undermine your interests
• Worsen your BATNA
• Improve others’ BATNAs
Multi-stakeholder Negotiations
Plan Your Strategy
Use interests, BATNAs and patterns of deference, influence and
antagonism to create an optimal negotiation sequence.
• Consider
– Bootstrapping from “easier” parties to “harder” ones, exploiting
deference, influence, etc.
– Backward Mapping from needed decision makers to yourself,
exploiting overall patterns of deference, etc.
– Pyramiding from “hardest” and most impacting downward to other
parties
– Sequencing to conceal or reveal information
– Coalition Building to build momentum or disempower blockers
Multi-stakeholder Negotiations
DEFINING THE “INSIDE/OUTSIDE” PROBLEM...
s
s
s s s
s
s
T
s
s
s
N5
s
s
N1
s
s
s
s
s
Negotiations often
involve multiple
organizations with their
own ongoing internal
negotiations
s
s
T
N4
s
N2
s
N3
KEY
Negotiator
Each of these group
must send a
representative
“outside” to negotiate
on their behalf.
Resulting
communication
challenges is the inside /
outside dilemma
N
s
s
s
T
s
s s
S
Negotiation
Table
Stakeholder
Communication Links
Appendix
69
Readings on Negotiation and Consensus Building
Mutual Gains Negotiation
Breslin, J. & J. Rubin, eds., (1993). Negotiation Theory and Practice. Cambridge, MA: Program on
Negotiation Books.
Fisher, R. and W. Ury (1991). Getting to Yes. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Movius, Hallam and Lawrence Susskind (2009). Built to Win: Creating a World-class Negotiating
Organization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Lax, David and James Sebenius (2006). 3D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your
Most Important Deals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Malhortra, Deepak and Max Bazerman (2007). Negotiation Genius. New York, NY: Bantam Dell.
McKearnan, S. and D. Fairman (1999). “Chapter 8, Producing Consensus.” In Susskind, L.; S.
McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer, eds., (1999). The Consensus Building Handbook. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Potapchuk, W. & J. Crocker (1999). “Chapter 14, Implementing Consensus-Based Agreements.” In
Susskind, L.; S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer, eds., (1999). The Consensus Building Handbook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ury, William. (2007) The Power of a Positive No: Save the Deal Save the Relationship - And Still Say
No by William Ury. New York, NY: Bantam Dell.
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Appendix
70
Readings on Negotiation and Consensus Building
Overview of Consensus Building in Public Policy Settings
Carpenter, S. & W. Kennedy (2001). Managing Public Disputes: A Practical Guide for Government,
Business, and Citizen’s Groups. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
De Jongh, P. & S. Captain, eds., (1999). Our Common Journey: A Pioneering Approach to Cooperative
Environmental Management. London: Zed Books.
Dukes, E.F. (1996). Resolving Public Conflict: Transforming Community and Governance. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Policy Consensus Initiative (1999). A Practical Guide to Consensus. Santa Fe, NM: Policy Consensus
Initiative.
Susskind, L.& J. Cruikshank (1987). Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public
Disputes. New York: Basic Books.
Susskind, L., S. McKearnan & J. Thomas-Larmer, eds.,(1999). The Consensus Building Handbook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wondolleck, Julia M., & Yaffee, Steven, L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from
innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press.
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Appendix
71
Readings on Negotiation and Consensus Building
Stakeholder Assessment
Carpenter, S. (1999). “Chapter 1, Choosing Appropriate Consensus Building Techniques and
Strategies.” In Susskind, L.; S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer, eds., (1999). The Consensus Building
Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Consensus Building Institute and The Land Use Law Center, Pace University School of Law. (2000).
Conducting Conflict Assessments in the Land Use Context: A Manual. The Land Use Law Center, Pace
University School of Law, and the Consensus Building Institute.
Susskind, L. and J. Thomas-Larmer (1999). “Chapter 2, Conducting a Conflict Assessment.” In
Susskind, L., S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer, eds., (1999). The Consensus Building Handbook.
London, UK: Sage Publications.
Setting Goals, Ground Rules and Decision Rules
Carlson, C. (1999). “Chapter 4, Convening.” In Susskind, L.; S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer, eds.,
(1999). The Consensus Building Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Laws, D. (1999). “Chapter 6, Representation of Stakeholding Interests.” In Susskind, L.; S.
McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer, eds., (1999). The Consensus Building Handbook. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Strauss, D. & M. Doyle (1993). How to Make Meetings Work. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Publishing Group.
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Appendix
72
Readings on Negotiation and Consensus Building
Joint Fact Finding
Adler, P., R. Barrett, M. Bean, J. Birkhoff, C. Ozawa, & E. Rudin (2000). Managing Scientific and
Technical Information in Environmental Cases: Principles and Practices for Mediators and
Facilitators. Found on http://www.mediate.com/articles/wjc.cfm.
Andrews, C. (2002). Humble analysis: The practice of joint fact-finding. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
Conflict Research Consortium (2000). Treating Fact-Finding Problems: Strategies for Obtaining
Information About Facts and Uncertainties. Boulder, CO: Conflict Research Consortium, University of
Colorado.
Ehrman, J. & B. Stinson (1999). “Chapter 9, Joint Fact-Finding and the Use of Technical Experts.” In
Susskind, L.; McKearnan, S.; Thomas-Larmer, J. eds., (1999). The Consensus Building Handbook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lee, K. (1995). Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Ozawa, C. (1991). Recasting Science: Consensual Procedures in Public Policy Making.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Appendix
73
Readings on Negotiation and Consensus Building
Independent Facilitation
Elliott, M. (1999). “Chapter 5, The role of Facilitators, Mediators, and Other Consensus Building
Practitioners.” In Susskind, L.; S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer, eds., (1999). The Consensus
Building Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Moore, C. (1996). The Mediation Process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schwartz, R. (1994). The Skilled Facilitator. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
Susskind, L.& J. Cruikshank (1987). Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public
Disputes. New York: Basic Books.
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Appendix
74
Negotiation Journal
Negotiation:
Date:
Your Role:
Issues:
What did the other person do well, and that perhaps helped you both do well?
Be specific and concrete - identify their actions and words
What 2 or 3 things would you do differently next time – If you had to conduct the conversation
over again?
Other significant learning points:
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Appendix
75
Negotiation Journal
Negotiation:
Date:
Your Role:
Issues:
What did the other person do well, and that perhaps helped you both do well?
Be specific and concrete - identify their actions and words
What 2 or 3 things would you do differently next time – If you had to conduct the conversation
over again?
Other significant learning points:
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Appendix
76
Negotiation Journal
Negotiation:
Date:
Your Role:
Issues:
What did the other person do well, and that perhaps helped you both do well?
Be specific and concrete - identify their actions and words
What 2 or 3 things would you do differently next time – If you had to conduct the conversation
over again?
Other significant learning points:
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Appendix
77
Going Forward…
As you look through the binder, the laminate card, and your notes we
encourage you to identify one specific thing you might “do differently”
For example:
 Set aside time to prepare using the Five Key Questions
 Understand the interests that underlie yours and the other side’s positions
 Explore what might be possible – invent many options for agreement
 Seek outcomes perceived as fair by all parties
 Prepare for predictable surprises
 Choose stakeholder engagement strategies wisely
 Role play with a colleague before an important conversation
 Use the Journal to reflect on your next negotiation
 Other?
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Appendix
78
Notes
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Appendix
79
Notes
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Appendix
80
Notes
© 2010 CBI and Bridgeway. All rights reserved.
Appendix
81