Tips on answering exam questions
Question 1 will be a letter or a report (based on one of the six cases
studied in the autumn and winter terms).
Question 2 will be a more “analytical” type of task in which you will be
expected to demonstrate an understanding of the negotiation theory in
Getting to Yes and possibly to show how you used the method in one of
the three cases covered this term.
This is the first assignment given this term:
Write a paper in which you contrast principled negotiation with positional
bargaining. Show how you used at least one of the principles of the method in
the Long-range - XYZ negotiation. (length 400-600 words)
In a report you would use headings to organise your facts. In a freer type
of assignment (a paper/essay/evaluation) you would not use headings.
The organisation - although equally important - would be less visible than
in a report.
Your paper might be comprised of the following elements:
1
A short introductory section - to set the stage
2
A game plan - to explain how you intend to organise
your answer
optional
3
The contrast between the two strategies
4
Specific examples about how you used the strategy
in your negotiation
5
A short concluding section - to round things off
optional
Obviously sections 3 and 4 will be the most comprehensive sections.
Before you start writing it is advisable to set up some key words that will
help your remember the most central elements of the method.
Here are some suggestions for each of the parts.
1) The introductory section could look something like this:
When two parties sit down at the negotiation table they have both conflicting and
shared interests. The members of each team hope to resolve their differences and
realise their interests as quickly and efficiently as possible. However, negotiations
often break down if negotiators focus solely on achieving their own goals. This often
provokes a negative reaction and, in no time, the negotiation deadlocks. Using a more
efficient negotiation method would save time, increase benefits and strengthen the
relationship between the two parties.
2) A possible game plan:
I will first give a brief description of positional bargaining, then outline the most
important aspects of principled negotiation, and finally show how we used some of the
principles in the Long-range - XYZ negotiation.
3) Contrasting the two negotiation strategies
Positional bargaining results when negotiators look at the opposite party as an
opponent. They tend to become positional and view the negotiation as a contest of
will. Pride and self-esteem become entangled in the process, and making a
concession equals losing face. In positional bargaining, negotiators expect to meet
resistance to their wishes, so they often inflate their demands to have a “cushion” to
work with. In a discussion about commission, for example, one party might start out by
asking for a 30 percent rate, while the other party offers as little as 10 percent, when in
fact a rate of around 20 percent would have satisfied both parties. By demanding
excessively high or offering extremely low rates, both parties waste valuable time,
appear unprofessional, and risk losing the contract. Another feature of positional
bargaining is that negotiators view the outcome of the negotiation as fixed. This leads
them into adopting either a hard strategy to obtain as much as possible, or a soft
strategy to reach an agreement at almost any price.
Principled negotiation entails a completely different kind of strategy. Fisher and Ury’s
method is based on four main principles. The first is to separate the people from the
problem. This means accepting the opposite party as an equal partner and
acknowledging their interests. The authors recommend trying to put yourself into the
other party’s shoes and see things from their point of view. The second principle is to
focus on interests, not positions. Interests are what you hope to get out of the
negotiation and are what brought you to the negotiation table in the first place. The
third principle involves inventing options for mutual gain. In other words, you should try
to resolve conflicting interests creatively - through brainstorming. Finally, insist on
using objective criteria. Instead of just picking numbers out of the air, all demands
should be based on standards that are acceptable to both parties.
4) Using the strategy
In our negotiation with Long-range we managed to use principled negotiation to good
effect. Long-range initially requested an exclusive contract. Instead of refusing, we
asked them “why” in order to discover their underlying interests. They explained that
exclusivity was an important issue since they were interested in establishing their
equipment as an up-market brand on the Norwegian market. Consequently, they did
not want their goods to be offered alongside Tiger Shark and Hurricane. We explained
that an exclusive contract would represent a considerable risk for us since Long-range
is a completely new brand on the market, and because the company has no
experience on the export market.
To resolve this issue, both parties created options for mutual gain. Long-range
assured us that they would invest heavily in advertising to help establish their brand.
They also offered us a five-year contract providing we reached a given market share
each year. We offered them exclusivity in the pro-shop segment, and agreed to review
the question of exclusivity after one year.
5) Concluding section
At the end of our negotiation, both parties felt that we had obtained an agreement that
satisfied our interests. By focusing on interests, not positions and by focusing on
resolving each others’ problems, we felt that we had established a positive basis for
our future business relationship. No one walked away from the negotiation table
feeling that they come off worse.