Saturday 23 March 2013

Important point to note while negotiating.


1. Expand the “emotional pie.” In Negotiation, we often encourage our readers

to address the emotions at stake in a negotiation before tackling substantive

issues. If your business partner threatens to leave the company and take her

clients with her, for example, you’d be wise to question her about her feelings

before beginning to discuss a possible dissolution.

Similarly, research suggests that the majority of hostage situations are driven

by emotions or relationships. Hostage takers may claim they want money, a plane

ticket, or some other instrumental reward, but these demands typically mask a

greater underlying emotional concern, such as a desire for respect or attention.




This is why Lieutenant Jack J. Cambria, commanding officer of the NYPD’s

hostage-negotiation team, stresses the importance of listening carefully to the

hostage taker’s demands with the goal of identifying his primary underlying

problem or motivation. Rather than engaging the hostage taker in a rational

debate about his feelings (“But you have your whole life ahead of you!”), police

negotiators seek to manage the hostage taker’s anxieties. They demonstrate

concern through active-listening techniques—for example, self-disclosure,

paraphrasing, and supportive remarks, such as “It sounds like you feel very

lonely.”

The lesson for business negotiators? Time spent exploring the emotions

behind a counterpart’s stated positions is never time wasted.


2. Build a relationship. When a police negotiator says, “We’re in this together”

to a hostage taker, he’s not just paying lip service, insists retired NYPD police

commander Robert J. Louden. Rather, the negotiator is trying to create the kind

of bond that psychologists develop with their patients—a bond that will allow

them to find a solution to the crisis together.


Negotiate productively with an angry public

When negotiators get along well, creative problem solving is easy. When they

become upset, however, they seem to forget everything they know about finding

joint gain, to the point of giving up tangible wins simply to inflict losses on the

other party. This is especially true in high-profile negotiations that turn nasty.

Confronted with negative publicity, executives become so focused on controlling

public relations and managing the crisis that they lose sight of the fact that that

they are even in a negotiation.

Many public relations experts would argue that negotiations have no place in a

crisis. Reveal as little as possible, they say, deny liability, and avoid all forums that

could legitimize your adversaries’ views. This advice ignores the fact that what an

angry public wants most is to be heard.

Experts in conflict management point out that if the only communication

that does occur consists of both sides asserting their positions and demanding

that the other side take certain actions, little progress will be made. Instead, try

construing exchanges with angry parties as negotiations in which the primary

goal is to search for tradeoffs that will lead to a mutually beneficial agreement.

Even when agreement seems impossible, parties often can work together to

create value.

Acknowledging the other side’s concerns can be difficult, especially when

lawyers worried about liability are involved. But organizations that take the time

to acknowledge the concerns of others will often be able to avoid making large

concessions. For instance, a company that wants to build a controversial factory


might meet with angry residents to acknowledge their concerns about possible

adverse impacts. The company might also commit to ensuring that all relevant

federal, state, and local regulations will be met if the factory is built.

Those who have been hurt by a corporation in the past (by an environmental

disaster, for example) might begin their public campaign by demanding an

apology. In many parts of the world, indigenous people involved in current

disputes about the use of their land have opened negotiations by demanding

apologies for generations of hardship. Typically, corporate executives and

governmental officials react by denying personal responsibility for past events.

A better strategy might be to express empathy for the group’s past struggles

via a public statement that stops short of an apology. It is often possible to

acknowledge the public’s concerns without accepting responsibility and

generating exposure to liability.


Improved communication. Lack of communication and a public war of

words deepened tensions and distrust between the WGA and the producers.

Negotiations finally got serious after company executives reached out to the

WGA. Under cover of a media blackout, the two sides met in small groups and

got to know each other. The talks “started off cautious but gradually warmed up

and became very productive,” WGA lawyer Alan Wertheimer told Variety.

The most important take-away from the costly strike? It might have been

avoided if parties had gathered regularly between contracts to discuss their

concerns and plan for the future.
Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment