Negotiation skills
Session outline













Exercise your experience of negotiation
What negotiation is and isn’t
The need for negotiation
The skills of effective negotiation
Metaphor - Negotiation as War
Negotiation as a sequence of activities
Power in negotiations
Tool and technique, the power-concern matrix/grid
Distributive and integrative strategies
An important question
The rules of trading
Dos and don’ts of experienced negotiators
BATNA and ETNA
Exercise - your experience of negotiation
Spend a few minutes discussing with others what your own and
the group’s experience of negotiation is.
 Was it formal or informal?
 What was involved?
 Who was involved?
 How was the experience for you?
 Did you consider it to be a successful negotiation?
 What were your feelings about the process?
What negotiation is and isn’t
1
Negotiation is a process involving two, or more, parties
reconciling different and competing objectives.
There are various situations which are similar to negotiation
but which are not the same. Negotiation may involve some of
these though:
 Joint problem solving – where both parties have the same
objective
 Deadlock – where the objectives are mutually exclusive
 Confrontation – strongly assertive but uncooperative
approach which might border on aggression or bullying.
Winning at all cost is the priority.
 Submission or surrendering – strength or power is used
by one party to force an agreement
 Consulting - seeking views but not necessarily requiring a
decision
 Evading – the problem may be ignored or people may ‘bury
their head in the sand’ and hope that it goes away
 Compromising – a give and take approach which
encourages a greater or lesser degree of cooperation.
Depending on whether the compromise is passive and
uncooperative or assertive collaboration will to a lesser or
greater extent determined whether it’s effective
negotiation or not.
 Collaborating – flexibility is required in order to reach an
effective outcome, but if views or positions on either
side are very strongly held than we may not be able to
collaborate in order to negotiate.
2
Some key characteristics of negotiation
Negotiations are frequently about reconciling different or
conflicting objectives outcomes. Both parties must be prepared
to and be able to move from their original
objectives/aims/position to some extent in order to arrive at
an agreed solution.
Both parties gain and both parties concede
Both parties need to some extent to be able to deal with
conflict.
Effective negotiation requires the skills of (or ability to
usee):













Tact,
Diplomacy,
Reading body language,
Verbal communication,
Effective listening,
Accurate written communication
Assertiveness
Thorough research and understanding of your position,
your power and what you’re willing to concede in order to
gain through compromise and trade-off. This is a key
point which is often neglected by inexperienced
negotiators.
An understanding of the other parties’ position
The ability to deal with conflict
Patience
The ability to remain calm
A sense of humour? Possibly.
3
 Accurate note taking and record keeping
 Knowing when to stop
Metaphor Negotiation as ‘War’
Frequently negotiation is referred to as being a battle with
winners and losers and different sides. This is often the wrong
view. If the parties involved in negotiation start the
negotiation process with the point of view of it being a battle
to be won then they may well ‘win the battle but lose the war’
i.e. gain short term benefit for long term loss. More
importantly they may miss out on solutions which benefit both
parties.
The need for negotiation
Why do we need negotiation? EXERCISE
 In your pairs or groups identify half a dozen reasons why
negotiation may be necessary.
 Also identify some specific types of situation where
negotiation may be used.
The negotiation process as sequence of activities
Normally negotiation will involve five stages, these are usually
sequential but not always so.
1. Prepare
2. Discuss
3. Propose
4
4. Bargain
5. Agree or Not Agree
Preparation stage
You and your team preparing for the negotiation in advance.
Involves such things as:
 Knowing what you want and what you don’t want
 Knowing your limits
 Knowing your bargaining strengths
 Knowing your bargaining weaknesses
 Being realistic about a fallback position – your fallback
position is your lowest acceptable position.
 Being realistic
 Being aware of where the balance of power lies (see
notes below)
 Setting objectives
 Deciding upon a strategy
 Allocating roles within your team
 Gathering information
 Formulating a plan
 Knowing your desired outcome – What do you REALLY
want from the negotiation process? VERY important to
think ‘outside the box’. What’s more important? Winning
the battle? Or winning the war? Might be better to lose
the battle in order to win the war?
