ilrsm515 transcripts - amazon s3 · !ilrsm515:!preparing!for!negotiations!...

ILRSM515: Preparing for Negotiations School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University

© 2015 eCornell. All rights reserved. All other copyrights, trademarks, trade names, and logos are the sole property of their respective owners.

1

ILRSM515 Transcripts

Transcript: Course Introduction Let me talk to you about negotiations for a minute. In the last number of years there's been tons written in negotiation. I've been in academia for 30 years, I cannot tell you how many wonderful books there are out there in negotiation. So, what's unique in terms of what we're trying to do? Well, for us, negotiation is a specific behavioral skill. It's a learned behavioral skill. And it's part and parcel of the skill sets that you need if you're gonna be a leader. If you're going to be a proactive leader in today's organizations, you'd better know how to practically negotiate. And what am I talking about? As we move away from product organizations to solution-‐based organizations. As we talk about working in teams rather than departments. As we are driven by projects. As we begin to work cross turf, the very notion of structured authority is antiquated. What you now need to do is win people over, and you're going to do that through the skills of negotiation. For us negotiation, therefore, is a critical leadership skill. In this course, we're going to deal with preparing for negotiation. That is the things that you have to do before you enter the actual negotiations. Metaphorically if we think of negotiation as something that occurs at some metaphorical table, this is all the things you do before. And you know what? Negotiations to my mind is 80% preparation, 80% preparation. Do you ever wonder why it is that when you hear, for example, successful or unsuccessful, the President of the United States going to a summit, you hear about all the prep work that's done before? Before there's major negotiations, there's all the prep work. Preparation is everything in negotiations. If you're going to negotiate, prepare. And that doesn't mean you need to take years. It may mean minutes, before you go into a room even, the preparation is critical. So in this class we're going to deal with preparing for negotiations. You know, the first question in preparing for negotiations you have to ask yourself is, should I negotiate or not negotiate? Folks, negotiation is an important skill, but it's not what you do all the time. You don't negotiate everything. There's some situations where in fact negotiation is inappropriate. Not always inappropriate, but you may not even have authority to continue the negotiations. Some things you can't negotiate about. They may fall outside your realm. It's always an option not to negotiate. So, the first thing you have to consider, is this an appropriate thing to negotiate? Now, that seems very simple, but in fact as you'll see in this class, we'll develop that simple idea, around some core elements, so you can begin to ask yourself; when should I negotiate or not negotiate? Negotiating for its own sake is tokenism.



2

Then we'll begin to ask ourselves the question of strategic anticipation. What is it that I have to consider before I start negotiating? The possible conflict of interests. How do I anticipate the alternative the other party has? How do I consider the personality of the party? How do I consider the culture? How do I recognize the differences in power? So all these issues of strategic anticipation before I sit down will be considered in the class. We'll also put a lot of emphasis on what I like to call framing the negotiations. Before you get to the table, you've gotta frame the negotiations. You've gotta analyze the situation. There's differences in situations. There's a difference between a hostage-‐taking situation, if you will, and having a conflict at home that you try to resolve. Folks there's a continuum of negotiations, and the workplace is very complex in that context. Then the issues, how do you categorize issues? What are the issues we're going to negotiate about? How do you prioritize, you know, we talk about needs and wants, this is very important distinctions, how do we draw that out? And then how do we anticipate how power will enter the equation? So in this class we'll also deal with framing negotiations. So, what are we gonna try to do in this class? The title is preparing for negotiations, and we're gonna prepare you by first helping you analyze whether you should negotiate in the first place. Second by helping you think of the critical issue of strategic participation. What should I think about? And third we're gonna help you frame the negotiation, so when you go in there you're better prepared. You are better prepared to deal with the issues that arise. Whether you're gonna be dealing for, for with a group or a particular individual. Whether you'll be dealing with big issues, or small issues. Negotiations isn't something that special people do at special moments because they have special skills. Negotiations is what you need to do in the new contemporary organization. If you're going to execute and create change.

Transcript: Being A Proactive Negotiator I'm often asked why I use the term proactive negotiations. I do this for a very specific reason. I believe that proactive negotiations implies that negotiations is a front-‐line leadership managerial skill. It isn't something that we keep in our back pocket. It is a mindset. Proactive negotiators are those organization leaders that understand that in order to move things along, they have to stay on top of issues. They've got to move ahead. They can't wait until issues come up. They take charge of issues. They think of negotiations as part of their repertoire of skills that allows them to move things ahead. They don't say, "I'll negotiate when I have to!" They constantly ask themselves "Is this something I should negotiate? Should I push here? Should I not here?" They think of negotiations as a tool, as a tool that they are constantly using. In that sense proactive negotiators are in fact proactive leaders. People who understand that what they are rewarded for, what they need to do is push agendas forward. You can't push agendas forward; you can't get things done in organizations unless you've got the basic skills of negotiations. And you can't be passive about these skills! You've got to use these skills in all situations.



3

Transcript: Negotiation Scenarios Scenario 1

Hijackers take over a plane while it is in the queue for takeoff. The hijackers took advantage of a long wait and overpowered the flight staff. The pilot was able to notify the tower that something was amiss before he was knocked unconscious. Air traffic control notified authorities immediately and the runway was cleared of all aircraft. Inside the plane, after much screaming and shouting, the hijackers were reasonably certain that they had subdued the passengers and confiscated all working cell phones.

Almost immediately, fuzzy images of the plane were beamed over the news channels, accompanied by wild speculation as well as accounts from witnesses who thought they may have noticed something suspicious at the airport. The leader of the hijackers calls the local television station and asks for the star reporter by name. The lead hijacker reveals that the hijackers want the plight of the Hawgrethians exposed and prisoners exchanged. He says that in eight hours, they are going to kill one passenger. After that, they will kill another one every two hours.

You are called in as the lead hostage negotiator. You've not been able to piece together much about exactly what happened. You have the television tuned to CNN, and you know only a little more than the reporters. You know that the Hawgrethians claim that they have been historically victimized by the Salterians, and they desire self-‐rule. Their aggressive pursuit of their goals led to the arrest of several Hawgrethians. It is these prisoners that the hijackers would like released.

Scenario One is an example of a power negotiation. In this situation, the potential for a long-‐term relationship is obviously small. The negotiator and the hijacker will not have a continuous relationship or hold reunions in the future. Once the negotiation is over, they will go their separate ways.

As for options, not many are on the table. There may be nuances and subtleties, but essentially, one side desires a release of prisoners, the other side wants hostages released with no loss of life.

In this instance, third parties would play an important role in the handling of the negotiations. There could be many third parties—other terrorists, other governments, the public. When authorities claim, "We don't negotiate with terrorists," the statement arises not from a moral sense, but as a means of indicating to would-‐be terrorists that terrorist behaviors will not lead to their desired outcomes. This phenomenon is called normative legitimization.



4

Finally, the role of power is explicit and important in this situation.

Scenario 2

A long-‐married couple just sent their last child off to college. Flush with success, the wife would like to plan a special trip for their thirtieth wedding anniversary. She knows that her spouse is not an avid traveler (except when driving three hours with the guys for their annual fishing trip). One time he took her to visit his brother in North Dakota, but that was before the kids were born.

