Blog

Introduction
A couple of weeks ago an item of news received little attention, being eclipsed by the release of the Mueller Report. Although perhaps not very significant in its own right, it provides an important opportunity for negotiation scholars and practitioners to analyze and learn from.

On March 22nd, 2019, President Trump reversed a decision by his Treasury Department to impose additional large-scale sanctions on North Korea. “I have today ordered the withdrawal of those additional sanctions!” tweeted the president without much further explanation.

A New York Times article on March 22nd stated: “[This Decision] created confusion at the highest levels of the federal government, just as the president’s aides were seeking to pressure North Korea into returning to negotiations over dismantling its nuclear weapons program”.

Cogent arguments were contended against the president’s decision. Some argued that the reversal of the Treasury Department’s decision conveyed a state of disarray in U.S policy – not an image that we wish to project to friends or foes. Others were concerned about not exerting a policy of maximum pressure on the North Korean regime, without which they are unlikely to unwind their nuclear weapon program. Another reservation expressed was that the reversal would tarnish and undermine the world’s opinion about American resolve.

Can an argument be made in favor of the president’s reversal of the Treasury Department’s “large-scale sanctions” decision?

Be Consistent in a Dispute Resolution Process
When embroiled in a dispute of any kind, careful and deliberate consideration needs to be given as to the appropriate process best suited to resolve that dispute. Is it to be negotiation or mediation? Or is it perhaps litigation or war? Is diplomacy more appropriate or would a campaign of threats, pressure and intimidation be more effective? (See also: Choosing the Appropriate Dispute Resolution Process).

Once an appropriate process has been decided upon, it is important to implement that particular process exclusively, without contaminating it with elements of other processes.

Read more —>

Introduction
With all eyes on the second summit between President Trump and Kim Jong Un last week (other than those riveted to the Michael Cohen testimony), surprise and disappointment supplanted hope and optimism as the talks ended abruptly with the President walking out.

The hope was for significant movement beyond that which was accomplished at the Kim-Trump Summit 1.0 in Singapore in 2018. In that first summit, the parties appeared to have agreed to “work towards the complete denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula, which was vague, ambiguous and interpreted very differently by the two leaders. Nevertheless, those talks were important in that they started a process of mending fences and opening up dialogue.

The hopes for the Kim-Trump Summit 2.0 were dashed when North Korea insisted on lifting of sanctions in their entirety in exchange for merely dismantling the Yongbyon nuclear complex – unacceptable to the President. Interestingly, the two sides could not even agree on the reason for the breakdown, as the North Koreans argued that they were only talking about partial lifting of sanctions and never insisted on lifting of all sanctions at this time.

Could these negotiations have been salvaged?

A Different Approach
Any successful negotiation requires positive, constructive and productive dialogue and exchange before any proposals can be discussed. This dialogue and exchange should not only be about the overt presenting issues but also carefully navigated around the more sensitive covert personal issues that could potentially obstruct a deal. Any accord that addresses only the overt issues, but violates the covert personal ones is doomed to failure!

Read more —>

Introduction
In the sale of non-commoditized products and services, price negotiations can be a conversation fraught with tension. Buyers want the best deal possible and fear exploitation while sellers fear objections, push-back and potential loss of sales. In this equation, the buyer is usually in a stronger position due to his ubiquitous supply of alternative providers.

A frequent mistake that sellers make is allowing the price conversation to occur too early in the process. There are tactics that purchasers will typically deploy in the hope of engaging in the price talks prematurely.

A common tactic for example is to pressure the seller for a “ballpark” price too early in the process. The danger is that out of eagerness to get the work, the seller risks under-quoting, and having to come back later with a significant price increase is much harder.

Another potential pitfall is feeling anchored to your “ballpark” figure despite scope creep beyond what you accounted for in your initial “ballpark” calculation. A further risk is that the buyer makes a snap decision based solely on price before having had a chance to really understand and evaluate the value of the product or service that you are offering.

It is vitally important for sellers to be skilled at navigating the price talks effectively!

Sales Versus Negotiation
From the moment that a potential buyer has acknowledged a need and is talking to the seller, the process has transformed from lead generation and sales to one of negotiation. The skills that need to be deployed at this time are no longer sales skills but negotiation skills.

Read more —>

As the government shutdown enters it’s second month, a negotiated resolution does not yet appear to be on the radar.

Here is my January 22nd opinion piece published in USA Today about how to negotiate the government shutdown dispute and move beyond impasse. It provides important “how to” techniques for effective negotiation in tight corners that can be applied to all our difficult negotiations.