 Knowing when to quit if you’re losing
 Identifying and knowing the difference between: your
needs, your wants, and your desires.
o Your needs – what is essential
o Your wants – what it would be good to have
o Your desires – the icing on the cake
Discussion stage
The start of the negotiation, parties:
 Find out the other parties’ position
 State your own position
5
 Clarify understanding
 Ask questions
 Agree a timescale for the completion of the negotiations
Proposal stage
 Offers and counter offers are made
 Responses, claims and counterclaims are made
 “if you do this we will”
 “we might be prepared to, if you..”
Bargaining stage
 the proposals are discussed…….
Agreement stage -three potential scenarios
 A full agreement is reached to which ALL parties agree
 Partial agreement is reached about some of the issues
 No agreement is reached.
Note that the stages may not be sequential. For example an
agreement may be reached about one item, but not about
another so negotiations revert back to the proposal or
bargaining stage.
Power in negotiations
Power is important in negotiations because:
1 people believe it is important – and perception is important
2 it can affect the ability of the negotiators to make decisions
3 usually the side with the most power (whether perceived or
actual) is likely to achieve more of what they want
Perceived power can be just as important as actual power.
6
Types of power include:
 Expert power – expert knowledge.
 Hidden power or insider knowledge. This may be real or
perceived. One party may deliberately try to make the
other party think that they have inside knowledge when
they may or may not do so.
 Charismatic power – what is said by a person with strong
charisma is often given more credence, whether or not it
is factual or correct.
 Coercive power – making threats or the ability to make
threats, or imply threats
 Reward power – the position to withhold something or to
grant something that is wanted, needed or desired by the
other party or the power to both grant and reward.
 Legitimate power – the power of a recognised authority
 Positional power – normally the higher the status within
the organisation of the person than the greater their
positional power. However people of low status in the
organisation’s hierarchy can wield considerable positional
power due to informal networks within the organisation,
or to their own charisma. Positional power can be very
important and it can often be the case that the person
with positional power is not the most obvious person, nor
the most senior person.
7
Tool and technique – the Power Concern matrix
High
High-power / Low concern
High-power / High concern
Low-power / Low concern
Low-power / High concern
Low
High
 Power refers to the power to affect the issue.
 Concern refers to how concerned the person/party is
with about the issue.
A person may have considerable power but not really be very
interested in the issue; equally another person may be very
concerned about the issue but have very little power.
The power concern matrix can be used to allocate specific
people who are involved in the negotiation process to specific
boxes so that you can identify where to concentrate your
energies and to identify potential allies for partnership and
8
coalition. Do remember though that when allocating people it is
your allocation – and you may get it wrong!
To help you allocate people to the appropriate box in the power
concern matrix ask the following kinds of questions.
About their Power
Do they have influence with senior management?
Are they a member of senior management?
Do they control the budget?
Is their participation essential?
Do they have the power to influence other people whose
support you need?
 Do they have to publicly commit?





About their Concern
 Does issue affect them personally? For example: their
pay? Their working environment? Their working hours?
Their ‘empire’? Their reputation?
 Does the issue clash or conflict with their professional
values?
 Does the issue clash or conflict with their personal
values?
 Are they a friend or a foe? To you or to your situation?
People with high power and low concern
These people have the power but are either unconcerned or
uninformed about all the issues. It’s important you to find out
which of these it is. They can be the key to successful
negotiation for you.
If they would support you if they knew the issues – you
need to educate them.
9
If they would oppose you if they knew the issues – you
need to neglect to educate them and possibly try to
prevent them having access to all of the information.
You need to sell the benefits to the individual people and
to the organisation which has given them their power.
Point out to these people that they may enhance or
increase their power if they support you.
People with low-power low concern
These people are likely to be uncommitted. It’s possible that
because they lack power then they may also have low esteem.
They may side with you or against you. You should aim to offer
something which improves their situation either their power or
the self-esteem if they support you.
Seek to involve them e.g. in decisions about changes
Explains them how important something might be and how
it might affect them
Don’t ignore them - otherwise they may take sides
against you
Work with them to help develop a vision of the positive
improvements that could happen as a result of the
changes.
People with low-power and high concern
These people might see themselves as having no power
generally. You should aim to raise their concern about the issue
10
by explaining to them how they might gain power if they
support it.
Appeal to their value system
Try and remove their fear of failure
Involve them more in the decision-making process so they
feel they have power
People with high power and high concern
These can often be the most important ones. If they support
you and are on your side then they can help your side’s
negotiations. If they are against you then they can be powerful
enemies, and it might not be possible to convert them to your
point of view.
If they are against you:
Try not antagonize them
Treat them professionally with respect
Keep things at a professional level, don’t involve personalities
If they are with you:
Keep them up-to-date so they stay on your side
Ask for their help and support, and thank them when you
receive it
Involve them with the other people who support you – coalition.
11
Strategies for negotiation
There are two main types of strategy: 1 distributive strategies
and 2 integrative strategies.
Distributive strategies
These regard the solution to the problem as being one cake cut
into a limited number of slices. The strategy is to increase your
number of slices or the size of your slices, or both the number
and size. Key questions are: “How big is my slice?”, “How big a
slice can I get?”.
Integrative strategies
These are more of a win-win situation and look at how the
overall cake can be made bigger to the benefit of all parties.
Integrative strategies might lead to better long-term
solutions.
The key is that the overall solution or the overall outcome is
most important.
Successful integrative strategies require both parties to think
very carefully about what they actually want, not what they
think they want what they perceive that they need.
For example one party might be negotiating because they need
a new car so that can get to work in the morning and home
again at night. A distributive strategy would focus on getting
the best car or the newest or most up-to-date car or the most
funding for a car, regardless of the ‘cost’ or negative impact to
either party. Whereas an integrative strategy would focus on
what the issue was. The real issue is that one party needs a
12
means of getting to and from work. This is not the same as
needing a car. So it might be solved by: car share with other
people, bicycle, motorcycle, bus pass, loan of a car during
morning and evening but not during the daytime.
Negotiating Skills; active listening- The Squared Circle
Ignored
Added on
Original message
We filter the original message through our perceptions,
beliefs, values, ideas.
 Some bits of the message are left out,
 New bits are added without is being aware that we have
done so
When negotiating be VERY careful to pay full attention to what
others are saying. Use active listening techniques. Keep written
13
records of what has been said. Check with the other party
what has been said and agreed throughout all stages of the
negotiation process.
An important question
One important question to ask is “Are you ever likely to have to
negotiate with that person or party again or will you have to
work with that person or party again in any capacity?”.
If you’re never going to have to negotiate with them again and
never going to have to work with them again then you might
adopt more of a ‘hard’ negotiation strategy. You want to win for
you/your party and are not bothered about the other side.
If you are going to have to negotiate with the other party or
have to work with them in the future then you might want to
adopt a softer negotiation strategy, otherwise the long-term
working relationship may be damaged.
The rules of trading for negotiation
 Don’t give anything away without getting something in
return. There is no need to be generous.
 Try to give away things which are of little value to you
but worth a lot to the other party.
 Only give away things which you can afford to give away.
 Try to treat the whole negotiation as one issue not as a
series of small issues. The important thing is the overall
outcome. That’s why it’s vitally important to know what
you/your party really needs.
 Act in a professional manner at all times
 Don’t bring personal issues into the negotiation process
14
Experienced negotiators avoid the following
 Immediately counter proposing the other parties’ idea
 Rushing the negotiations at the end in order to finish ‘on
time’
 Personal attacks on members of the opposite negotiating
side
 Diluting arguments by including minor points which aren’t
really relevant to the overall purpose
 Undermining members of the opposite sides
professionalism
 Gloating
 Talking at the same time as the other party
Experienced negotiators use the following
 Active listening
 Positive body language
 Progressively summarising and keeping a record of the
debate
 Thank the other side when they have granted a
concession or progress has been made
 Open questions such as:
o “what would happen if we…?”,
o “suppose we were to…”,
o “how might we?”,
o “what would be the result of?”,
o “what would be the effect of?”,
o “in what way could we…”,
o “how can we take this forward?”
o “what might be the long term effect if we were
to…?”
15
Negotiation Skills BATNA and EATNA
BATNA stands for Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement
"The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the
results you can obtain without negotiating. What are those results? What
is that alternative? What is your BATNA - your Best Alternative To a
Negotiated Agreement? That is the standard against which any proposed
agreement should be measured." (Roger Fisher and William Ury)
BATNA is a term coined by Roger Fisher and William Ury in their 1981
book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Without Giving In
.It stands for "best alternative to a negotiated agreement."
