Category: Uncategorized

When we are engaged in a negotiation, we see our primary role as that of a negotiator. We are a party to the negotiation, and as such, we do our utmost to assert our positions, demands and needs in the best way we know how.

Often, despite our best efforts, our negotiations fail, or meander along a lengthy unproductive path resulting in eroded relationships and sub-optimal outcomes. To mitigate the chances of a failed or sub-optimal negotiation, we need to learn to play a dual role at the negotiation table – both that of negotiator and that of mediator!

Consider the July 2012 collective bargaining negotiations between the NHL (National Hockey League) and the NHLPA (NHL Players’ Association) for a renewed contract before the September 15th expiration of the existing contract. One of the more aggressive demands of the NHL was to reduce players’ revenue shares from 57% to 43%, a proposal that understandably was not well received by the NHLPA.

The negotiators were unable to reach any agreement at all which eventually resulted in a 113 day lockout!

As an initial part of our coaching engagements with clients, we will do a baseline “audit” and observe as they conduct a live negotiation. During these sessions, we are often struck by the same thing which grates on our ears like a beautiful piece of opera sung atrociously off key; which assaults our senses mercilessly and turns the elegant waltz of effective negotiation into a grotesque and awkward stomp. I refer to excessive, relentless, redundant and aimless talking that so many negotiators seem to engage and even revel in.

Many negotiators perceive the negotiation process as being to persistently assert their demands, to declare their positions and to impose their proposals without any consideration of the other side’s concerns or needs whatsoever. They think that the more insistent they become, the better negotiators they are. They believe that the only way to “win” is to continuously and repetitively state and pitch their positions without allowing their opponent to get a word in edge-wise. Oddly, they don’t seem to realize that they are engaged in a terribly inefficient and unproductive process at best and a downright destructive one at worst.

Truly effective negotiators actually do remarkably little talking.They listen very carefully, ask purposeful questions and demonstrate immaculate understanding. They are composed, relaxed and almost conversational.

We have all been in negotiations where we feel that we are the David facing the Goliath. We see very little opportunity for leverage; We have no alternatives should this deal fail, whereas they appear to have unlimited alternatives; We are small and insignificant compared to the corporation that we are negotiating with and they really don’t need us; Or they are simply the only existing source for the particular product or service that we are seeking.

Faced with any one of these sweat-producing, heart-pounding scenarios, we feel helpless, weak and impotent. This unfortunately often results in reluctant acquiescence and the acceptance of very poor agreements.

In this column I will present a few common scenarios of perceived weakness and possible ways to combat them so as to achieve better outcomes.

In negotiations, as in any business transaction, every effort should be made to achieve a high investment/return ratio. We should seek a strong return for the cost and effort invested. To achieve a high ratio, negotiations must be optimal on three dimensions or axis’s, which are:

• 1) Efficiency
• 2) Value
• 2) Relationships

A negotiation which is efficient, but results in low value gains, or one that achieves high value gains but destroys the relationship, or one with a lot of wasted time due to severe inefficiencies is said to be “sub-optimal”. For a negotiation to be optimal and to achieve a high investment/return ratio, it should be efficient in process, attain strong value gains and result in good and trusting working relationships.

Although to cover these three axis’s in the detail that they deserve is beyond the scope of this one-minute read, nevertheless I will provide some useful guidelines that you can immediately implement.

Whether negotiating high level international negotiations,or corporate deals in business, the negotiation principles, fundamentals and processes are the same. As such, it makes sense to examine high profile international negotiations, learn from them and improve our skills by applying the lessons to our own business negotiations.

The recent framework agreement that the P5+1 reached with Iran over the nuclear weapons issue, drew very conflicting responses from heads-of-state, diplomats, politicians and pundits from all over the world. There were those who felt it was an acceptable deal, others felt, that although it was not great, it was still better than no deal. At the same time there were others who felt that no deal would have been preferred. In addition, some were concerned with compliance,verification and enforcement. What was most conspicuous however, was that the P5+1 did not attempt, nor were they able to defend and support the terms of the agreement or to alleviate the concerns of the many detractors and critics!

In any negotiation, if we are unable to explain to ourselves, to our superiors, to constituents or to others as to why we consented to a particular agreement, it is a clear indication that the negotiation process was flawed and that the outcome is bound to be suboptimal.

In a Harvard social experiment, a librarian was asked to shut down all but one of the available copying machines. With only one copying machine in operation, a long queue soon formed at the only working machine as students were eager to do their copying. The social experiment involved getting people to try to get others to allow them to cut in front of them and get the copying done first.

The first group were instructed to simply ask: “I have five pages, may I cut in and use the copying machine?”. In sixty percent of these cases, the people in line allowed the one who made the request, to go first.

Another group was instructed with a small but important variation of the first request and ask: “I have five pages, may I use the machine because I have to make some copies?” The only difference being that the second request included a reason “because…”, even though the reason was the same as the others in line, presumably. The results of this request was that ninety three percent of the people approached, allowed the requester to cut in line. The finding suggests that people are more likely to respond to reason and rationale rather than unreasonable and imposed demands.

Evaluating true success in a negotiation can sometimes be elusive. Yet knowing the extent to which our negotiations are a success is important. It enables us to commit with confidence; it helps us to persuade other stakeholders, superiors and constituents as to why the agreement reached was a good one; and it allows us to feel positively about the agreement, without resentment or feeling exploited. This translates into better compliance, stronger durability of the agreement and better working relationships.

In studying how to measure success in a negotiation, the latest negotiations in Minsk between the Ukraine and Russia is a good case to examine. In a recent article, the Washington Post declared Putin as the unequivocal “winner” in those negotiations, because he avoided further economic and military costs to Russia. This implies that Poroshenko of the Ukraine, was the loser.

However, as we analyze the concerns of the Ukraine and Russia and how the thirteen points of the Minsk agreement addresses those concerns respectively, a different picture begins to emerge.

I recently had the opportunity to visit the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian in DC. I went specifically to see an exhibit that I was told about called “Nation to Nation: Treaties Between the United States & the American Indian Nations”. From a negotiation scholar perspective, I found it not only enlightening from the US historical standpoint, but perhaps even more so from an international relations standpoint and specifically a better understanding of international treaties and treaty negotiations.

One insight that emerged for me during that visit was the difference between an agreement and a treaty. An agreement is a legal document which states and defines legal obligations, considerations, warranties and covenants between the parties, and is sustained by the rule of law and enforced through judicial consequences. (Or in cases of international law, by the United Nations charter and the International Court of Justice). A treaty, on the other hand, is not only a legal agreement, but goes way beyond that, in that it also defines the desired relationship between the parties. It is sustained not only by the rule of law, but moreover by trust, honesty and integrity. In addition to being a legal agreement, it is also very much a moral one too.

What further struck me in seeing that exhibit was how differently the United States viewed treaties as compared to the American Indian Nations.