So, with a yen for travel and a desire to celebrate this special moment in their lives, she dreams up a trip to London. She's been married long enough to know that if she said, "Honey, let's go to London," he would barely raise his eyes from his crossword. He won't say yes, and he also won't say no. He has been in this marriage for a long time, too, and knows that silence is the better part of valor.

Knowing that her husband likes to read a chapter or two of his Sherlock Holmes collection before he nods off, she thinks she can frame a London trip as not only her heart's desire, but something custom-‐made for her husband's enjoyment as well.

Scenario Two is an example of a problem-‐solving negotiation. It is clear that the couple is in a long-‐term relationship with no end anticipated.

All options are on the table. The husband and wife can choose to stay home and go bowling instead. Because this negotiation is occurring in the context of an established and continuing relationship, options are wide open.

Third parties play no role.

Power plays no visible role. The concern here is with mutually beneficial problem solving.

Scenario 3

You are head of an R & D team that has been working on a math-‐tutor robot over the last eight months. Your division head asked you to meet with the key actors in the marketing team about the product launch. Because the product is important to the firm's potential holiday sales, the division head suggested that you hold an off-‐site joint meeting, but you have to coordinate the details with the head of marketing. As far as your boss is concerned, you have a free hand and an open budget.

You think it would be nice to have the meeting in Hawaii. You've never been to Hawaii, but your parents had their honeymoon there and you have fond memories of poring over their photo album, and your good friend just came back from a cruise that stopped in Hawaii and hasn't



5

stopped raving about the wonderful time there. So you think to yourself that in the context of planning the meeting, Hawaii might be nice, and your boss gave you discretion as his representative.

The marketing head is from San Antonio, Texas. After an introductory phone call, you learn that she thinks that San Antonio is the perfect conference location. It draws nearly 20 million visitors a year, has state-‐of-‐the-‐art conference facilities and many fine hotels, and it has a good transportation system, not to mention historical attractions and pleasant weather year-‐round. The marketing head is not too interested in exploring other venues. She has a network of people in town that she knows she can rely on to make this meeting work. She is not confident that she can get the high-‐quality service she likes from other possible meeting locations.

Scenario Three is an example of a power and problem-‐solving negotiation. The relationship the scenario describes extends beyond the immediate future. The parties involved will cross each other's paths in the course of their careers. Therefore, the negotiating relationship is likely to be long-‐term.

The number of options available is open. The parties know they have to meet, but the venue is undecided. If the parties choose to, they could negotiate in any of a wide array of venues.

The third party is the organization, which is represented by the boss.

Power plays a relatively subtle role, because on the surface, all parties seem to be equal actors sharing equal concerns.

Transcript: Ask the Expert: The Role Of Negotiation In The Workplace How does negotiation come into play in the workplace?

Ed Lawler:

Negotiations are a way to resolve conflicts, bridge differences, solve problems. And it's critical in any kind of management or supervisory or most any kind of role within an organization. For me it has always been a key way that I manage academic units or departments, whether I was Chair of a department or Dean of a college. It was an everyday activity. In a leader position, negotiations are a critical skill—a kind of central skill or talent that leaders have to be involved in and engage in. And some of that's connected to the fact that hierarchies and directives are less central, less important for organizing and making things happen: you have to get buy-‐in, get cooperation from people. And that requires negotiation.



6

Chris Metzler:

I think negotiations are an important aspect of everyday work life for a number of reasons. The first reason is when you look at the workplace there are ways of getting things done, some of which are simpler and some of which are much more difficult. If you're negotiating, for example, the implementation of a new program, it gives employees an opportunity to see what's in it for them, rather than you mandating it. And so by negotiating in the workplace there's an opportunity for people to feel that they have been asked questions, that they have participated in the process. So there is more opportunity to get buy-‐in. Negotiations are a very, very important management tool. I think it leads to a more effective workplace, rather than management by fiat or management by dictation.

Transcript: Sometimes It's Not Obvious Warren Hutchins is VP for sales for The Hay Company, a fast-‐growing developer and supplier of software to maintain inventory in small-‐to-‐medium retail stores. The Midwestern division has grown by leaps and bounds over the past 18 months.

On more than one occasion, Warren heard from the head of the Midwestern division that the staff is overworked. The Western division, because of the smaller population, has about 20% lower sales and a surplus of staff. As the sales numbers for the Illinois/Wisconsin region began to move up, Warren decides that he should move that area from the Midwestern division to the Western division. Because everyone is on a flat salary, this change should make little difference to the manager of the Midwestern division.

So when Warren sits down with Skye Zimmers, the head of the Midwestern division, to negotiate the transfer of the Illinois/Wisconsin accounts to the Western division, he's astonished that he can't get her to agree. It makes no sense to him. The move means less work, no loss of income, less travel, less overhead, and a general reduction of stress for her and her staff of 118 first-‐rate sales agents. Nonetheless, Skye is resistant.

Similarly, when Warren starts to negotiate the transfer of the Illinois/Wisconsin region with Herb Sangs, the head of the Western division, Warren is amazed to find how hesitant Herb is to take over these accounts.

Skye has nothing to lose with the change; Herb will only reap the benefit by having his staff fully employed. Their reactions perplex Warren.

What went wrong?



7

Warren neglects to look beneath the issues. When Skye snaps at him and tells him that it is her region, he doesn't understand that an intangible commodity—the Midwestern division's sense of recognition, pride, and accomplishment—is on the table. Likewise, when Herb mentions to Warren that he is hesitant, Warren doesn't understand that Herb fears that his region is being used as a dumping ground. Thinking back over the exchanges, Warren realizes that he missed the boat. For Skye and Herb these negotiations are not about a specific issue—evenly distributing staff—but about a broad set of principles—how they and others perceive their divisions.

Transcript: Nuts and Bolts or Principles? Christopher Metzler:

In going into negotiations, one must first differentiate between broad issues and/or specific issues. Let me give you an example. If I'm looking at the workplace and there is an issue in the workplace relative to let's say diversity, for example. So say that there is a diversity issue in the workplace. Am I going to negotiate a training relative to diversity in general, am I going to address a very specific diversity issue relative to the organization? How is that going to help the organization? Am I saying to folks, "Look, the broad issue here is that we have a diversity issue in the workplace and we need to address it." The problem, of course, with that is a diversity issue may be just much too broad. Or am I going to say, specifically, "We are a diverse organization and in order for us to work more effectively as a diverse organization we need diversity education." If I do it that way, then that gets people to buy in to this specific need for diversity on work teams rather than just a generic "we have a diversity issue in this particular organization."

So I think if I look at it from a perspective of preparation again—I go back to preparation because I think that's very important—do I really want to talk generically about the issue—the issue being diversity—or do I want to talk specifically about "let's negotiate the way to help us work more effectively as a diverse work team, or a more diverse organization." I think the latter would probably, in my example, be better.