BATNAs are critical to negotiation because you cannot make a wise
decision about whether to accept a negotiated agreement unless you know
what your alternatives are. Your BATNA "is the only standard which can
protect you both from accepting terms that are too unfavourable and
from rejecting terms it would be in your interest to accept." (ibid).
Essentially:
 If the proposed agreement is better than your BATNA, then you
should accept it.
 If the agreement is not better than your BATNA, then you should
reopen negotiations.
 If you cannot improve the agreement, then you should at least
consider withdrawing from the negotiations and pursuing your
alternative (though the costs of doing that must be considered as
well).
In order to know whether or not to accept a proposed settlement
obtained through negotiation, you must know whether or not you can get a
better outcome in some other way. If the negotiated agreement is better
than your "best alternative," you should take it. If it is not as good as
your BATNA, however, you should either go back to the negotiating table
to try again, or leave the table to pursue your other option(s).
Having a good BATNA increases your negotiating power. Therefore, it is
important to improve your BATNA whenever possible. Effective
negotiators know when their opponent is desperate for an agreement.
When that occurs, they will demand much more, knowing their opponent
16
will have to give in. If the opponent apparently has many options outside
of negotiation, however, they are likely to get many more concessions, in
an effort to keep them at the negotiating table. Therefore making your
BATNA as strong as possible before negotiating, and then making that
BATNA known to your opponent will strengthen your negotiating position.
Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess adapted the concept of BATNA slightly to
emphasize what they call EATNAs - Estimated alternatives to a
negotiated agreement instead of best alternatives. Even when negotiators
do not have good options outside of negotiations, they often think they
do. For example, both sides may think that they can prevail in a military
struggle, even when one side is clearly weaker, or when the relative
strengths are so balanced that the outcome is very uncertain.
Perceptions are all that matter when it comes to deciding whether or not
to accept an agreement. If a party thinks that they have a better option,
she will, very often, pursue that option, even if it is not as good as she
thinks it is.
BATNA and EATNAs also affect what William Zartman and may others
have called "ripeness," the time at which a dispute is ready or "ripe" for
settlement.[3] When parties have similar ideas or "congruent images"
about what BATNAs exist, then the negotiation is ripe for reaching
agreement. Having congruent BATNA images means that both parties
have similar views of how a dispute will turn out if they do not agree, but
rather pursue their other rights-based or power-based options. In this
situation, it is often smarter for them to negotiate an agreement without
continuing the disputing process, thus saving the transaction costs. This
is what happens when disputing parties who are involved in a lawsuit settle
out of court, (which happens in the U.S. about 90 percent of the time).
The reason the parties settle is that their lawyers have come to an
understanding of the strength of each sides' case and how likely each is
to prevail in court. They then can "cut to the chase," and get to the same
result much more easily and more quickly through negotiation.
On the other hand, disputants may hold "dissimilar images" about what
BATNAs exist, which can lead to a stalemate or even to intractability.
For example, both sides may think they can win a dispute if they decide
to pursue it in court or through force. If both sides' BATNAs tell them
they can pursue the conflict and win, the likely result is a power contest.
If one side's BATNA is indeed much better than the other's, the side
with the better BATNA is likely to prevail. If the BATNAs are about
17
equal, however, the parties may reach a stalemate. If the conflict is
costly enough, eventually the parties may come to realize that their
BATNAs were not as good as they thought they were. Then the dispute
will again be "ripe" for negotiation.
The allure of the EATNA often leads to last-minute breakdowns in
negotiations. Disputants can negotiate for months or even years, finally
developing an agreement that they think is acceptable to all. But then at
the end, all the parties must take a hard look at the final outcome and
decide, "is this better than all of my alternatives?" Only if all the parties
say "yes," can the agreement be finalized. If just one party changes his
or her mind, the agreement may well break down. Thus, knowing one's own
and one's opponent's BATNAs and EATNAs is critical to successful
negotiation
Determining Your BATNA
BATNAs are not always readily apparent. Fisher and Ury outline a simple
process for determining your BATNA:
1. develop a list of actions you might conceivably take if no agreement
is reached;
2. improve some of the more promising ideas and convert them into
practical options; and
3. select, tentatively, the one option that seems best.
