Negotiations Part I: Negotiation Readiness

The Ability

The main purpose of this project was to model two master negotiators who have outstanding reputations in their professions. Time and again, these two individuals have been called in to negotiate or mediate difficult situations. Although the two individuals are from two very different professions, the modeling process detected significant patterns indicating overlap.

The ability to defuse a hostile situation is a useful tool. Furthermore, negotiating one's interests, beliefs, or position is a daily occurrence. Most individuals negotiate for salary, price on cars, homes, or other items and few people are tough negotiators. Many people walk away from a negotiating session thinking that they could have done better. Thus, negotiating is a life-long skill.

This model is broken down into two parts:

PART ONE: NEGOTIATION READINESS

PART TWO: WINNING AT NEGOTIATIONS

It is worth noting that at times, the exemplars described were modeled when they were negotiating for themselves and at times when they were negotiating on behalf of others. Those distinctions are noted here. It was found that the model was the same regardless of whether they were negotiating for themselves or for others.

This section deals with the Pre-Negotiation Stage. Be sure to see the model labeled Winning At Negotiations after you conclude this model.

NOTE:

After I modeled my exemplars, a book was published on NLP and Negotiating called Winning the Mind Game by Paul M. Lisnek. I strongly recommend this book. Although some of the ideas contained in these models appear in Lisnek's book, by the time you finish these models I am sure that most people would agree that my exemplars had a rather unusual (and successful) style of negotiating. The book is published by Meta Publications.

 Exemplars

The first individual modeled was a clergyman. He has had significant interaction with prominent individuals, politicians, and statesmen around the world. He is often called to mediate crises on large and small scale. This individual was modeled in three ways: first, through first-hand observation of his interactions with others; second, through second hand anecdotal reports about his interactions with others; and third, from two experiential observations of his interactions with the modeler in a negotiating format. However,this individual was not aware that he was being modeled and (in all probability - would not have cooperated with the modeling process.)

The second individual modeled is a professional labor negotiator and lawyer. He has a national reputation and frequently travels as a lawyer, negotiator, and troubleshooter. This individual was modeled in a three-hour cooperative session and in several live negotiation sessions that the modeler was allowed to observe. This individual was interested in the project, extremely cooperative, open, and helpful.

Beliefs Criterial Equivalence

The most important crtieria noted was Identifying Negotiating Positions. Both exemplar one and exemplar two spend a great deal of time doing research before entering the negotiations stage. Their criterial equivalence is Being Able to Distinguish a Real Bottom Line. Both exemplars believe that most early negotiating is not honest, that is to say, the real issues or bottom lines are not on the table. They believe that people ask for things that they do not expect to get. They believe that early negotiating positions, their own included, contain within them numerous false-positions or "give-aways" (items that they don't really care about but they throw in to give them impression of giving concessions in negotiations.) There are also times that they need to distinguish when the issues presented for negotiation are not the real issues. They need to ask the question of what is really going on behind the spoken word.

Enabling Cause-Effects

The enabling cause-effect at this stage is the research that is done to enable the negotiator to wade through the various negotiating posturing that is offered at the early stage of negotiations. The research will include the prior history of the individuals involved, prior negotiation tactics, and unstated needs of the parties. They always spend some time identifying their own bottom line. They do not enter a negotiations session without knowing in advance what they want to leave with. This research gives negotiators a baseline for discussion. The negotiator acts as if all opponents are rational and they need to leave the negotiating table with something; the homework is designed to make sure that they leave with as little as possible.

Motivating Cause-Effects

The motivation in this stage is to be able to enter the negotiation. Exemplar two stated that he is interested in being able to "fully and ably represent the interests of my client."

Supporting Beliefs

The most important belief that each exemplar brought forth is that they know they they are successful negotiators. In the office of exemplar one are three full wallls of pictures of himself with Presidents, Prime Ministers, Governors, and other leaders. Plaques, proclamations, and testimonials fill every nook and cranny. These walls serve as a constant visual anchor to his connections and importance. Although I did not get to visit the office of exemplar two, he clearly enjoys and portrays a successful lifestyle, always power dressing and conscious at all times of his visual effect upon others. He enjoys - with a flourish - stylish clothes, gold frequent flyer first class status as a traveler, and driving late model status cars. He sees himself as a hired gun in the mode of the Western of years gone by.

These two individuals are both fully conscious of their status as accomplished negotiators. They enter the arena with an incredible reservoir of past experiences and successes. These experiences serve as an anchor that enables them to proceed in difficult negotiations. Both individuals act as if the present negotiation is run of the mill, ordinary, and nothing to get excited about.

Another shared pattern is that both individual one and individual two do not trust either side in an argument to tell them the truth. They experience the world in a way that they believe that both sides in a dispute, just like them, do not honestly reveal either their true feelings or their true bottom line. Individual one believes that in any given situation, his command of the facts is better than any of the parties. Individual two believes that even the party that has hired him may withhold vital information from him. Both proceed with the belief that either party may be lying.

