Tag: negotiation

Categories
Blog Features Uncategorized

What Happens When You Negotiate with the Wrong Person

Before you open any negotiation, you need to ask yourself if you are talking to the right person / right team. Sometimes negotiations will get down to the wire and the other party will say something along the lines of: “Oh, I need to escalate to get final approval.” To be fair, it is one thing to know from the outset that the negotiation execise was a preliminary activity, but it is another to be caught by surprise by the news that it’s not over.

Proactive negotiators do their homework. They spend time assessing their needs and wants, speculating on the potential needs and wants of the other party, and mapping the negotiation zone–that is, the area of possible agreement. However, negotiators won’t get far if they are not talking to someone who can sign an agreement.

The drawbacks to negotiating with the wrong person are:

1. You waste time & energy. If the negotiation ends up being an exercise in futility, you have lost time you will not be able to get back. It is important to know as early as possible in the process what the parameters of the negotiation are–including who has the final sign-off.

2. You show your cards. If you discuss too much with the “wrong person” what your ultimate intentions are, you may reveal too much about your position and what you’re willing to accept. The “wrong person” likely has a relationship with the “right person” and may share information that might put you in a position of having to concede key points.

3. You tarnish your credibility. If you unwittingly spend a great deal of time and resources on courting the “wrong person,” you may appear to to be inexperienced or naive.If you unwittingly spend a great deal of time and resources on courting the “wrong person,” you may appear to to be inexperienced or naive.

4. You may inadvertently disclose confidential information. Negotiations can tread on areas that in normal circumstances you or your employer might prefer to keep under wraps. If this is a concern, you may have to negotiate the parameters of the discussion.

5. You risk making an enemy. Lastly, you may unknowingly alienate the “right person”–that is, the one who has the authority to make a decision by giving someone else your time and attention. However, how the “right person” views the matter is dependent on the context, past practice, and their relationship with the “wrong person.” You want to be careful not to give the impression that you disregard the position or authority of the “right person.”

It’s not always easy to know you are dealing with the “right person” when organizations have varying structures and policies. There are few core questions to help you determine if you communicating with the right person.

  1. Do they know the issues? Are they familiar with the context of the negotiations? Can they reasonably discuss all aspects of the deal with you?
  2. Do they have the power to sign an agreement? As noted above, sometimes the negotiated agreement is a football that has to be kicked to the next level for approval–and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but all parties need to know the score at the outset. Know who has the power to sign-off on the agreement.
  3. Can they deliver on an agreement? Does this person / team have the organizational know-how to deliver on the agreement within the specified time frame?

When you are sure you are dealing with the “right person”–your negotiation is off to a great start.

Categories
BLG Leadership Insights Features

From Inc:How to Play the Doomsday Strategy

As January 2 looms ever nearer, leaders in Congress are feeling the pressure to make a deal before we go over the so-called fiscal cliff. The cliff represents budget cuts and tax increases that will automatically go into effect, as well as the economic and social turmoil that would result, if Congress and the President can’t come to a budget agreement.

There is a certain tension generated by the idea that the clock is ticking, and that, unless it can be stopped, doomsday is at hand. Propagating the belief that we’re at the eve of destruction and can avoid doomsday only by conscious action is a proven leadership tool. Bringing a situation to a head has an acknowledged place in negotiation theory, with a distinguished place in foreign diplomacy. For those who remember it, there is probably no better example of this than the Cuban Missile Crisis.

This brinkmanship mindset, with the dramatic emphasis on the cliff, is one way that leaders, in frustration and desperation, use crisis as a way of forcing action. Often, it has the added benefit of giving negotiators political cover: They can legitimately say that they had no choice. Their actions may have been distasteful, and maybe they would not have been acceptable at another time, but this was different: “If we didn’t take action, then we would have gone over the cliff.” Or the bomb would have gone off.

Leaders who use brinkmanship have to be very careful. This tactic, if indeed it is a tactic, has to be used carefully and strategically. Misused, it can have precisely the consequences that everyone is working to avoid.

Before you use brinkmanship as a call to action or as a way to force a decision, keep the following in mind:

  • Make sure there really is a cliff. People grow tired of the Chicken Little routine. The Mayan calendar ends on December 21, and so does humanity, allegedly. If you see and report on the impending doomsday too often, your leadership credibility will suffer.
  • Do not bluff. Although bluffing is a negotiation tactic, it is not part of the brinkmanship strategy. In the do-or-die scenario, the cost of having your bluff called could be catastrophic. You may be forced to go over the cliff and live with the consequences.
  • Be willing to compromise. Going to the brink means that the winner-take-all option is off the table. Once it is clear that everyone has something to lose, you as a leader must come to grips with your capacity to compromise creatively.
  • Keep the collective interest in mind. For brinkmanship to be effective, you need the support of those who will be affected. It is critical that stakeholders and supporters do not see brinkmanship as a self-serving exercise in opportunism but rather an effort to solve a problem that negatively affects all parties.
  • Avoid creating a panic. Hanging out too long at the end of the cliff without coming to a deal may create anxiety and panic. That can have the same result as going over the cliff. That is, you may unwittingly create a stampede that takes all parties over the edge.
  • Don’t use brinkmanship on small issues. If something can be solved fairly easily and creates a win-win, don’t create a false crisis. That’s not the way to the best outcome.
Categories
BLG Leadership Insights Features Managerial Competence

What Ever Happened to Bargaining?

When I was in graduate school a very long time ago–I took a number of courses in bargaining theory. Later on, I had the privilege of co-authoring a book with Edward Lawler on, essentially what we was known as, “Bargaining Theory.”

In those days, ‘bargaining’ was the operative word and the word ‘negotiate’ didn’t play a prominent role in academic literature.

It seems ever since Fisher and Ury wrote “Getting to Yes” the word ‘bargaining’, or at least the noting of bargaining, has disappeared–out-casted and thrown under the shadow of the everybody-wins concept of “negotiation.”

The distinction between bargaining and negotiation is more than a character distinction–instead a subtle, even nuanced, strategic mindset lies between the two approaches.

The Difference Between Negotiation & Bargaining:

When I stand in front of a group of American students the notion of bargaining is uncomfortable. Bring up ‘bargaining’ and they look at me like I’m coming from some ethnic part of the universe where bazaars dominate, haggling is prominent, and power is essential. Bargaining, in their eyes, looks like a back alley dance–performed exclusively by shifty-eyed types.

On the other hand, when I discuss some of the concepts endemic to negotiation in foreign classrooms–I am met with equal confusion and the same awkward seat shifting. It’s as if I’m from a naive, New England-esque, alien planet called ‘Win-Win.’ Concepts, crucial to negotiations, like problem solving cooperatives and non-confrontational games are very peculiar to someone used to the idea of bargaining.

Continue reading “What Ever Happened to Bargaining?”