BATNAs may be determined for any negotiation situation, whether it be a
relatively simple task such as finding a job or a complex problem such as a
heated environmental conflict or a protracted ethnic conflict.
More complex situations require the consideration of a broader range of
factors and possibilities. For example, a community discovers that its
water is being polluted by the discharges of a nearby factory. Community
leaders first attempt to negotiate a cleanup plan with the company, but
the business refuses to voluntarily agree on a plan of action that the
community is satisfied with. In such a case, what are the community's
options for trying to resolve this situation?
They could possibly sue the business based on stipulations of the
Clean Water Act.
They could contact the Environmental Protection Agency and see
what sort of authority that agency has over such a situation.
18
They could lobby the state legislature to develop and implement
more stringent regulations on polluting factories.
The community could wage a public education campaign and inform
citizens of the problem. Such education could lead voters to
support more environmentally minded candidates in the future who
would support new laws to correct problems like this one.
In weighing these various alternatives to see which is "best," the
community members must consider a variety of factors.
Which is most affordable and feasible?
Which will have the most impact in the shortest amount of time?
If they succeed in closing down the plant, how many people will lose
their jobs?
These types of questions must be answered for each alternative before a
BATNA can be determined in a complex environmental dispute such as
this one.
BATNAs and the Other Side
At the same time you are determining your BATNA, you should also
consider the alternatives available to the other side. Sometimes they may
be overly optimistic about what their options are. The more you can learn
about their options, the better prepared you will be for negotiation. You
will be able to develop a more realistic view of what the outcomes may be
and what offers are reasonable.
There are also a few things to keep in mind about revealing your BATNA
to your adversary. Although Fisher and Ury do not advise secrecy in their
discussions of BATNAs, according to McCarthy, "one should not reveal
one's BATNA unless it is better than the other side thinks it is."[5] But
since you may not know what the other side thinks, you could reveal more
than you should. If your BATNA turns out to be worse than the opponent
thinks it is, then revealing it will weaken your stance.
BATNAs and the Role of Third Parties
Third parties can help disputants accurately assess their BATNAs
through reality testing and costing. In reality testing, the third party
helps clarify and ground each disputing party's alternatives to agreement.
S/he may do this by asking hard questions about the asserted BATNA:
"How could you do that? What would the outcome be? What would the
19
other side do? How do you know?" Or the third party may simply insert
new information into the discussion...illustrating that one side's
assessment of its BATNA is likely incorrect. Costing is a more general
approach to the same process...it is a systematic effort to determine the
costs and benefits of all options. In so doing, parties will come to
understand all their alternatives. If this is done together and the parties
agree on the assessment, this provides a strong basis upon which to come
up with a negotiated solution that is better than both sides' alternatives.
But if the sides cannot come to such an agreement, then negotiations will
break down, and both parties will pursue their BATNA instead of
negotiation.
In 1992, Fisher and Ury published a 2nd Edition of Getting to Yes. The updated edition
was edited by Bruce Patton and incorporates Fisher and Ury's responses to criticisms of
their original 1981 book.
Roger Fisher and William Ury. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.
(New York: Penguin Books,
William Zartman, Ripe for Resolution, (New York: Oxford, 1985/1989)
BATNA and ETNA Sources - adapted from material available at:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/batna/ 21/2/2007 and
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/batna.htm 21/2/2007
Further Reading
Hargie. O, Dickinson D & Tourish D Communication Skills for Effective Management
2004 PalgraveMacmillan chapter 7
Pettinger R Introduction to management fourth edition 2007 PalgraveMacmillan Pages
405-409
Fisher & Ury Getting to yes 1981 and 1992 edited version
20
Negotiation skills Post session work
In addition to your normal learning log consider using the following
questions to stimulate your self reflection
What are your main skills/strengths as a negotiator?
Which skill areas can or do I need to develop? How might I do this?
What specifically did I contribute to the role play exercises?
How do I think the other members of my team perceived my role during
the exercise?
21
How do I think members of the opposition perceived my role?
Could I have contributed more effectively or in a more effective manner?
What will I do differently next time I am involved in a negotiation
process?
22