The Art of Negotiation

About this course

The art of negotiation comes into play daily in the life of employees at all levels and in
every position. Participants explore how current approaches to negotiation strategy and
tactics are used, what negotiation entails, types of negotiation relationships that exist
from hard bargain to win-win, to fully partnered relationships and personal ones. The
course explores the personal and behavioral characteristics of an effective negotiator.
Participants discuss how empowerment, power, and authority affect the negotiation
process and outcome. Topics include how important it is to plan and prepare for a
negotiation session.

1. What is Negotiation?

Lecture transcript 1;1ntroduction to Negotiation

Hello and welcome to the Art of Negotiation, which is part of the Business
Communications for Career Readiness specialization, and made available on Coursera
by the University of California Irvine Extension. My name is Sue Robbins and I will be
facilitating this course. I am an instructor for the university extension program and the
owner of Ascend Training Solutions, a company that specializes in instructional design,
curriculum development, and facilitation of employee training and leadership
development programs. I'm delighted to be presenting this course for you, as I enjoy the
process of negotiation. Long ago when I first began my career, I found it challenging,
anxiety producing, and even sometimes frightening to be responsible for a business
negotiation. Over time, however, I've learned to enjoy the relationship building aspects
of negotiation, and the fantastic feeling of creating an agreement that is mutually
beneficial and may be even better than either party anticipated at the outset. This
course encourages a principled negotiation approach. The principled approach and its
variations have been written about extensively, with the best known authorities on the
topic being Roger Fischer and William Ury. They're the authors of Getting to Yes. In this
approach to negotiation, each participant holds the goal to getting what he or she
wants, but also strives to ensure that the negotiation counterpart also gets what he or
she wants. In principled negotiation, the goal is not to get a greater portion of the
benefit than your counterpart, to beat your counterpart, or to take away any of your
counterpart's power or influence. The goal is to create an agreement in which both
parties feel as if they walked away with a good deal. And that they got everything,
perhaps even more than they wanted. And that they would gladly do business together
again. There are, of course, other approaches to negotiation. And I will explain those as
well. This course focuses on the process and factors that affect the progression and
style of negotiation taken, as well as planning and preparation that will ensure you
maximize your influence and power in the negotiation. Module 1 focuses on defining

and describing negotiation, how it differs from selling, and several different
perspectives on negotiation. In Module 2, I will address various factors that
influence how a negotiation proceeds, as well as what we mean by value and fairness
and the role emotions play in a negotiation. Module 3 is about you and your
counterpart as people, people involved in a negotiation. I will discuss traits and
behaviors of successful negotiations and working with counterparts who espouse a
different approach to negotiation than you. In Module 4, I will explain how to plan and
prepare for your negotiation as well as the development of a framework agreement and
a best alternative to a negotiated agreement, or a BATNA. You will also be able to see
interviews with some professional negotiators, who will give us their perspectives on
some of these concepts. Specific negotiation stances or tactics are not the subject of
this course. There are a myriad of books on the topic of negotiation tactics, and I
recommend that you read some of the resources provided to you, provided in this
course to learn specific tactics and how to respond to them. For our purposes, however,
the focus will be on how to prepare, understand your counterparts so that you can
predict which tactics he or she will, will use, and present yourself an offer, and your
offer in the most beneficial light. I encourage you to work through the course in the
order provided at a pace that is best for you. Also, there are some excellent texts
provided in the resources section of the course. The course focuses on United States
based negotiation practice. I encourage non-US based participants to share their
perspective on the concepts presented. Our objectives for Module 1 are to understand
the basics of principled negotiation, learn some alternatives to principled negotiation,
be able to characterize the difference between negotiation and selling, learn from some
negotiation experts how they approach negotiation. Let's get started.

Lecture transcript 1;2 What is negotiation

So how can we define negotiation? How can we characterize it, recognize it, and know
when we should be doing it? The objectives for this segment of the module are, to
define and describe negotiation. Differentiate it from selling. I think we all have
a sense of what negotiation is. And it is an exchange of offers, a back and forth
conversation between two parties and that each have something to offer the
other. It can be very self-serving, with both parties solely focused on their own
interests. Striving to get the most possible from their counterpart. Negotiation could
also be collaborative, a collaborative effort, with both parties working for mutual
benefit, or a win-win solution. Win-win is a process of give and take that results in both
parties receiving enough of what they wanted to be satisfied. None of these
perspectives is wrong, nor are any of them always right. In fact, there's a wide variety of
approaches to the art of negotiation, and the only thing that is universally true about
you, negotiation is that no two negotiations are alike. Negotiation is a critical
component of doing business today, at every level of an organization, and in every
department. Negotiations occur between an organization and its clients. Between an
organization and its vendors. Between departments, between managers and team

members. Between individuals on a team. Negotiation also occurs outside of the

workplace, between parents and their children, between spouses, between friends, and
between neighbors. I could go on. But opportunities to negotiate present themselves
everyday in all aspects of business and life. Sometimes, though, a negotiation does not
occur in a situation in which it could have. This might be because the participants don't
have the skills or because one or both of the participants don't perceive that a
negotiated agreement is an option. Or maybe, one of the parties doesn't trust or is
uncomfortable with their counterpart. There are times when a negotiated agreement or
settlement will result in a better outcome for both parties then the first offer or
agreement would have provided. So the first question to ask one self is, could the
outcome for one or both parties be improved by negotiating the terms? If the answer is
yes, and you are reluctant to do to a lack of skills, I hope you'll reconsider your position
after this course. Of course sometimes negotiation isn't warranted or likely to
significantly improve the outcome. In those cases, remember, you don't have to
negotiate everything. It's important to remember that there are no rules for negotiation,
and that your counterpart may have very different goals, values, perspective, and
limitations than you do. It's a bit of a dance, in that, while planning is an important
component of the negotiation process, you still cannot always predict what the outcome
will be, or what your counterpart will say or do. Quality research and planning will
minimize the unknowns, but not eliminate them. Good planning and research will
provide you with a toolbox of options and opportunities, when unanticipated responses
or offers arise. Negotiation is mostly about building and preserving value for both you,
and your organization, or for your counterpart. A good negotiator seeks all aspects of
value and strives to maximize them for all parties, and creates an agreement in which
such value can be preserved. Negotiation is not a new construct. It has been around
since the dawn of man. And research has shown that even capuchin monkeys will
negotiate to allocate limited food supplies. I'm sure you know that some cultures are
more comfortable with negotiation as it is a more accepted and even expected part of a
transaction. I think this is less so in the United States. And we therefore tend to struggle
with it a bit. Negotiation has been written about, talked about, and taught in all manner
of academic venues. One well-known author and speaker on the topic of negotiation,
Gerard Nierenberg, who has been referred to as the father of negotiation by the Wall
Street Journal. Says that, whenever people exchange ideas with the intention of
changing relationships, whenever they confer for agreement, then they are
negotiating. Nierenberg's statement must further developed by Israel Unterman who
said, negotiation is conducted neither to widen nor breach the relationship,
but to form a new or different configuration. Negotiation is not selling. This is a
frequent point of confusion. Selling is about determining the other person or
organizations need and then explaining how you will fulfill that need with your product
or service. Highlighting the positives of your product or service, versus an alternative.
Selling typically precedes negotiation in that first, the counterpart needs to perceive,
acknowledge, and accept that the product or service you have fulfills their need. At this
point, the sale could be concluded based on standard terms and pricing. Most likely