Transcript: Talking Past Each Other So sometimes in negotiations, what often ends up happening is you have one person who is talking about very broad issues. So let's take the diversity example again. Someone says "I'm really, really committed to diversity. Diversity is very important to me." That's the broader issue. But then you have someone with the nuts and bolts of "okay, so you're committed to diversity. What do you actually want to do to demonstrate the commitment?" The problem, of



8

course, is if you have both of these people talking past each other. One on kind of the idealist plane of being generally committed to diversity, and the other on the plane of "now let me talk about specifically what I want to do," then you don't really get to the point of being able to resolve whatever the particular issue is. So one of the things that you have to do is you have to look at the broad strand. And I would probably start off with, "I understand that you're very committed to diversity and that's great. We really appreciate that. Now let's see how we take that principle and actualize it in the workplace." Because I think at that point both people get the opportunity to be able to talk about the generic commitment to diversity and how I take that commitment into action. I think sometimes what happens is if I say I'm generally committed, I think that's enough. The broad principle of being very committed is enough. Whereas the other person says, "yeah, but how do you demonstrate that commitment?" I think you have to acknowledge the broad principle, I think you can't just dismiss it and say, "well yeah, but that's not what we're talking about." You have to really acknowledge that principle, and after you've acknowledged it then you say, "okay, here's how we put it into action."

Transcript: Ask the Expert: Perspectives On Needs And Wants Are needs and wants subjective? How can an subjective concept be an analytical tool in negotiation? Why do I need to understand the needs and wants of the other party?

Samuel Bacharach:

When I wrote this course, when I write material on negotiation, sometimes people look at me, needs and wants? It sounds very subjective. It is subjective. I admit, it is not the most quantitative tool in the world, but it is a subjective tool that forces you to focus. It's a subjective tool that focuses you and makes you ask the question which issue is more or less important to you? If nothing else, I do that by getting you to think about needs and wants, I've done a lot. You have no idea I've been in situations where people confuse needs and wants. They confuse what is it they really desire. They fail to establish hierarchy of priority. The needs and wants as I present, and as a number of my colleagues in their expert testimony also said, is a way of focusing on your priorities.

The message is simple: without a specific focus on priorities, you're simply not going to be able to move your agenda forward. One of the things I also find interesting—if you don't prioritize your needs and wants, if you gain something, you may not even know it. You may not know the game is over and continue to play it. Without some prioritization, without a list of needs and wants, you can keep going ad infinitum. You have to know the parameters of the game. Needs and wants specify that. Without it, you can keep on floating forever. Without the needs and wants, you'll never have a clear understanding of what it is you can or willing to give up. So if



9

you have everything jumbled together, with no set of priorities, you'll be flustered, you'll be caught off-‐guard, you'll rarely succeed in your negation. You have to be able to say, this I'm willing to give up, this I'm not willing to give up.

One thing we often ignore: We have to understand the needs and wants of the other. When I say this, your immediate reaction is mostly likely, how can I understand what the other person wants and needs? Well, you can't. But by focusing on the needs and wants of the other, you're forcing yourself and sending out a message that the other is important and you're taking them into account. By focusing on the needs and wants of the other you're forcing yourself to stand in their shoes. And that's critical. By doing that, by asking yourself, what are their needs, what are their wants, by standing in their shoes, you're being proactive in the best sense of the word. That's what I mean by proactive negotiator, someone that sees the world not simply from their perspective but tries to see from the perspective of the other.

Why is it important to differentiate between needs and wants?

Francis N. Bonsignore:

It's often difficult to be able to define with precision, either of those. But, you certainly don't get any broader perspective or better understanding of those if you're not listening. One of the things I try to remind myself of continually when it was a negotiation situation or a collaboration situation, or a situation where the needs of the wants of the parties were not consonant was to stop and listen. Stop and listen for not just for what is being said but to listen for in the best sense of the word for what is not being said. Because what is on the table or the issue being addressed may in fact be what the process conditions as the appropriate subject to discuss, but below that there are much more fundamental needs and expectations that give rise to this.

I'm talking about what is the socially appropriate thing to have a collaboration on or to have a discussion on when in fact there may be something much more fundamental, and much more perhaps inappropriate in a corporate sense to talk about that is not being said. How does that manifest itself? It manifests itself in situations where you have the facts as presented are exactly right but they are not complete. The situation being presented for resolution is very clear, but what gave rise to the situation historically is not being said. By trying to understand the totality of that I think you get a better understanding of needs and wants.

In a very fundamental sense in the pattern of negotiation I think what you're always doing is a very high investment of self. It's not just the role that you're playing and the needs and wants of the role to make sure the role is effective, that the role doesn't have its authority diluted in some way, and the role is seen as contributing, but that you also have skin in the game in terms of own personal credibility, integrity, reliability. The needs that you're addressing through whatever energies you have in your work role are what you're dealing with on the surface. But underneath that that things cause you to go home and not sleep or to wake up in the middle of



10

night and be concerned may be in part be the organizational issue you're dealing with but what gives you unease is how you find your own personal values, your own personal credibility, or your own personal sense of satisfaction compromised or challenged by getting to that right decision.

Christopher Metzler:

One of the most important this is to prepare. And the reason for that is because you want to know what the points are that you won't go below. You also want to know, from the perspective of the person who is doing the negotiation, what are the wants and needs. And so, in preparation—part of what I always want to do is to figure out, "okay, so what do I want." But, of course, just because I want something doesn't necessarily mean that I need that. So from that perspective, if I'm able to take wants in one bucket, if you will, and needs in one bucket, if you will, then that gives me the opportunity to decide, alright, if it is actually a need, I understand that I absolutely can't go below that point. If it's a want, then I have much more flexibility.

Also, I have to make sure that I'm putting myself in the other person's shoes. One of the critical things, one of the most critical things, I think, is to figure out if I were in the other person's shoes, what would my wants be, what would my needs be. That, then, gives me the advantage as the negotiator because I understand not only what the organization's wants and needs are, because, of course, those may be different from individual wants and needs. So preparation is the absolute key because if I'm not prepared it's much for difficult for me to be able to meet my wants and needs as the organization—if I'm representing the organization as the negotiator-‐-‐and ultimately in the employee context, the wants and needs of the employee.

Transcript: Bracketing the Negotiation Zone Hi, this is Sam Bacharach again. What you have in front of you is my effort to illustrate how needs and wants of the parties frame the negotiation zone. Specifically, how is it that needs and wants give us the parameters within which we negotiate. While in many ways this is obvious, I think looking at these boxes may highlight and emphasize some of the points we're trying to make. The center green box is, as it's labeled, the negotiation zone. A negotiation zone which is bracketed by two dimensions—the needs and wants of Party A and the needs and wants of Party B.

In this instance, Party A is an employee. Party B is an employer. So let's for example begin and example the employer. The employer has a resistance point (or need) not to exceed an 8-‐dollar raise. Notice on the horizontal the resistance point, the need, for the employer is 8, meaning if they're negotiating salaries, the very most that he or she is willing to give is $8.00. The want—



11

the aspirations, the dream, the thing they want the most—is the possibility of maybe giving as little as $3.00 raise. Now, the range for the employer is therefore between 8 and 3.

Let's take a look at the employee, Party A. The employee needs a minimum $3.00. At minimum. Below that there's resistance. No one's coming to work. Their aspirations, their dream is to, if you will, get $8.00. The exact reverse of the employer. In this instance, the needs and wants of the employer and the needs and wants of the employee bracket evenly the zone of negotiation.

Obviously, various combinations can exist. But my point is that you must begin to think of needs and wants in very quantitative terms. You must begin to understand that the zone of negotiation is bracketed not simply by your needs and wants, not simply by the other party's needs and wants, but the combination of your needs and wants and their needs and wants.