Read the article in

Introduction
The British diplomat, Harold Nicolson (1886-1968) begins his diary of the 1919 Paris Conference which ended World War I with the following words: “Of all branches of human endeavor, diplomacy is the most protean”. This protean quality is true of negotiation also, which lies at the core of effective diplomacy.

Although negotiation can be simply defined as the process of seeking joint solutions to conflicting needs, the path to get there is often circuitous, bumpy and even treacherous with many twists and turns along the way. An inexperienced negotiator will often lose heart at these challenging moments and give up. The experienced and skilled negotiator will recognize these bumps in the road as part of the protean nature of negotiation and will persevere until a successful outcome has been reached. (For a paradigm example of this sort of tenacity, read “To End a War” by Richard Holbrooke – an account of the 21 day negotiations that eventually lead to the Dayton Agreement and the end of the Balkans war).

In this column I share a story where we successfully broke through what appeared to be a stalled negotiation and how we did it. I hope this inspires other negotiators not to be discouraged by apparent obstacles, but rather to persevere with patience and persistence.

The Stalled Negotiation
I was contacted by a potential buyer who asked me to assist him in negotiating the purchase of a ranch. It was a beautiful piece of land with an enchanting creek running through it. This creek was, in the words of my client, described as “a child’s water wonderland!” It was owned by an older woman who had put it on the market for sale and the potential buyer wanted it badly.

He had put in several offers, progressively increasing the purchase price with each. The seller was resisting any offer the buyer was proposing despite displaying a clear intent to sell. The buyer was left confused and concluded that the seller was greedy, unreasonable and unrealistic. He assumed her motivations to be entirely money driven. The negotiations were at an impasse and appeared to be catastrophically stalled. The buyer faced with this, was at his wits end and about to walk away from this deal, feeling very disappointed not to be able to own the land of his dreams.

Read more –>

Introduction
Defining negotiation as “making the deal” is a common misconception. The deal is really only the successful conclusion of an effective negotiation process. It is however, the process used to achieve the desired negotiated outcome, which accurately defines negotiation.

An effective negotiation process expands dialogue and develops crucial information around which a deal might be structured. Effective dialogue and productive information development is driven by advanced questioning and strong probing skills.

Negotiation theory draws on various disciplines including psychology, mathematics (game theory), communications, anthropology, sociology and others. I would like to draw on philosophy, specifically Cartesian logic, to introduce you to a simple, yet powerful questioning technique to add to your negotiation quiver.

The Four Cartesian Questions
At the core of Cartesian logic, credited to the French philosopher Rene Descartes, (1596-1650), is a set of four simple questions that are useful in evaluating any action or decision. The questions are (where X is the question or action you are contemplating):

1. What would happen if you did X?
2. What would happen if you didn’t do X?
3. What won’t happen if you did X?
4. What won’t happen if you didn’t do X?

To illustrate how these questions are implemented, consider being faced with the question of settling a dispute rather than going to court. I would apply the Cartesian questions as follows:

Read more –>

Introduction
When a dispute arose in times gone by, the disputants agreed to fight a duel to settle the score, or perhaps more accurately, to eliminate a disputant (rather a resourceful way of resolving a dispute!). These duels did not involve any conversation, discussion or legal polemics, but were purely based on a match of marksmanship where the better shooter won.

Today we have advanced somewhat by settling these scores in the battle of the courtroom. Although not usually as lethal as the duel, it certainly is still very costly and ineffective for the most part. Moreover, the disputants live another day to file an appeal (a problem which the duel addressed quite well!).

A shortcoming of resolving disputes through litigation, although necessary at times to be sure, is that it only resolves the issues on the mono-dimensional level of legal principles and doctrines.

Disputes, however, are seldom only about the legal strengths and weaknesses, or winner and loser. There are multi-dimensions to a dispute below the surface, which are neglected and remain unresolved in most litigated cases. This means that in litigation, the symptoms of the dispute may be band-aided, but the underlying dynamics are most likely exacerbated. Hence the high rate of appeal.

These below-the-surface dimensions of a dispute can be broadly distilled into three elements: narratives; emotions; and attributions.

In this column, I will explore these elements and suggest ways of putting them to use in resolving differences without resorting to battle.