outlined in a catalog or services contract. Or negotiation might be, at this point, might
begin at this point in order to work out the best terms of the transaction. Perhaps
regarding delivery time, cost per unit for different quantities, service agreements,
duration of the contract. Or a host of other possible terms. Negotiation is not about
establishing need and solution fit, but uncovering where potential value lies, and
then enhancing the value of an exchange of goods or services or ideas. It is about
defining a solution and all of its parameters as they relate to each party. Selling and
negotiation cannot occur concurrently. In fact, the selling must conclude before the
negotiation begins. When selling restarts after the negotiation has ended, it's generally
a sign of weakness on the part of the negotiator who has reverting to as, reverted to a
stance of selling. So when is negotiation appropriate? In what situations do we benefit
from negotiating an agreement? An experienced effective negotiator might argue that
anything can be negotiated. While that may be true for the most part, the question
becomes, is it worth it? Just how much time and effort are you willing to put in for the
anticipated return? In many day to day exchanges, interactions, and agreements, the
time required to negotiate a better outcome might be worth more to you than the value
of the improved outcome. In that case, save your energy, and take the deal as it is first
presented. For example, trying to negotiate ten cents less per pound for apples at the
market, just might not be worth your time and effort. Agreements which should be
negotiated include important decisions that have a noticeable financial impact upon a
business or a family. Such as the purchase of a home, a car, a large piece of equipment,
or supply of a critical component in your manufacturing process. Another type of
agreement that might be improved by negotiation is an agreement or solution which
need to be developed and refined. Some negotiations must include multiple variables,
and therefore negotiation is indicated to find the right parameters for each of the
variables. Agreements such as facilities management contracts or software upgrade
services might fit into this description. In a business situation, the decision to negotiate
might relate to a minimum dollar or expense limitation imposed by either your
organization or your counterpart's organization. In a personal situation, the decision to
negotiate might relate to the number of recent or ongoing negotiations. In other words,
choose your battles wisely. To summarize, a successful negotiation can be described as
a mutually beneficial agreement reached through a collaborative effort to maximize and
potentially enhance the benefits to both parties. There are a variety of approaches to
negotiation and styles of negotiators. The decision to negotiate is situation dependent
and best chosen when the likely outcome or agreement is likely to be better than the
outcome without a negotiation. There should be enough of an anticipated improvement
to justify the time and effort necessary to employ the negotiation process. And finally,
negotiations should always follow the sales process and not be attempted concurrently.
If you go to your local bookstore or peruse the choices on any online bookstore, you will
find many books on the topic of negotiation. And each espouses a slightly different
approach. Many of them go into great detail about specific tactics, how to use them,
and how to respond to them. In this lecture, I will review, in general, three
perspectives on negotiation from a variety of authors. The objectives for this lesson

are to describe the basic tenets of a four-option style of negotiating. To

describe the basic tenets of a circumstance-dependent or situational style of
negotiating. And to describe the basic tenets of a principled style of
negotiating. Several of these are referenced in the resources section for this course.
Some of them focus on specific tactics that negotiators often use and how to respond to
them, while others are more philosophical in their approach. I found at the majority of
these offers espouse one of the three approaches or some variation of it, which I will
describe in this segment. The first is a model describing four choices, written
about mostly by Peter Stark and Jane Flaherty, and some others. The second is
what I refer to as, circumstance-dependent model, written about Steve Gates
and some others. And the third is the principal negotiation model, written about
by Roger Ury, Roger Fisher and William Ury. Each of these has its own merits, and
you may find that one resonates with you more than the others, because of the work
you do or the type of negotiations you find yourself in. Recognize that none of them are
entirely wrong or entirely right. Each has its own merits. I will say that for the types of
more complex negotiations that are likely to cause someone to seek out information
about negotiation. Principled negotiation is often an effective approach, as it can
include some of the best components of the other two models. I will first talk about
the perspective on negotiation, which most of us know and that, of the four choices
model. Peter Stark and Jane Flaherty have written about this approach to negotiation
extensively and a collection of books and articles. I'll call this classic negotiation or the
four neg, choices model. In this negotiation model, the negotiators are working to
achieve one of four possible outcomes. Win-win, win-lose, lose-lose or no outcome. Winwin typically the goal of a negotiation in this model means both parties get a large
enough portions of what they wanted to be satisfied and everyone leaves the
negotiation feeling that they got their fair share of the bargain. The win-win approach in
this model typically involves both parties giving up a little of what they had hoped to
achieve, but not so much that they feel that they've lost. Concessions or compromise is
common, but each negotiator feels that he or she achieved enough of what was wanted
to be satisfied. Not every negotiator enters a negotiation with a win-win solution as a
goal though. In a negotiation that assumes there is a single item or single set of items
that are the subject of the negotiation. Some negotiators have a singular goal of gaining
a greater share of the item or items being negotiated. This is what is happening in a
win-lose negotiation. In a win-lose scenario, one negotiator gains more and the other
loses some of what they hoped to gain. Or they walk away from the negotiation with
less than their counterpart. This is the type of negotiation in which the agreement is
perceived as a pie to be divided. A negotiator who chooses this approach simply wants
a greater slice of the pie than his or her counterpart. Generally speaking, win-lose
scenarios are generally short lived as they typically turn to lose-lose scenarios longer
term. I say this because long-term, the loser in this scenario is very unlikely to do
business with that counterpart again. Or to recommend him or her. The losing party
may even go so far as to do damage to the winner through negative posts on social
media or complaints to business organizations. In a lose-lose scenario, neither party is