Strategies Test

In this stage, the exemplars are deciding if they have enough information to enter negotiations. They think up different scenarios and imagine what their responses would be. They try to run through the entire range of responses that the other party could give. These scenarios are the negotiating positions that the parties will adopt. If they are negotiating on behalf of someone else, they are also questioning what their client is being untruthful about. They also want to figure out if they know everyone's bottom line.

This is done through an Auditory Internal test leading to a positive Kinesthetic feeling.

Primary Operation

1. Determine where client wants to end up in the negotiations.

2. Allow for some "wiggle-room" by pointing out that coming close is almost the same thing as winning.

3. Determining whether this is a real position or not. This can be done by asking the client to "pretend to be dishonest with me" and callibrating.

4. Determine whether the client's position is realistic. The negotiator may have to educate the client as to what is realistic. If the client is sufficiently sophisticated, you need to respect their position.

5. Determine where the opponent wants to end up in the negotiations.

6. Gather empirical data.

7. Speak to collegues and dig for information.

8. Prepare a negotiating position by building give-aways and false positions.

 Secondary Operations

WHAT DO EXEMPLARS DO WHEN THE CRITERION IS NOT BEING SUFFICIENTLY SATISFIED?

More research is necessary. One is unable to enter the negotiations. Determine if one of the parties is hiding information.

WHAT DO EXEMPLARS DO WHEN THE CRITERION IS NOT AT ALL BEING SATISFIED?

Exemplar one will invite the parties involved (separately if case of a three way negotiation) and probe for more information.

Exemplar two will delay and elicit more information.

WHAT DO EXEMPLARS DO WHEN IT DOES NOT SEEM POSSIBLE TO SATISFY THE CRITERION?

Exemplar one will walk away from the negotiation unless he is a direct party. He will then try to think of ways to pressure the opposing party.

Exemplar two will enter the negotiations phase, learn what he needs to learn and than delay long enough to regroup.

Emotions Sustaining Emotion

Both exemplars project absolute confidence in their skills as negotiators. This emotion of confidence/certainty is the key sustaining emotion. Both exemplars are absolutely certain that they will win.

External Behavior

Contributing Factors

There are a number of factors to the negotiation model that are worthy of mention. The exemplars believe that there is a distinct difference between early negotiations and late negotiations. In early negotiations, the exemplars believe that both parties are not realistic and therefore engage in stalling. As deadlines approach, both parties become realistic. One can learn from here that delay and deliberate procrastination are tools of a good negotiator. One should also not hesitate to allude to a deadline, real or imaginary, for one's own purposes.

An essential element of successful negotiation is doing the homework in advance on the negotiations. Both exemplars do a considerable amount of behind the scenes work researching the positions and negotiating strategies of their opponents. They spend time looking for patterns and then build their own positions. The positions that they initially build are false. These are called "give-aways". The purpose of a give-aways is to give up something that is not of real importance. Since winning is the bottom line, other people and positions can be sacrificed toward the cause of winning. When negotiating, it is very important to be able to distinguish between what is real and significant and what is important. One of the exemplars said that that it is important to be clear on the question of "Are we bluffing or are we serious."

Significant Elements

Ecological Concerns

Please see Part II. This is very important.

Acquisition

This section will be both a step by step guide to negotiating according to this model and the aquisition process. I have distinguished between these two elements by type style. Italics refer to the aquisition process.

1. Before beginning any negotiations, one has to know your own bottom line. This information can be obtained only after a comprehensive examination of a number of factors that are dependent on each unique situation. So far, this model has been used with great effectiveness on issues relating to salary negotiations. Research into what comparable positions pay, what other people have been offered for the job, the ability of the company to pay, and how badly they need you for the job are all significant factors. Knowing the bottom line applies to both sides of the negotiations. In addition to knowing your own bottom line, you need to find out the bottom line of the opposition. This involves extensive work and may include talking to present and/or former employees or acquaintances of the opposition. Serious work and study can not be bypassed. In addition to finding out what the dollars and cents issue involved in the negotiations are, it is also necessary to find out what other unstated issues are on the table or lurking beneath. The more information you find the better position you will be in during the negotiations. One can not begin negotiations without this information. It is important to procrastinate entering the negotiations until you have this information.

2. The next step is to prepare your starting position and build on it. The exemplars studied believe in "give aways". This means you have to take the position of something that you really don't expect to get and to act as if this is what you really want. At this point it is important for you to define what you mean by winning this negotiation. Is it getting what you want in vindication of a position or do you want to hurt the opposition in the process.

3. Having done your homework, determined your position, created your give always and prepared your moral framework for negotiating, you are ready to enter the arena. Some important points to consider:

a) always put off making a decision or responding to a proposal,

b) delay setting dates for meetings,

c) work on rapport skills when meetings do take place.

d) assume that your opponent is being equally dishonest in his staking out his position.

PLEASE GO ON TO WINNING AT NEGOTIATIONS