So let's go on and take a look at our next illustration.

Let's consider the zone of negotiation. I want to try and simply show in this chart how the zone of negotiation is dynamically controlled by both parties' presentations of needs and wants. So let's think about this. Let's say that the employer suddenly decides one evening late at night that, "If push comes to shove, I'm willing to go as far as $10.00," meaning that the employer is saying that. "If I'm pushed, maybe I'll even go as far as $10.00." So let's drag the employer's resistance point, or need, to 10, enlarging the zone of negotiation.



12

Similarly, let's say the employee decides that, "You know what, if push comes to shove, I'm willing to accept $2.00." Not that they want to, but they're willing to. Now the zone of negotiation is increased even more. Obviously, it can go the other way. The employer can decide that he or she is going to give no more than $6.00, reducing the zone. Or similarly, the employee can decide that they demand to have a very minimum of $5.00, reducing the zone even further.

So the zone of negotiation, obviously, is very malleable and very manipulateable. Not only is it so in terms of needs, but obviously in terms of wants, in terms of your aspirations. In constructing the zone of negotiation, you've got really four parameters—your needs (your resistance points), your wants (your aspiration points), the other party's needs (the other party's resistance points), and the other party's wants (or aspiration).

Negotiation zones are therefore determined by your capacity to present your own needs and wants in the context of your understanding of how the other party views their own needs and wants. As such, you really have to ask yourself possibly three questions: How do you perceive, or what are your needs and wants? How do you perceive the other party's needs and wants? And not unimportantly, How does the other party perceive your needs and wants?

While all of this is fairly straightforward, what I'm saying is that if you want to determine the zone, if you want to determine the playing field before you start the game, remember to think about it as dynamic space with constrained parameters.



13

Transcript: Look Before You Leap You may know what you need and what you want, but have you evaluated your alternatives? Are there alternatives of better or equal quality? Are these alternatives readily available?

When you have a lot of options, you can afford to say:

• "I can always get another job." • "I need this job like a hole in the head." • "There are a lot of fish in the sea." • "I am not going to bother to negotiate. I can do better someplace else."

On the other hand, how often have you been in this situation?

• "I really need this job." • "There are no alternatives. I'm too old to look for another position." • "My kids are in college. I really need the money." • "I am tied to this organization at the hip."

Do you risk walking out, slamming the door behind you, and then, after a few long weeks, finding out there's no one waiting to offer you a new position? Before you jump ship, make sure you're not dependent on the other party. Instead of burning bridges, maybe you need to show the other party that they're more dependent on you than they think. In other words, maybe you need to help them see that they need you as much as you need them.

How attractive is each of your alternatives and what is the likelihood you can achieve them?

To truly assess your alternatives, you must answer these questions:

• Are there alternatives, and if so, what they are? (Are there fish in the sea? If so, what type?)

• What is the probability of achieving each alternative? (How easy is it to catch the fish?)



14

Transcript: Three Pairs Of Glasses The first pair of glasses helps you view your own alternatives in the situation and evaluate their quality and availability.

Alternatives determine your view of your bargaining power. The higher the quality of your alternatives and the easier they are to obtain, the more bargaining power you'll feel you have. The lower the quality of your alternatives and the harder they are to achieve, the less bargaining power you'll feel you have.

But it's not enough to think about what you consider to be your alternatives—you must also take into account what you consider the other party's alternatives to be. This is the time to use a second pair of glasses.

Remember, your bargaining power is not simply based on your alternatives, but also on the alternatives of the other party. If your boss can easily replace you, how much bargaining power do you really have when asking for a raise?

Here's how your boss' alternatives appear to you.



15

And here's what you think your boss' bargaining power is.

Finally, consider how the other party views your situation and alternatives. You must look at your position from the point of view of the other party. Proactive negotiators must understand the importance of seeing themselves as others see them.



16

You may think you have many alternatives and have a lot of bargaining power. But maybe your boss feels that you have few alternatives, and therefore little bargaining power. If so, he'll deal with you differently at the table than you would like to be dealt with.

When you try to evaluate how others view your alternatives—in other words, when you look at your own reflection—ask yourself these questions:

• What am I revealing about what I want to accomplish? • What am I not revealing? • What am I revealing about my position? • What am I not revealing?

The third pair of glasses lets you see how the other person views your alternatives in terms of quality and availability.

The third pair of glasses also lets you see how the other party views your bargaining power.



17

Transcript: Ask the Expert: Issues And Alternatives

David Lipsky:

I think it's absolutely critical to think about your own alternatives and where you can achieve your objectives from other sources—other sources of benefits or other sources of things that you want—but it's also important to think about the alternatives that the negotiator sitting across the table from you has. What are his or her alternatives as well? That's going to influence the strategy and the tactics that you use in negotiations. If you know, going into the negotiations and during negotiations, that the person sitting opposite from you at the table can't get what he or she needs from anybody else except you, then that's going to give you a lot of power in negotiations. And that, in turn, is going to affect what you do in negotiations: how assertive you are, how you conduct yourself in negotiations. But if you think that the person sitting across from you can walk away from the table and go someplace else and negotiate with somebody else and get what he or she needs, that's going to have a strong influence on the behavior you exhibit in the negotiations.

When I was dean, I often had to negotiate with faculty one-‐on-‐one about a variety of matters. A good example would be when a faculty member had a job offer from another academic institution. The faculty member would come into my office and begin to negotiate. The faculty member would want a higher salary and other kinds of benefits that I might have under my control and could offer to that faculty member. But I would think about a number of alternative



18

scenarios. The first question that comes to mind when you're negotiating with an individual under those circumstances is am I really interested in having this individual stay at Cornell and stay at the ILR School. If I thought that we could go out and replace that individual with somebody, perhaps, who was better, or if I thought we could get the services, the research, and the teaching from other faculty members and it would be better teaching and better research than we could get from this particular faculty member, I probably wouldn't be very forthcoming in negotiations; I probably wouldn't be able to satisfy the faculty member.

Another aspect here is if the faculty member had a job offer from someplace else and was waving that job offer in front of my face. If it was from Podunk University I wouldn't take that very seriously and might be more inclined to say, "Well that sounds like a very good job offer to me and I wish I could do more for you, but we'd love to have you here, but if you really want to go to Podunk University, then I guess that's your choice." And I would count on the possibility that this individual really did not want to go to Podunk University and had no other alternatives. But if the faculty member came in and waved an offer from Stanford or Harvard, which in fact happened from time to time when I was dean, that would be something I would have to take quite seriously. And if the faculty member had several offers, which sometimes happens, so he or she had alternatives of that nature and I really thought this was a valuable and almost irreplaceable faculty member, then I would have to respond accordingly. Then I would do my best to try to keep that person on the faculty, even if I couldn't quite match the money offer or all the terms that Harvard or Stanford or somebody else was offering. I would have a very different attitude and I'd be pursuing a very different strategy with a person who had an opportunity to go to a Harvard or Stanford compared to the person whose only alternative here was Podunk.

Transcript: Ask the Expert: BATNA How do you explain the importance of the notion of BATNA? We always hear people talking about BATNA. What does that mean to the practitioner? It sounds like a very academic concept. What does it mean? Why is it so important?

David Lipsky:

BATNA—well let's talk about first what it stands for. It stands for Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, B-‐A-‐T-‐N-‐A. And it was a term that was coined by two academics, by Fisher and Ury in their very, very well known book, Getting to Yes. And they posed that idea as an alternative to what they considered to be conventional—what they called positional bargaining.

In their approach to negotiation—it's a somewhat controversial approach to negotiation—they argued in their book that negotiators shouldn't have a "bottom line". Instead, Fisher and Ury



19

said they should have a BATNA. It's in some ways hard to distinguish a bottom line from a BATNA. But when they talked about a bottom line in negotiations, they talked about something that they viewed as somewhat arbitrary, something that wasn't really based in important considerations in negotiation.

They proposed this alternative way of looking at matters, of looking at negotiations. Let's think about what happens if you don't get a settlement. What happens if you don't get an agreement. What if you cut off negotiations. What if you fail to negotiate an agreement with some opposing party. What are you left with? And so, in their view, you have to think, the negotiator has to think about if we don't negotiate here, if we don't proceed and get an agreement, am I happy with what I'm left with? And if I do negotiate and get a settlement, I make a kind of comparison between a kind of hypothetical settlement that I think I might get if I negotiate an agreement, and what I have, what I don't get if I don't negotiate. And so, in their view, you have to think about what happens if we don't settle. If what happens if we don't settle is better than what I can get by negotiating and settling, then they say don't negotiate.

So is BATNA very much a case of thinking about the alternatives?

BATNA is definitely a matter of thinking about your alternatives, but I don't think they pay enough attention to not just the alternative of not settling and what I'm left with if I don't negotiate with you, what do I have? As opposed to thinking about can I negotiate with other people? What happens if I don't negotiate with you, but I explore the alternative of getting whatever I want from some other sources, from some other people.

So what you're telling me is that it is very, very important-‐-‐not simply thinking what's the best alternative to negotiating or not negotiating, but at the same time thinking about what specifically are the best alternatives that I have. Can you elaborate on the importance of alternatives and what you mean by that?

If you follow the Fisher and Ury prescription here-‐-‐let's say I was selling my house and you want to buy my house. I would think about what can I do as a deal on my house with you if you want to buy it. Fisher and Ury would say compare that to not negotiating-‐-‐what are you left with? Maybe an unsold house.

Whereas the work of Bacharach and Lawler suggests that it's not just a matter of me thinking about what happens if I don't successfully negotiate a deal with a particular person, or organization, or entity. But suppose there are other buyers in the market. Who are those other buyers? Can I negotiate a better deal with somebody else? Those are alternatives to dealing with the individual who was immediately in front of me.

So I'm thinking about comparing the possible deal that I can get with an individual who is sitting across the table from me right now against what I might be able to get if I maybe abort these



20

negotiations and go and negotiate with other people. And try to think about what kind of deal could I get from buyer X, or buyer Y, or buyer Z.

So I think Fisher and Ury have a kind of limited vision in this way. They only think about what happens if I don't get a deal; am I happy with what's left. Bacharach and Lawler say no, let's think about other alternative sources-‐-‐other alternative buyers, if you want, in this situation, in this example. And I think a sophisticated negotiator should take that broader view.

So a sophisticated negotiator has to think of alternatives, that's one of the primary things they do in preparation, yes?

A sophisticated negotiator has to think about alternatives. And that applies to the planning stages before you go into negotiations. So that if you're ever at the table with a negotiator sitting across from you, before you agree to do that, you should be thinking about I can negotiate this with one source, I can negotiate this with source B, with source C. Am I better off sitting down with negotiator A, or should I just forget that because I know, or I can make an educated guess, that I could do better with B, C, D, or somebody else. So I'm comparing alternatives in that sense, I'm comparing Do I want to deal with, say, in buying a house, do I want to deal with the first buyer that comes along, maybe not. Maybe I want to deal with the second buyer or the third buyer. I'm thinking about alternatives ways that I can get what I want to achieve.

Transcript: With Whom Will It Be Easier or Harder to Negotiate? You don't need to know everything about the other party—their favorite season, their favorite snack, if they have good relationships with their mothers. After all, you're not getting married! What you want to know is how their personalities affect their negotiation style. Anticipating their negotiation style allows you to adjust your negotiation style.

There are four personality dimensions:

• Extraversion • Conscientiousness • Machiavellianism • Openness

Extraversion is characterized by a tendency to be positive, willingness to engage in conversation, enjoyment of the company of others, and a desire to be active and energized.

To identify an extravert, ask yourself if this person:



21

• likes to be with people • likes to talk • starts conversations • is not concerned with boundaries

Conscientiousness is characterized by a tendency to plan everything, concern with detail and discipline, and focus on obtaining specific results.

To identify a conscientious person, ask yourself if he or she:

• is concerned with detail • is always prepared • likes things done the right way • relies on schedules



22

Machiavellianism is characterized by a tendency to be calculating and driven by the desire to win.

To identify a Machiavellian, ask yourself if the person:

• will tell you what you want to hear no matter what he or she really thinks • will only do something if there is something in it for him or her • will do whatever it takes to win • has hidden agendas



23

Openness is characterized by intellectual imagination, having a wide array of interests, and insightfulness.

To identify someone who's open-‐minded, ask yourself if the person:

• has a great imagination • can think abstractly • is receptive to new ideas • appreciates the power of ideas

Again, knowing whether a person is an extrovert, conscientious, Machiavellian, or open will help you decide what approach to take in your negotiation, as shown here.

Here are a few other personality characteristics to keep in mind during negotiations:

• Anxious people may be very cautious and less cooperative during negotiations. • Authoritarian people are likely to be less cooperative in negotiation situations. • People who avoid belligerence and aggression will be more cooperative during

negotiations. • Risk takers will be more cooperative. • The greater the self-‐esteem of your opponent, the less cooperative he or she may be.

(Hermann and Kogan, 1977, in “Negotiations: Social psychological perspectives.”Daniel Druckman, Sage Publications Inc.)



24

Finally, be aware of your own tendencies, not just the personal tendencies of others! Take some time to think about your own personality and how it might affect your own negotiating style.

Transcript: I Need You In Winnipeg In February Maureen knows that to meet the demands of her Canadian outlet stores, she needs to get two of her key people up to Winnipeg for three weeks in February. She'll have to negotiate this, since no one is going to charge in and volunteer to go for three weeks to the frozen north. Who should Maureen approach first?

Every one of the nine people working with Maureen has demands and constraints. They are all more or less equally experienced. Maureen knows that with some of them she will have to negotiate forever, that others will try to use the situation to leverage an excessive payoff, and that still others will negotiate and negotiate, but most likely not agree to go. The question is, Which of her staff would be the easiest to negotiate with?

Maureen spends her evening doing a bit of human psychology. She thinks about the four personality dimensions, who on her staff has which ones, and how to prepare to negotiate with them.

First, Maureen prepares for extroverts and introverts.

Maureen evaluates to what degree her colleagues are extroverts or introverts. She knows that the extroverts are full of energy, talk a lot, feel comfortable around people, and are action-‐oriented. When offered the trip to Winnipeg, extroverts are likely to joke and say, "Let's go for it!"

A couple of Maureen's colleagues are very introverted. Not highly energetic, they tend to be low-‐key and deliberate. They never talk much and are unlikely to start a conversation. That isn't to say that they wouldn't go to Winnipeg, but Maureen would definitely have to carry the weight of the conversation to move it along.

What are the advantages of negotiating with extroverts? Maureen realizes that she is an extrovert and, if anything, this Canada deal has made her wish she was even more outgoing and talkative. If she talks to Walter, a classic introvert, she might overwhelm him and frighten him away. What about Bruce? He's on the extroverted side. Even in Bruce's case, to persuade him to go to Winnipeg, she would have to tone down her presentation and not be too enthusiastic.



25

Maureen understands the first rule of anticipating personality: You want to figure out the personality of the other party so you know how to constrain, control, and present your own personality in the negotiations.

Next, Maureen prepares for the conscientious personality.

In many ways Bob is the ideal person to send to Winnipeg. As assistant to the CFO with some responsibility to HR, he is aware of organizational details, which is something that Maureen needs. To convince him, she is going to have to lay out the job specifically and make clear her expectations and the timeframe. Not only that, but knowing Bob, she will have to give him the necessary resources for the job and assure him that his compensation will reflect the level of work he will be doing.

On the other hand, maybe Bob is too detail-‐oriented? Since Maureen can't be specific about everything, maybe he wouldn't be appropriate. Maureen knows she is not ready to answer the detailed questions that Bob is going to ask, so maybe it's not worth the effort.

Then, Maureen prepares for the Machiavellians.

Susan has been with the firm for a long time. She could certainly get the job done and might even be willing to go. But negotiating with her won't be easy. She is a self-‐driven, old-‐time politician who protects her turf first. If Susan gets a sense that Maureen is trying to take advantage of her, she will react strongly. It's never clear what Susan's agenda is, and it is always difficult to push an agenda with her, so Maureen never knows quite where she stands.

With this in mind, Maureen does not want Susan to "remember this for the rest of her life" and hold it against her. People with Machiavellian tendencies take a more detached, calculating approach; they can be deceiving and manipulative. Maureen must be aware of any underlying currents during the negotiations and the implications of the outcomes. Maureen should prepare her arguments such that it will be hard for the other party to turn against her in the future.

Those with low Machiavellian tendencies are trusting and more likely to believe that Maureen's motives are completely above-‐board. These people will be easier to negotiate with because they'll accept Maureen's arguments at face value.

Maureen prepares for the open personality.

Those who are open to new experiences are likely to be easier to negotiate with than those who are averse to change. Open people are likely to be more intellectually experienced and to welcome uncertainty. Those who are less adventurous are more hesitant, dislike ambiguity, and avoid novelty.



26

What are the advantages of negotiating with someone who's open? Maureen is inclined to negotiate with those colleagues who she thinks are excited by looking for new opportunities. In dealing with them, the fact that Winnipeg is a new location and a new challenge will be a plus. Open people are eager to try something new.

A number of her colleagues are not open to new experiences. With these people, Maureen would have to argue that the Winnipeg opportunity is actually similar to what they have done in the past. Maureen would need to lay out exactly will happen in Winnipeg, leaving very little to the other person's imagination.

If you were Maureen, who would you approach first?

Transcript: Ask the Expert: Personality And Style Question: How is personality a factor in the dynamics of negotiation?


Personality is something that will be interpreted by the individuals involved in the negotiation quite differently. Someone that I regard as an introvert others around the table may regard as thoughtful or cautious. Someone that I regard as aggressive may be viewed by others as productively provocative. Everyone is going to make a judgment about those personalities through their own prism and through their own view what is a desirable personality or undesirable personality to the outcome. I think the best you can do in that situation—since you can't control, I can't modify the character or personality of the individuals to fit my expectations of the ideal—is to understand your personality and to be able stay within your own skin in a negotiation. I know for a fact that I happen to have a very low tolerance for silence, which can be a very debilitating feature to have in negotiation. There may be a time when you need to suffer those long, pregnant pauses in order to get an idea to sink in, in order to give people the opportunity to think about it, and not try to fill the void with yet another observation or another question. Knowing your own personality, your own inner personal tendencies that can contribute or detract I think the only thing you can control and the only thing you can think about as a variable. Whatever view you have of the positive or negative aspects of the other personalities is fine, and you need to have some degree of insight for knowing how your personality will relate to the other person's. If you happen to be very strong-‐minded and are facing other very strong-‐minded people, be prepared that there's going to be a lot of friction for a long period time before it settles down to the point where you're really talking honestly with one another.

Edward J. Lawler:



27

Everyone that you negotiate with, any person, is going to have some qualities, some characteristics, that you're going to have to deal with. So, you know, one might be harder, tougher. Others might be weaker, softer. Some might be more defensive, some might be not so defensive. So you're going to need to take account of those individual qualities in some way so you can assess, as accurately as you can, what their needs are, what their wants are, how they might operate in the negotiations, how they might respond to your strategies or tactics or behaviors or concessions, whether they may be open to joint problem solving on integrative issues, whether they're likely to define issues in more integrative rather than distributive terms. All of those personality dimensions really come down to a question of What can you expect from that person at the bargaining table?

My experience with personality is the options that you have in negotiations, the structure of the situation, that doesn't change based on personality. What does change is how you treat and deal with the particular person and how you expect them to deal with you.

Chris Metzler:

Understanding personality is very important in negotiations, but I think that starts with the negotiator understanding his or her personality first. I think oftentimes the negotiator assumes that his or her personality is not a problem, but it's the other person's personality that needs to be understood. I think that's a critical mistake. I think, first, I have to know my personality. I have to know what my hot buttons are, to know what my weaknesses and strengths are. If I do it that way, then I can say, "What are the things in that other person's personality that will set me off?" Because I think if we are just focusing on the other person's personality, I'm not paying enough attention to what's going to set me off. I am instead trying to figure out what's going to set them off. Well, frankly, what's going to set them off may be me. And so unless I'm able to do that I am going to be unsuccessful in my attempt to negotiate effectively.

Transcript: A Case Of Culture Timbre Muse is a furniture company based in North Carolina. The company was founded on the premise that there would be an increased demand for handmade furniture for the upscale market. In the last eight years, the founder's vision has proven to be more than right. Timbre Muse is a strong player in this niche market.

One source of Timbre Muse's pride is their quality-‐control process. Any crack, any bubbling of the varnish, the slightest defect, and they have their local craftsman redo the whole project. The craftsmen—mostly in the southeastern United States—are accustomed to the fact that the product will be returned if the workmanship or material is substandard. "We redo it" has become the workforce's mantra and a key to its success. The workforce's day-‐to-‐day life consists of building new tables and repairing any furniture that's been returned.



28

A year ago Timbre Muse discovered eucalyptus tables made by Indian craftsmen. Timbre Muse retained two dozen Indian artisans in New Delhi to make custom eucalyptus tables. For the most part, the company is satisfied with the product. But every so often, some tables don't meet the standard.

The first few times this happened, Jim Ellis, Timbre Muse's quality-‐control chief, sent an email reiterating the Timber Muse mantra: "Our policy is to redo the work if it is substandard or inferior in any way. Please fix as required by the return form."

Jim would either hear nothing or encounter defensive indignation—"There's nothing wrong with the table."