satisfied with the outcome because neither party walks away with the satisfaction. This
is typically the result of one of the negotiators being a hard bargainer with a goal of winlose outcome, and successfully bullying the counterpart into agreement. Into an
agreement that favors the winner and damages or causes a loss to the loser. If both
parties decide to end the negotiation without an agreement, we refer to it as a no
outcome negotiation. In this case, both parties walk away unresolved, and either do not
pursue an agreement at all. Or seek an alternative supplier. The reigning assumption in
all of these outcomes is that there is a finite amount of value being negotiated and that
the components of that value are shared equally or unequally. The negotiation typically
comes down to how to share the pie. Which way to cut it so that each participant feels
they got the half they wanted. I referred to the second type of negotiation as
circumstance-dependent. In circumstance-dependent or situational negotiating, the
counterparts choose their approach based on what is being negotiated, where they are
in the negotiation, and with whom they're negotiating. In this approach, a negotiator
might chose a positional approach such as bargaining, haggling, bartering or trading.
Positional negotiations assume that the amount of value to be distributed is fixed and
that each negotiator takes a position regarding how much of the value, and in what
form he or she will claim his or her share. There is generally no collaboration or
development of additional options. The circumstances, however, might suggest a more
collaborative approach in which the negotiators might seek compromise, might seek
win-win, or even a mutually beneficial outcome with value added to the agreement for
both sides. For any of these collaborative approaches to be effective, there must be a
positive relationship in place. For this reason, approaches that seek positive outcomes
for both parties, by both parties, requires some relationship and trust building to occur
in advance. Something to keep in mind about situational or circumstance-dependent
negotiator is that he or she might change strategies as the negotiation progresses.
Sometimes this will take the form of specific tactic, tactics that could be categorized as
hard bargaining or bartering. It's wise not to assume that because the negotiator takes
a particular stance at the outset that he or she will continue with that stance throughout
the negotiation. As I mentioned earlier, my focus in this course is on principled
negotiation with a goal of maximizing the value of the agreement for both parties.
Opponents of principled negotiation believe that while every negotiation is different, the
basic components and strategy are consistent across all types of negotiation and all
types of negotiators. Principled negotiation is discussed at length in a best-selling book
entitled Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury. Fisher and Ury tell us not to
bargain over positions but to focus on the interests of each party, and to separate the
people from the problem. Principled negotiation involves working with a counterpart to
identify multiple possible solutions to the issue at hand. And to remain focused on that
issue, and not the positions that any particular person has taken. This may sound very
similar to a win-win style, or a collaborative style, and there are certainly similarities.
The main difference lies in the intent. In the Fisher and Ury model, they focus on
development of solutions that address the issue without regard to the position of the
counterpart. The other models consider the counterpart's position, or what they say

they want to achieve, rather than identify a problem to solve, or an issue to address and
seek solutions to it. Our approach to negotiation throughout this course is one of
seeking to develop multiple possible solutions, increase the total value of the
agreement for both parties, and to work in partnership with the counterpart to achieve
mutual gain and benefit.

2. Influencing Factors and Considerations

Lecture transcript 2;1Factors That Influence How a Negotiation Proceeds

In this module, we will be looking at a variety of factors that might have an impact on
how your negotiation proceeds. I will talk about balance of power, trust and authority. I
will also address the issues of value and fairness as well as what each might mean to
the progression and the outcome of the negotiation. The final segment of this module
addresses how emotions play a role in a negotiation. The objectives for this module are
to clarify the factors that might influence a negotiation and how to prepare for and use
them to our advantage. To understand the meaning of value and options in a
negotiation. To understand the role of fairness and from who's perspective to evaluate
it, and how to define success in a negotiation. The first important factor to consider
when planning a negotiation is power. In this lecture, I will talk about what power is, the
types and rules of it, as well as the factors and circumstances which influence it. We will
also talk about the role that level of authority plays in a negotiation, along with trust
and empowerment. Consider for a moment, what comes to mind when you think about
the word power? Do you think of strength, influence, authority, or dominance? Certainly
the word can be used in various contexts to mean all of those things, and the term
power often has negative connotations. The term power with respect to negotiation
should have neither a negative nor a positive connotation. Power refers to the
ability to influence a negotiation or the people involved in that negotiation.
The more power you have, the more influence you have on the timing, the scope and
the style of the negotiation that takes place. Power's easily misinterpreted and often
underutilized in negotiations. Be aware of and encouraged by the fact that there is often
more power on your side than you see on the surface. And that you can take steps to
increase your power and reduce or minimize your counterpart's power. Even if the
balance of power at the outset appears to be in your counterpart's favor, you can
change this balance of power to favor your organization by being proactive and taking
control. An important piece of being proactive about power is being
knowledgeable about your counterpart's position in terms of their current situation,
their market conditions, competitors vying for the same contract, and their BATNA. You
need to know, not just about the company and organization, but also about the person
with whom you are going to be negotiating. Information increases power. For
example, if you know that your major competitor has recently raised their prices or
suffered a loss of a manufacturing facility. Or you know that your counterpart's
organization is about to launch a major product in a new market in 30 days, then you