Read more –>

Introduction
An important lesson that I have learned in my years as a negotiation and mediation scholar and practitioner, and one which has faithfully guided my client work is that how you say something is as important as what you say. The phraseology that you choose and the way in which you frame issues will make all the difference to the success or failure of a negotiation. Many negotiators spend adequate time in preparing data, strategies, comparative pricing, market research and bottom lines, but neglect to invest time in preparing for how they will manage the critical communication aspect of the negotiation.

Effective communication in negotiations bears three hallmarks: Well organized; succinct, clear and cogent; framed as a need to be met or a problem to be jointly solved.

Perhaps a good way to demonstrate this is by first examining a real example of poor communication in negotiations measured against these three elements. We will then translate that content into a more constructive communication that incorporates these hallmarks of effective negotiation language.

An Example of Poor Communication
At the recent breakfast kickoff for the NATO summit in Brussels, President Trump met with the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg. At that breakfast, The President held forth on issues that were of concern to him with regards to the NATO alliance.

(Disclaimer: This is not intended in any way to be reflective of how this author feels about Mr. Trump or the effectiveness of his presidency. This column is not a forum for that in any way whatsoever. The intent is only to extract valuable negotiation lessons for purposes of our own improvement). Below is a transcript of his remarks:

“Germany is totally controlled by Russia. . . “

The President was concerned about two issues in these remarks. Firstly, Germany being “a captive” of Russia because of the energy deal, and secondly, the disproportionate and unfair defense contributions among NATO countries, with the US paying the highest percentage of the largest GDP.

Let us measure the President’s words against our three hallmarks of effective negotiation language: Well organized; succinct, clear and cogent; framed as a need to be met or a problem to be jointly solved.

Read more –>

Introduction
The opposing opinions across the U.S. political divide about the success or failure of the Kim-Trump Summit are quite predictable. One side of the aisle has deemed it a non-event, with vague language and no substantive commitments. The other side has hailed it as a resounding success ushering in a new world order of détente.

To reach a more realistic view of the success or failure of the meeting, (discounting partisan agendas), we need to assess the accomplishments of the meeting independently of the public’s expectations.

In this column, I will identify the obstacles that the leaders needed to overcome going into this meeting, the accomplishments that they achieved, and what specific behavior and conduct helped them to get to where they did. These observations will provide us with guidance in managing our own contentious negotiations.

Overcoming Obstacles
In transactional negotiations, such as the kind that President Trump is accustomed to, there is not usually a history of contentious and acrimonious relationships. The relationship and the negotiation begin simultaneously. There is no need to restore any previously eroded relationship before substantive discussions can begin.

In contrast, the relationship between the U.S. and North Korea has been hostile for generations. Furthermore, personal animosity between President Trump and Kim Jong-Un had exacerbated the situation to the extreme. When each side demonizes the other, productive and constructive talks cannot progress. The hostilities between the two nations and the antagonistic relationship between the two men, was the immediate obstacle that needed to be overcome.

Despite the unrealistic and naive expectations of immediate complete, verifiable, irreversible disarmament (CVID), the true success was accomplishing a modicum of humanizing of one another, so as to facilitate further talks in the future. In this regard the summit was a resounding success!

How They Did It
As I watched the TV coverage of the summit live, two things struck me. First was the difference of demeanor in the two men after they emerged from the initial private face-to-face meeting.

Read more –>

Introduction
President Trump’s decision to unilaterally withdraw from the JCPOA (the Iran Deal), has generated polarized opinions both domestically and internationally. If we look at the decision in the very narrow context of meeting the objectives of restoring American resolve and fulfillment of campaign promises, a strong argument can be made in favor of the decision.

However, if we examine it in the broader context of the stated desired and warranted objectives (discussed later in this column), the astuteness of the decision becomes more ambiguous

But even then, there is a refined art and science as to how this proposal phase needs to be conducted so as to attain efficient and optimal results. In this column I will share a powerful technique for the proposal and closing part of the negotiation.

The Conventional Approach
Before introducing this technique, let us consider the conventional approach and it’s pitfalls.

In this column I do not intend to judge the wisdom of the decision from a national security, foreign affairs or political standpoint, but rather to examine it from a negotiation scholar and practitioner perspective. I will survey the objectives; the potential outcomes and costs; and I will then offer an alternate approach which may potentially have been more constructive in meeting our objectives and beyond.

U.S.Objectives and Likelihood of Achieving Them
When we attempt to catalog the U.S. objectives with regard to Iran, and what President Trump hoped to realize by withdrawing from the JCPOA, we envision a renegotiated agreement that provides for:

Read more –>