It became clear to Jim that the objections he hears are the consequence of the immense pride embedded in Indian culture. He remembers some lessons he learned while scouting for products in China and Japan and reconsiders his approach. "Maybe I should be a little more subtle here and take a softer attitude. Maybe I should be a bit more reflective."

Jim replaces his email missives with phone calls.

Now the exchanges typically go like this: "Listen, I've been looking at the last two tables. I love the first one. It is really up to your high standards, but something's not quite right with the varnish on the second one. What do you think? I am not sure that our customers will be comfortable with it. Plus, I don't think it reflects the true quality of your craftsmanship. What do you think about stripping and reapplying the varnish? You know what our customers are like: picky, picky, picky. Do you think you can help me out?"

Jim understands that his negotiation style must move away from direct confrontation that might be construed as criticism toward a more indirect, subtle approach if he is going to continue delivering high-‐end eucalyptus furniture.

Transcript: Where Are They Coming From Literally? Culture determines not only what is negotiable, but what is nonnegotiable. For example, Americans generally believe that you can negotiate anything—in other words, you can put everything on the table. Depending on the other party's culture, this may or may not be true.

Cultural pride and status may form a wall that seems impossible to climb. Pride is the sense that you are recognized by others and accorded appropriate status. In many cultures, it is paramount to maintain your pride, even if it means sacrificing outcomes. As President Mubarak of Egypt once told an Israeli journalist, "Don't think that because we are a poor country we are not a proud country. Even if we starve, our national pride will not be for sale."



29

In some cultures, it is critical to establish personal relationships before you get down to the details of a negotiation. Indeed, it can be an insurmountable mistake to raise specific issues without first developing personal rapport. For example, in the Japanese culture, it is only the establishment of a personal relationship that allows people to be candid and frank. Without an investment in such a relationship, negotiations will be quite difficult.

According to Raymond Cohen in his book Negotiating Across Cultures,

"When the Americans state their position, the Japanese tendency is to listen quite carefully, to ask for additional details, and to say nothing at all committal. This lack of response is likely to frustrate the American side, which wants a counterproposal put on the table ‘so that give-‐and-‐take can begin.' To the Japanese, this approach may seem overly aggressive, embarrassing, even impolite. They may also consider it unwise to expect the two delegation leaders to make initial, clear statements of their negotiating positions; wouldn't it be wiser to let them speak only after the two sides had worked out a mutually acceptable position at the working level? To Americans, the Japanese response is liable to seem standoffish, dilatory, even ‘inscrutable.'"

Hierarchical cultures emphasize status, power, and distance. Although these concepts are often meshed, the assumption is that people from a hierarchical culture believe that keeping a distance, differentiating one's status or role, and using power are the best ways to achieve results.

For example, in a hierarchical culture all a college professor needs to do is stand in front of the class, mumble away, and give the students an exam. With a title on the door and a Ph.D. diploma on the wall, professors have the power to pass or fail students. They don't have to worry about earning and re-‐earning the students' belief in their seniority as a lecturers.

Egalitarian cultures tend to ignore power differentiation, see status as ritualistic but not necessarily important, and emphasize intimacy, closeness, and proximity. In an egalitarian culture, there isn't a sense of privilege and rights. They must be constantly reaffirmed. In such a culture, the fact that one is an Ivy League professor is not enough for students—indeed, the professor has to regain the students' trust and respect whenever they meet in a classroom.

Transcript: Ask the Expert: It's About Culture What is the role of individual culture in negotiation?

Stacia Murphy:

Culture enters negotiation in a very important way, because peoples culture determines how they behave, determines their values, determines their approaches, determine how they



30

respond to authority—respect it, don't respect it. What they are used to doing or not used to doing. I remember once sitting in a restaurant and the young man was I thought being quite rude and finally the person I was sitting with leaned over, she said, "It's culture." And that was such, that helped me in a lot of ways, that it's just not black and white. And I wish it were, because it would be easier. But it's not. And you have to consider where people from the South negotiate differently than people from the North. They do.

People from the Caribbean, or people from Europe, or people from other parts, people from Latin America. Their approach to that is very very different. A mindfulness of that and awareness, I think, is extremely important to moving the negotiation process along. It's not catering to, but it's understanding a person's perspective based on how they were raised and how they view negotiation.

Asking for what they want or need. Culture doesn't mean catering. It means understanding where a person lives. I often say if all of us were alike, most of us wouldn't be necessary (laughs). People are very very different. We've created this multi-‐cultural world and so I think it's the highest respect to be mindful of that, to be aware of that persons cultural orientation and how they were raised and what their values are. I think it's the highest respect you can pay a person, and it thinks it's very important to that sense of a humanity and respect and honor.

Chris Metzler:

Culture is an important aspect of negotiations. And when I say "culture," I mean understanding the person's culture, whether it is an ethnic culture, whether it is a religious culture, etc. But I think there is a difference between understanding and appreciating. And what do I mean by that? I don't want to, for example, say "all Latinos will do x. All Jews will do x. All blacks will do x." I think if I do that I make a critical mistake. And the critical mistake I make here is I am assuming that people are going to fall into a particular stereotype, which they may not, which then derails the negotiation.

The key, I think, is an understanding that there are differences, understanding, for example, someone may not be looking at me directly in a negotiation—that is not necessarily a sign of disrespect. It may be cultural. But I can't be distracted by that. I think I understand and appreciate the culture of the person who's on the other side of the table. But if I negotiate through a stereotypical lens then I don't think I do myself a favor, I don't do the other person a favor. But ultimately, more importantly, I can make the negotiation fail. So I think it's important to understand and appreciate but not rely on culture as a stereotypical crutch.



31

Transcript: Ask the Expert: Negotiation And Organizational Culture What role does organizational culture play in negotiation?

David Lipsky:

Here's what I think about culture in negotiations—or more generally about culture in conflict resolution. It's a topic that we pay a lot of attention to. You really need to because it's a very, very important—or critical—in negotiations and conflict resolution. Let's talk about what really culture is, how do we define culture. I define it as the norms and standards of behavior that people adhere to either within the organization, within the nation, or within whatever group is relevant. Culture, I think, is critically important in terms of nations and also in terms of organizations. In terms of regions of the country, because even in the US, we're not all part of the same culture. And what happens in northern New Jersey may be very different from what happens in Arizona. So that, we all know, we learn—sometimes we sense immediately—when we go into an organization that there are certain kinds of behaviors that are expected and tolerated, and certain kinds of behaviors that are not tolerated or that are off-‐tangent or are really considered not entirely appropriate.

And this affects what happens in negotiations. We've done research in corporations. We've gone in to dozens of corporations and interviewed people in those corporations. You can tell—and it doesn't take you long to tell—that all of these organizations have a fairly distinct culture and the norms of behavior, the standards of behavior that you find in one organization differ from the culture of another organization. And they really seriously affect how that organization handles conflict and how that organization negotiation.