have information that can be used to your advantage in engineering a high value
agreement. That's power. Another critical piece of knowledge which relates to power is
your counterpart's accountability structure. Most everyone who is negotiating is
accountable to someone higher up in the organization. That organization has most likely
provided the negotiator with some guidelines, some bottom lines, and some timelines.
The more information you can gain about these guidelines, the more power you have.
The good news is that, in reality, you probably have more power than you think. It has a
lot to do with self-confidence, which is enhanced through effective preparation. In order
to prepare, be sure you do your research before the first conversation. Use planned
targeted questions to gain potentially useful information and consider where
you stand with respect to the power balance. Stark and Flaherty, describe ten types of
power. Position, knowledge, character, rewards, punishment, gender,
powerlessness, charisma, lack of interest, and craziness. These are all sources of
power. They all have potential weak points or characteristics that could be used to shift
the balance of power in your favor. This is where information and preparation come in. If
you have information about a real or perceived power held by your counterpart, you
could much more effectively overturn it. Know also that perceived power is just as
effective as real power if well-implemented. If your counterpart believes that you hold a
certain power, it doesn't matter if you really do or do not. It's quite real to your
counterpart unless you tell him or her otherwise. Your counterpart may well be trying to
project more power than he truly holds. But if you see the use of a power which you
know from your research and questioning that your counterpart does not have, you will
not succumb to a bad option in the agreement. This brings us to the rules of power.
There truly aren't any real rules to, negotiation. But there are some what I'll call truths
regarding power. I've spoken already about the fact that you probably have more power
than you think. You will perceive and your research will tell you about the power held by
your counterpart. It is very easy, however, to overlook your own sources of power. So be
sure to consider both. The reality is that in most negotiations the power is close to
evenly distributed when you consider all of the sources of power for both sides. This is
important in that the more balanced the sources of power, the more likely it is that you
can operate your negotiations with a principled, or a win win style. When the balance of
power is close to being even, you are both more likely to be searching for additional
points of value to add to the agreement. When the balance of power favors one
counterpart more than the other, there's a tendency to work on simply distributing the
existing, the existing power. And acknowledged value with one partner exerting his or
her power over the other partner to gain as much of this value as possible. Gage refers
to this as value distribution. Another truth which I've mentioned before is that power
can be real or perceived, and that perceived power can be just as effective as real if the
counterpart believes in it. Related to this is the fact that power must be tested to truly
evaluate just how much of it you have. I've stated before that power must be used to be
useful. But it is also true that power only exists where it is acknowledged and accepted
by the other party. In other words, if the other party does not recognize that you hold
that power, it doesn't really exist for the purposes of the negotiation. Conversely, if you

don't have a certain power, but your counterpart perceives that you do, then you are
able to use it. A truth which is both good and bad news to negotiators is that power
relationships can change in a negotiation and can do so quite rapidly. This often occurs
when new information, new points of value, new participants, new conditions or
limitations become a part of the negotiation. The level of trust between negotiators is
an important factor in the approach to and progression of a negotiation. So why is trust
necessary in negotiation? Many of us have interacted with individuals who operate in a
cycle of mistrust, viewing most counterparts as adversaries and worthy of suspicion.
Certainly this is one stance that can be taken in negotiation, but it is not likely to lead to
the most productive agreements in the long run. Generally, a negotiation between
parties who do not trust each other takes the path of a win-lose approach, with no new
value or options added to the conversations. A better strategy is to take the time in the
beginning stages of a negotiation to take steps to build trust with your counterpart. This
is because a trusting relationship allows for a meaningful and robust exploration of
options that will benefit both parties. You as a negotiator will need to assess the level of
trust between you and your counterpart and proceed accordingly. Take care not to place
too much trust in an untrustworthy individual as a result of your desire to develop a
better relationship. On the surface, being empowered with the authority to make offers
and decisions on a wide range of variables and price points might seem to be a great
benefit to your side of the negotiation. Certainly such empowerment allows the
negotiator a wide range of options during the negotiations. But such empowerment also
means greater exposure and risk. Be sure at the outset to determine what level of
authority and empowerment your counterpart has been given. You want to find out what
constraints he or she is working under and how they compare to yours. It may seem like
a higher level person with greater authority to approve price or component changes
would be in a better position to negotiate, but this generally is not the case. This is
because the person with the greater scope to negotiate also carries a greater risk. A
high level of empowerment can lead to quick and less well considered agreements, in
which the full range of variables is not evaluated. This is where limits provided by those
in authority over you can be in your favor as a negotiator. As you are much less likely to
fall victim to unfavorable offers by the counterpart, or settle too quickly or easily.
Similarly, if you have a high level of authority and are empowered to make decisions
regarding concessions and price changes. It might be in your best interest to allow an
individual with less authority, but armed with a set of guidelines, to negotiate for you.
Quite often, higher level individuals give in or walk away more quickly in order to
complete the process. A lower level individual with a set of limits and expectations
might be in a better position to explore a wide variety of options for the agreement. If
your counterpart holds considerably more authority than you do, he or she may not be
willing to discuss points of value with someone at your level of authority. And choose to
either dominate the conversation or demand an individual with a higher level of
authority with whom to negotiate. Negotiating between teams of individuals from each
organization is another approach to managing this authority issue. When different
members of a negotiating team are empowered with different components of the

agreement, and each member focuses on his or her area of the empowerment. The
opportunity to take advantage of a single individual or agree to conditions or value
points too quickly is eliminated. Team negotiations tend to provide greater protection for
the organization and enables the development of some high value agreements by
utilizing the expertise and constraints within the team to greatest advantage.

Lecture transcript 2;2Negotiation Strategy

So how do you respond when your counterpart appears to have more power or authority
than you? In response to power, you must protect your or your organization's interest by
ensuring that you do not make an agreement which you should reject. And focus on
enhancing the value of those assets which you do hold so that you maximize value on
your side of the agreement. Just how do you protect yourself? Many organizations use a
bottom line strategy, which they perceive to be the worst case scenario. In most cases
of establishing a bottom line, a price point is established which is either the lowest price
they will offer or the highest price they will pay. This is often a directive provided to the
negotiator by a higher level person who has given the negotiator the authority to accept
any number within the range. But certainly as far from the bottom line as possible. Such
a strategy can certainly protect against offering a price below cost or with unacceptable
margins, and does empower the negotiator with a, with boundaries. A bottom line
strategy may also control the temptation to agree too early just to put an end to the
process. A negotiator with a bottom line number has a much easier time resisting
pressure and temptations in moments of feeling unempowered or less powerful than the
counterpart. It can also be helpful if there are multiple parties negotiating for a single
side. Establishing and agreeing to a bottom line ensures that no one in the group will
tell the other side a lower number, or make a separate agreement on their own. But a
bottom line has disadvantages. Most importantly, establishing a bottom line tends to
keep the focus on price. As a result, conversations about other points of value are
minimized or overlooked. Bottom line strategies also have the effect of limiting
creativity. Since additional points of value are overlooked, creatively engineered
agreements with a collection of value points cannot be created because they're likely to
require going below the bottom line. In order to get additional points of value, or going
above it to secure additional benefits. The other problem with bottom line numbers is
that they are either quite arbitrary or set too high. Consider how those numbers are
determined. Generally, a thorough analysis of costs, margin requirements, and market
conditions is not the means of determining a bottom line number. More often, it is a
group of people who may have some of that, some of that information offering their
opinion of what they would really like to get for their product or service, and not what a
total package might look like. Since they are looking at it from the perspective of what
they want and nothing else. The number is often set too high and deters conversation
about additional options. The alternative to a bottom line strategy is to have a BATNA.
Just about any book, article, or paper you read about negotiation will, at some point,
refer to a BATNA. So what exactly is a BATNA? The acronym BATNA stands for the Best

Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. And was coined by Roger Fisher and

William Ury in their book, Getting To Yes. I will speak more about developing a BATNA in
module four. Time in a negotiation is often considered to be the time between the end
of the selling of the product or service, and a deadline of some sort. Most business
transactions have a deadline associated with the timing of the actual use of the product
or service, or a budgeting constraint. However, the timeframe of the negotiation is
considerably longer than that. The negotiation began long before the sale began, in the
form of information gathering, trust building, and research. Also, the negotiation will
continue long after the final agreement. Long-term, high value relationships are built
and sustained through effective follow-through on negotiations and the actions taken
following the negotiation. Viewing the negotiation as ongoing after the agreement will
increase the likelihood of quality future negotiated agreements. Any negotiation can be
affected by market conditions, the season, changes in the law, launches of new
products, withdrawal of the problem, or outdated products or services, and a number of
other factors. These factors should be considered when determining the timing of a
negotiation, making the first offer, or finalizing the agreement. A great negotiator must
be patient and wait for the timing of the negotiation to be in his or her favor. It is also
true, though, that a quick resolution is sometimes in the best interest of both parties. It
may be that competitive pressure might be greater later on, or your organization has an
opportunity to fill a gap left by a competitor's error. In such cases, it may be wise to
finalize the agreement quickly, recognizing that it may not be the best possible
agreement. But worth the risk for the sake of gaining an agreement with a valuable
client. Making good decisions regarding power, authority, timing, and trust requires
information. Taking the time to collect information about your counterpart, his or her
organization, their market conditions, the organization's place in the market. And their
current suppliers will dramatically increase your power in the negotiation. The time to
gather information begins as soon as you know that a, a negotiation is coming. Some of
the information you need will be available for the, from the research done for the sales
process. That, however, will not be enough. You need to know as much as you can about
the situation your counterpart is experiencing in terms of current supplier, current price,
market conditions affecting cost, changes within the organization. Who their clients are
and how well they're serving them, the mission of the company and how they are
implementing it. Their internal costs and significant changes they may be facing, issues
of supply. Past experiences with your organization and anything else that might affect
the value of different options in the agreement. Knowing your negotiation counterpart's
position will give you a significant advantage. Not having this information puts you at a
significant disadvantage. It's important, also, to be well versed on the topic itself, as
well as the position your counterpart is in. If you aren't already, take the time to make
yourself a subject matter expert on the topic and issues associated with the negotiation
at hand. You do not want to be caught off guard because you were not aware of a recent
event or specific technological aspect of the product or service. Be as much an expert
on the subject matter of the negotiation as you are able. The location of the negotiation
itself can have an impact on how the negotiation proceeds. In the case of live

negotiations, it is generally considered to be a position of power to hold the negotiation

at your own organization's site. However, if you think there is a chance the discussion
may not take on a collaborative tone or that you may need to take a stand by leaving,
then you're better off not being in your own location. Perhaps, you have heard stories or
seen depictions in television shows or films of negotiators taking advantage of location
to gain power. Actions such as putting the counterpart in a very low chair relative to the
other negotiators. Separating oneself from the counterpart with a large table or desk. Or
seating the counterpart such that the sun is directly in his or her eyes. These are all
hostile acts that can and do affect the state, the emotional state of the counterpart. If
you are the target of such an action, do not tolerate it. Ask for a different chair. Locate
yourself to the side of your counterpart if there is a large table or move your seat so
that you are not in the sun. Allowing yourself to be the victim of such behaviors gives
your counterpart more power. Showing anger or frustration over it does too. So be civil,
professional, and polite about your required changes. An interesting suggestion for
negotiators choosing a collaborative approach is to sit on the same side of the table as
your counterpart. Perhaps facing a whiteboard or a flip chart or a set of documents laid
out in front of you. While this may sound minor, the body language of this approach
indicates that you are together in solving a problem, resolving an issue, or developing a
plan with the issue at hand being on the other side of the table. I have found this
approach to be surprisingly effective. What about meetings that occur by telephone and
online? These types of meetings are so common now that we must consider them in
terms of negotiations. I still believe that the highest quality and highest value
agreements occur when live face-to-face meetings are involved. But that is often not an
option. The reality of teleconferences, Skype, and Google Hangouts, is that they offer
you much less information about the non-verbal cues your counterpart is sending. They
also allow your counterpart to communicate with other team members or other
employees without your knowledge in the midst of the discussion. Of course, these
concerns have both advantages and disadvantages, and can be both helpful and
harmful to your interests. Be aware then, that when meeting with your counterpart live,
but not in person. That you're basing your opinions and decisions much more on actual
words and tone of voice than when you have the full set of communication components,
verbal, visual, and vocal. I must acknowledge here that these approaches are developed
for and best suited to negotiations in the United States. Other countries and cultures
have specific rules and traditions regarding location, timing, authority, and power. Such
rules are best respected and adhered to, unless both you and your counterpart agree to
proceed otherwise. In this module, I discussed power, authority, empowerment, trust,
information, time, and location. These are all important factors to consider as you plan
for your next negotiation. Understand your and your counterpart's amount of power and
level of authority. Take time to develop trust and gather as much information as you are
able. Consider the timing of your discussions and agreement and take advantage of the
best timing as much as you are able. Finally, think about the location for your
discussions. Which location will provide you with the most information, the most

advantageous physical location and position in the room? And what messages are you
sending with the physical arrangement and proximity to your counterpart?

Lecture transcript 2;3 Value, Fairness, and Successful Outcomes

In this module, I will discuss value, fairness and successful outcomes. Our
objectives for this lecture are to understand the meaning and significance of value
to both you and your counterpart, to find fairness and recognize its role in a
negotiation, evaluate and characterize our definition of success in terms of a
negotiation. I have referred to value a few times in this course, but what exactly do I
mean by value? Value isn't just final price. Value might be price, but there are many
other aspects to value such as delivery terms, delivery time, packaging, turnaround
time, volume limits, payment terms, renewal options, staffing considerations. The list is
very, very long. You will find that most negotiations center around a specific issue such
as cost per unit in a supply agreement or overtime policy and a union negotiation. As a
negotiator, your job is to identify opportunities to add value to the central issue through
exploration of related options. Every central issue has multiple related issues or options.
Options related to cost per unit might be units per package, or type of packaging, or
variations in the unit itself. Variables related to long term contracts include components
of the suite of services, the timing of delivery, the option of dedicated staff, the training
of the staff, the length of the agreement. Returning to the issue of price. While it must
be addressed, and early on is best, strive to keep it from being the primary issue of the
negotiation. Continually seek to focus on total value, with price being a component. The
goal is to create an agreement in which both parties have maximized the value of the
central issue as well as the related variables. To do this, you need to determine what
aspects of a potential agreement have the greatest value to your counterpart. You may
find that what has great value to your counterpart or the other organization is of much
less value to you. This would uncover what could be a very attractive opportunity for
you. Therefore, gathering as much information about the organization and the person
with whom you are negotiating is critical. In the early stages of your agreement, when
you're gathering information, seek information about every option related to this central
issue. Every option you can identify. Learn how each of these options influences your
counterpart's business, and how changing one or a few of them might add value for
your counterpart. Knowing such information helps you to build trust, and enhance the
value of the agreement to your counterpart. In working to increase total value, rank
price to one or more other options, and seek to add value in areas that are of greater
significance to your counterpart than to you. That way you increase the value to your
counterpart without losing that same amount of value on your side of the agreement.
For example, if you find that your counterpart has been frustrated by delivery issues of
similar items, and your organization has a particular strength in logistics, an attractive
delivery offer may have much greater value to the counterpart than cost to you. Linking
options to cost has another advantage. When price pressure surfaces in the negotiation,
it is clear and expected that if one option such as cost changes, there will be an offset in

one of the other options. Therefore, it is in your best interest to link the options and
keep everything conditional. The important thing to keep in mind is that there is much
more to value than price per unit, and that what has value to you may not be as
valuable to your counterpart and vice versa. Many of us hold the value of fairness and
we choose to operate with fair, with a fair outcome being the goal. Concern over what is
fair is the downfall of many negotiators, though. This is not to say that fairness is
irrelevant, or that fairness is in the eye of the beholder. Your idea of fair is likely to be
different from that of your counterpart. Your judgement of fairness to the other
organization is based on much less information than your counterpart's. As a result, you
are not in a position to judge what is fair for both sides, only for yours. It is up to your
counterpart to judge what is fair for his or her organization and communicate it to you.
The same goes for you, but the use of the word fair in negotiations tends to drive the
conversation in the direction of values. I recommend focusing on interests instead. Each
party is responsible for doing what is in the best interest of his or her organization. One
other consideration that will help you decide which options are most important to you is
the Speed-Quality-Price Conundrum. There are overarching priorities which will help
you to make these decisions. No doubt you have seen this before. Briefly stated you
can't have all three, you have to give up Quality if you want a low price and fast
delivery. If you want high quality, you're probably going to have to pay more or wait a
little bit longer. The three interdependent parameter conundrum also applies in other
areas in business. In the contract negotiations sector, these three variables might be
timing, cost and gratification. In the services sector, these three elements might be
timing, cost and services. The relevance to you is how do these three parameters rank
in terms of importance for you? If you know that, you'll have an easier time
understanding which variables mean the most to you. When it is all said and done, how
will you know if you negotiated well? You may not ever, because the other party may
never tell you what might have been, but how can you define success? By success, I
don't mean simply winning or getting the price you wanted, I'm referring here to a more
complete evaluation of the outcome of the negotiation. Success should not only be
measured by the monetary value of a win, in fact, there are various ways of evaluating
the outcome of a negotiated agreement. Did you achieve a better deal than before?
Improve the deal over the original offer? Overcome a deadlock? Move the other party
significantly? Agree to terms that saved your organization significantly on shipping,
delivery, or production costs? The definition of success truly depends on the negotiation
itself, as the criteria for defining success will vary with each negotiated opportunity.
Success must be evaluated on the degree to which you have maximized the total value
or opportunity for all parties. As part of any negotiation debrief, we must question
whether or not we created the most value for both parties, considering all possible
parameters. Also, when evaluating the outcome of a negotiated agreement, we must
take out the component of self-justification, and focus on the what and the why. In other
words, what are the details of the agreement, and why are they beneficial or
detrimental to each party, and not why did I offer or not offer certain options, or did I do
a good job of presenting. In this lecture I discussed value and the importance of seeking

additional points of value to the central issue. Particularly value points that are of
greater significance to your counterpart than to your own organization. I also discussed
our sense of fairness, and its role , in a negotiation. Finally, I talked about how we
defined and evaluate success following a negotiation. What about emotion? Should we
allow our emotions to be evident to our counterpart? Should we exhibit only positive
emotions? Control of emotion can be difficult for some negotiators, and therefore a real
challenge to maintaining their power. When your counterpart shows strong emotion
when meeting with you, you can learn much about what is of greatest interest or
greatest value to him or her, what the non-negotiables are, and maybe even where his
or her weak points are. The same goes for any displays of emotion from you in terms of
what your counterpart can learn. At the same time though, a controlled display of
emotion can bring a conversation back from a tangential one, it can clarify your position
to your counterpart, and stop your counterpart from being unreasonable. So what is the
bottom line on emotion? The bottom line is that your emotional responses need to be
controlled and intentional. Strong emotional expressions can signal an absence of selfcontrol, a lack of openness, a lack of trust or trustworthiness, frustration or feelings of
weakness. Your counterpart is likely to view it as weakness in some form, and therefore
you lose some power. That said, emotion can be used to beneficial effect if it is used in a
planned, intentional manner. Thinking about your counterpart's emotional expression,
pay attention to any differential you observe between what is being said and how the
person is behaving. Also take note of sudden changes in behavior. The loss of eye
contact by your counterpart. It's not so much any particular behavior, but sudden
changes or words that are incongruous with body language. These are the signs to
watch for. When body language doesn't match the words, you are seeing an internal
conflict, and most likely hearing an untruth or a misrepresentation. Recognize that
anger on the part of the counterpart may be directed at you, but not really about you or
the conversation. Your counterpart may be frustrated by his or her limitations or its
expectations of the higher authority. Try to take your own emotional response out of
your interpretation of what you are seeing, and try to understand the true cause of the
emotional display. Strong emotions can be used intentionally with good results, but it's
risky. I would consider intentional use of strong emotion as a higher order negotiation
skill and don't recommend it for developing negotiators. Generally speaking, it's best to
maintain a professional and personable demeanor throughout the negotiation, if your
goal is a principle negotiation, and your goal is to achieve an agreement with maximum
value developed for all parties. In this module, we address factors that influence the
progression and the outcome of a negotiation. We talked about power, trust, authority,
location and timing and how they influence each negotiator's perceptions of the
situation, the counterpart and their own role in level of influence. I also discussed what
is meant by value in the sense of identifying other potential components of an
agreement that would enhance its value to both you and your counterpart. I talked
about fairness and the importance of recognizing that each participant must define
fairness on his or her own terms. Finally, I talked about emotions and how they can

affect the progression and outcome of a negotiation. Please review the text and video
resources I have provided and check your understanding by completing the quiz.

3. You and Your Counterparts as Negotiators

Lecture transcript3;1Traits of Negotiators

One of the basic tenets of this course on negotiation skills is, that an effective
negotiator seeks additional value from both sides instead of trading concessions for an
unchanging pool of value. The ultimate goal of all of the interactions is to maximize the
value of the agreement for both parties. Effective negotiators with this focus tend to
have certain characteristics and exhibit certain behaviors and approaches. That's the
topic of this week's lesson. In this module I will discuss the traits and behaviors of
various types of negotiators and how to capitalize on the traits that you have and the
behaviors that you are comfortable with in your next negotiation. The objectives for this
module are to understand some of the important traits of successful negotiators and
how they impact the negotiation process. To understand some important behaviors of
successful negotiators and how they impact the negotiation process. Evaluate your
counterpart's approach and how you should behave in response to it. In this lecture I will
talk about some of the more commonly identified traits of successful negotiators. A
significant piece of the negotiation puzzle is the personal experiences and perspective
that you bring to the table. This is one of the more challenging aspects of negotiation.
Because negotiation is carried out by people not computers or organizations. As people,
we bring our own prejudices, values, likes, dislikes, tendencies, and history with us to
the negotiation table. Values, behaviors, and experiences unique to each player in the
negotiation are likely to influence the way he or she perceives the situation. The value
of an offer, or the intent of the offerer. While your history may provide you with
background knowledge and your personal values may drive you to perceive your
counterpart in a particular way, your own set of personal values can get in the way of
establishing the best outcomes for both you and your counterpart. In supervisory skills
courses, we talk about the fact that people's values are typically established by
adolescence. And are unlikely to be changed by external influences. People's personal
values help derive what they think and what they want. And help them to define and
prioritize what is important to them. It will be helpful for you to understand your
counterpart's own values, but know that sharing a set of values does not necessarily
contribute to a better agreement or settlement. In fact, a shared set of values might
encourage the participants to settle on an agreement too soon. Trusting that the
counterparts have offered their best deal and agreeing to it before considering all the
potential points of value and options. Awareness of your counterpart's value system will
be helpful as you need it to determine. What aspects of the negotiation agreement
might have the most value for the agreement to him or her, but sharing a set of
personal values is not necessarily a necessary component of an effective negotiation.

Please note that I'm referring here to personal values regarding life. Business, personal
goals, and behaviors. Not value that you are seeking to add to the agreement. Focus
more on beliefs and behavior. Beliefs and behaviors can be changed. Beliefs can be
defined as how we think the world works. And they can be affected by new information
or experiences. Your role is to help the other person to believe that the agreement will
be beneficial to him or her as defined. A huge part of improving your negotiation skills is
recognizing the influence of your own personal values, your own experiences, and
personality. You'll need to acknowledge them and then remove them from the process.
There are numerous self-assessments for this purpose. And I encourage you to use one.
You will find a good self-assessment tool in the Stark and Flaherty book, referenced in
the resources. Once you have this awareness of yourself in the negotiation process. You
can take control of your role. And adapt your responses. If you choose to use a
principled negotiation strategy, your ego will have to go, and your sense of
competitiveness will have to go. What matters is the real value of the agreement you
develop to both parties, not your role or the win. You need to remain focused on what
has value to your negotiation counterpart. What your counterpart values is more
relevant to getting what you want, than what you value, believe, or expect. You need to
learn to see the deal as they see it, and help to increase the value of your offer to them.
You need to spend more time being in their shoes, and looking at the agreement from
their perspective. Than in yours. For the best agreement, total value must be evaluated
from your counterpart's perspective. Also learn to be comfortable with being
uncomfortable, in particular allow there to be silence. You need to listen for
opportunities to add value, remove roadblocks and understand the other person's
personal value system and beliefs. In doing so, there will sometimes be a need for
silence, and time to think. Learn to be comfortable with that. It is not necessary to fill
silence in a conversation with chatter. When you allow for silence, you may find that
your counterpart is less comfortable with it than you, which gives you some power.
Listen so that you can acquire information that may be of use. Often, the other party
may not have the same level of comfort or experience as you and react poorly to an
offer initially. Or fill silence with chatter. Thereby giving up some power. Perhaps though,
they might just need time to think it through. On the other hand, your willingness to
accept the discomfort may motivate the other party to consider an offer. Which, they
initially rejected. Regardless, discomfort is sometimes part of the process. If the primary
drive is to keep everyone comfortable, you are unlikely to establish an agreement with
the most value to all parties.

Lecture transcript3;2 Behaviors that Make a Difference

Successful negotiators possess and intentionally display certain behaviors that enable
them to build trust, maintain power, stay focused on interests, and create high value
agreements. The most common traits you will find amongst successful negotiators are
self-confidence, self-discipline, assertiveness, patience, analytical reasoning, curiosity,
and creativity. Each negotiator uses and displays these traits to a different degree in

each negotiation. The first of these is confidence. Confidence in a negotiator is the