I'll give you a good example if you'll allow me to. We were doing research on conflict resolution and we visited and interviewed people in 60 different corporations. One of the corporations we talked with was the Emerson Corporation, a corporation based in St. Louis that has very close ties to Cornell. Many alumni work at Emerson. The attitude that some of the managers had at Emerson, which reflected the culture at Emerson, was—in this particular case we were looking at how they do dispute resolution and are they willing to negotiate. If they're sued, what do they do? Will they sit down and negotiate with the party—maybe the employee—that is suing them? And their attitude was, "No. We never negotiate. We let people know if you want to sue us, bring it on. We don't negotiate. We don't compromise. We don't bend. We don't yield. We fight. We contend. Our approach is we wanted to have a reputation as a tough guy, and that's indeed what we are. We're tough guys. And that's how this organization operates. So if you want to, if you have maybe a job safety problem, you want to sue us, fine. We'll go to court. You want to be in court the next ten years? We're happy about that. We'll take you on." And



32

they honestly thought it worked for them. I'm a pragmatist at heart, so if they really believed if was effective, I say God bless them.

Their attitude was, within that organization it was that kind of culture that prevailed. And it came from the top. In my experience, the culture in an organization is first and foremost a leadership function. The leadership, the top management, sets the tone and sets the attitudes, sets the culture for the organization. In this particular case, the tone and attitude and culture that was set by top management was, "We are really, really tough. We are really, really stubborn. We're going to fight you. If you contend with us, if you mess with us, we're going to fight you down the road." Now we've been in other organizations where the prevailing culture is just the opposite to that, where they take, for what they think are good and sufficient reasons, a very open, friendly attitude about matters. They want to cooperate. They don't want to fight. Employees come along and they threaten a lawsuit and the people in the corporation say, "Oh, I understand your concern. Let's sit down and talk about it. And what did we do wrong? Please tell us. And we want to correct the problem." So you have this variation, in my experience, very incredible variation across corporations in the US in their culture, which in turn affects what they do in negotiations and conflict resolution more generally.


Culture enters the negotiation process in preparation I think in very material ways. Let me give you three examples from three organizations. One organization I was associated with for a long period of time had a view toward issues and the resolution of issues that was very clear. Anything was fair game in the debate of those issues, but when the outcome was achieved, the agreement was reached, the organization was very clear that no one carried a brief outside that room for their favored position. You could argue, you could express your dissatisfaction with the outcome, but once you left the room the decision was made and you would support that position and that you would offer no minority opinion on that decision. That encouraged healthy debate. The culture also said that you can't carry that minority opinion beyond this room. You can't say, “I tried to fight city hall, but city hall won. I tried to make your case, but I couldn't make it effectively because others ganged up on me.” That was not allowed.

Another example of culture is from and organization that I was involved with for several years where there was a clear disposition not to deal with the conceptual aspects of an issue but to deal with its operational or implementation aspects, which from a thought-‐process point of view you could argue is an inversion of the problem, that you should be dealing with the conceptual aspects of the problem first before you deal with its operational aspects. I challenged that a number of times and what I found was your ability to be able to get agreement regardless of how persuasive your point of view was on the concept—concepts did not get any purchase within the mindset of the people having that negotiation. You had to start with the operational aspects of it and work your way back to the conceptual if you wanted to get any footing. That was a clear recognition. It was a very strong culture, it was insular, it was homogeneous. And that thought process had become very much a part of the way of thinking



33

of the way of everybody in that organization. While you could argue that it was flawed, that was the only way you could approach negotiations was in that manner.

The third is, again from an organization I was affiliated with for a long time, that as a matter of culture, shunned policy. It did not believe in the role of policy as a framework to condition outcomes. It believed that the honorable intentions of the parties involved always had to take into consideration the facts and circumstances of a given situation and that the motivation on the part of both parties was always to achieve an outcome that was right. You entered into the negation with a view the parties shared a common interest in getting to an outcome that was right. Therefore their motivation was to try to understand the particulars and get to an outcome they both felt was right—not one that conformed with policy, not one that necessarily conformed with precedent or history. So you entered it on that basis, you entered on the basis that if you had a preconceived notion that in terms of policy elegance or historical precedent or future precedent it would lead you to a decision in a particular area that was viewed as an inappropriate attitude to bring into the negotiations.

Ted Wolf:

As an American banker with an Australian institution, we do see a lot of different, and even though we're all English-‐speaking, I also managed for the last year all of our credit out of London. And in New York, you can talk to an analyst and say, this wasn't your best work, and you tell them why. Whereas in Great Britain, they're more sensitive, they're really not used to having the direct, to the point, viewpoint. The Australians have a lovely culture, but it really is based much more on people being nice to each other. I would contrast that to New Yorkers, who are polite, direct, and blunt. And sometimes I found my directness in a cultural perspective with the Australians is not as effective as it could be.

Transcript: Thank You and Farewell Hi. Sam Bacharach again. You know, the fact that you're still listening to me, I hope, is indicative that you finished the course, or at least had the perseverance to take the course and get your way through it. I hope you enjoyed it and I certainly hope you learned something from it. I want to take a few seconds here to just make a little sense of it all. We began this course by talking about negotiations generally. When do you negotiate? And then I put out there the notion of the Proactive Negotiator, a person that takes the lead and uses negotiations as a tool to move agendas forward. After introducing you to proactive negotiations, we began to develop the tool for framing the negotiations. Specifically, I tried to give you a frame of reference and allow you to anticipate and think about the upcoming negotiations. I differentiated for you three scenarios: the scenario with the hostage, the couple deciding on a vacation, and the workplace scenario. These scenarios, different. . . and they are also different types of negotiations. One was a power negotiation, one was a problem-‐solving



34

negotiation, and one was a mixed negotiation. The mixed negotiation, the mixed setting, was obviously the workplace, which sometimes demands the most of our proactive skills.

After understanding the situation, I asked you to think about identifying the issues. How broad and how specific? Specific nuts-‐and-‐bolts issues, or are they going to be broad issues of principles? And we talked about the danger of talking past each other or talking at different levels. We next talked about needs and wants, most importantly in the context of how do we get a handle on prioritizing our issues, and I emphasized how important I thought this was. And then I talked about the need to understand alternatives—our own and others—and how that relates to the bargaining power that we bring to the table.

Next we dealt with the person that we are going to negotiate with. Are we negotiating with the right person? We then tried to get a handle on two broad and complex issues. One, personality. How do we anticipate or understand the personality of the other? And next, the issue of culture. How do we understand the culture of others in approaching negotiations? I tried to summarize all these points in a checklist which I offer to you in the course entitled Preparing to Negotiate. And I suggest five questions; First, do you understand the issue you are going in to? Second, have you identified the issues? Third, have you prioritized the issues? Fourth, do you understand your alternatives and others' alternatives? Fifth, do you know who you are dealing with? Those are the high points we dealt with.

Now when I present this checklist, I do so with the hope that you will systematically use this checklist. My hope is that this course gives you a framework and this checklist gives you a framework that you will use systematically before you go into negotiations. Do I mean to sit down and actually systematically check each item off, have I thought about this? Yes. I really do. Over time, I would hope that you internalize this. Using this checklist will improve your negotiating situation in the workplace and in other situations.

I hope in this course you have gotten the gist of how to prepare. I hope in this course, if nothing else, that you appreciate the importance of preparation. In the next course, we are going to deal with what to do when we are at the metaphoric, symbolic "table" we all talk about. What happens when we are sitting down and actually negotiating? Thank you very, very much for taking the course, I really appreciate it.

ilrsm515 transcripts - amazon s3 · !ilrsm515:!preparing!for!negotiations!...

Documents