outward display of understanding of the issue at hand, being prepared and qualified to
address it, and willing to take a stand regarding the needs, requirements, and
expectations of his or her organization. A confident negotiator remains calm, is not
disturbed by tricky or hostile tactics, and presents his or her position without hesitation
or qualification. Confident negotiators are also comfortable using silence to their
advantage. They will state their position, or make an offer and remain silent. Selfdiscipline refers to your ability to separate emotions from behavior for you and your
counterpart. You do not have to be a different person, but you do need to have
awareness of the signals you are sending through expression of emotion and body
language, which your counterpart can read and interpret. You need to be in control of
and choose what signals you wish to send using your emotional expressions. A selfdisciplined negotiator also uses timing to his or her advantage. This negotiator carefully
considers when to divulge certain pieces of information, when to concede a point, when
to make an offer. Self-discipline also allows the negotiator to stay focused on the topic
and value point at hand, not to revert to selling when power appears to be slipping, and
not to get sidetracked by personal interests. This trait also enables the negotiator to
keep the proposal and counter-proposals from progressing too quickly and without
careful consideration. Be aware of what your gut is telling you and take the time needed
to make careful, considered decisions. Don't be pressured to rush into decisions.
Another expression of self-discipline is the ability to listen without an agenda. It is a
challenge for most people to listen deeply to their counterparts without listening
primarily for a break in the conversation or in order to insert their point. A selfdisciplined negotiator listens only to hear and consider what the counterpart is saying
and not to make a specific point once the counterpart stops talking. Self-disciplined
negotiators also hold their position and are not worn down by tactics used by their
counterparts. Great negotiators are assertive but not aggressive. A negotiator who is
well-prepared with a well-constructed strategy and strives to proactively implement it
will gain considerable power and control in the negotiation. This is assertiveness and is
shown by being firm and authoritative, yet respectful and polite, perhaps even amiable.
Assertiveness is achieved by being confident and explaining your position without being
patronizing or arrogant, and in such a way that your counterpart does not feel
compelled to respond to your proposal with defense or counterarguments. Somewhat
related to assertiveness is persistence. A good negotiator understands that sometimes a
counterpart will allow an issue to be dropped out of a desire to avoid the discussion but
not allow the issue to be forgotten. Also, persistence might, manifest itself in terms of
revisiting a point that gained a negative response in the past. An assertive negotiator
knows that no doesn't mean no forever, and that additional information and discussion
might change a no to a yes. Therefore, a persistent and assertive negotiator will bring
the topic up again if it is relevant, and there is reason to believe the counterpart might
have changed his or her position. Persistence is the understanding that hearing no is
not the end point. It is a sign that the negotiator must be patient and continue the
dialogue until it is time to try again. This is one aspect of negotiation in which teenagers

excel. Anyone who has a teenager knows that most of them wholeheartedly espouse
the philosophy of no just means not yet. Arguably, teenagers are the most persistent
negotiators on the planet, and we can learn from them. Recognize that a no can mean a
lot of things, not now, not today, not in those terms, not if it takes three weeks,. In
negotiation, no usually means not with the terms as we currently have defined them. It
means it's time to look at value and determine how you can add value to your offer.
Patience is an important trait of a successful negotiator. Great negotiators don't rush to
agreement before the timing is best. And they use their knowledge and information
resources to identify the best time to act. Great negotiators also know that counterparts
and their organizations often don't proceed at the same pace as their own
organizations, and that rushing things causes them to lose power. Patience also allows
the negotiator to be comfortable with silence when waiting for a counterpart to react to
a suggestion or respond to an offer. Skilled negotiators utilize their innate curiosity. They
don't assume anything and they seek depth of understanding through research and
questioning. Curious negotiators learn about the history, the market position, the
human resources, the array of products and services, and a wide variety of other
informational items about their counterparts and counterpart's organization. Such
negotiators are also sure to be very clear about everything that is said and offered. If
something is unclear, they ask for clarification, not just for clarity, but for situational
understanding and motivations. If your counterpart says something or makes an offer
that seems incongruous with the goals, is too good to be true, or outlandish in some
way, you may wonder why they did so. This is when it's a good time, time to use good
questioning techniques and ask questions until you understand why he or she said what
they offered, said what they said, or what they offered. Analytical reasoning is
something that comes more easily to some than others. A good negotiator needs to be
able to take, to make quick mental calculations that are necessary to understand what
is being proposed and compare it to what has gone before or what you had in mind.
Giving careful consideration to the numbers in advance as part of your preparations will
help this tremendously. A little bit of being comfortable with being uncomfortable comes
into play when we talk about the characteristic of creativity. In order to work through a
wide variety of options and potential combinations requires creativity as well as the
comfort with a fair amount of ambiguity regarding the outcome, at least in the early
stages. Creativity also comes into play in the case of a deadlock or significant changes
in the parameters of the negotiation. Good negotiators constantly seek new points of
value and create a value combinations to engineer high value agreements.
Competence, self-discipline, assertiveness, patience, analytical reasoning, curiosity, and
creativity are not the only beneficial traits of negotiators, but they're certainly amongst
the most common ones. Your ability to remain in control of your emotions and
intentionally exhibit these traits will strengthen your position, strengthen your position
in a negotiation, and maintain or even enhance your power.

Lecture transcript3;3 Behavior Traits of Successful Negotiators

While certain traits are common amongst successful negotiators, certain behaviors are
also common. Some of the most common behaviors are listening, questioning,
empathizing and planning. The best negotiators are great listeners. Sometimes better
than you would like. It may seem that negotiation is more about your speaking ability
than your listening ability. But that just isn't the case. A great negotiator listens to all
that you communicate. With and without words in order to better understand you. What
motivates you, what your weaknesses are, and what really matters to you. Of course
you should be doing this as well. Great negotiators listen without planning the next
thing, you'll say when they stop talking. Good listeners use attending behavior such as
eye contact, nodding, smiling and reacting to what the speaker is saying to demonstrate
their engagement. They also paraphrase what the speaker said to check understanding.
To demonstrate that they were listening, and to gain agreement on points made. Good
listeners are typically, also, good questioners. You must develop great questioning skills
to be a good negotiator. Asking questions, many questions, is the bedrock of effective
negotiating skills. Negotiators ask questions to gather information about potential points
of value. To understand what holds the most value for their counterpart, to clarify
misconceptions, or to understand a point of view or the counterparts intent. You might
also ask questions to determine your counterparts approach to the negotiation or to
engage him or her. If they have put up a wall, or sometimes when your conversations
backed to a point when it has veered from the issue at hand. Questions can also be
used to share information or facts in a non-confrontational manner or to build report
with your counterpart. Asking high quality questions with a specific purpose will result in
much more productive dialogue. Should you expect to come up with the great questions
on the spot or as a result of what the counterpart just said. Certainly not. You need to
plan them. The actual sentences that you speak may be modified or developed on the
spot. But you should be prepared. Before any telephone call or meeting with your
counterpart to ask the relevant questions. Certainly, the first step is to do your research.
Read the company annual report. Talk to others who've done or do business with the
organization. Look up the key players on LinkedIn and Google. Search press releases
and study the company website. Look for changes in their business plans, organizational
structure, or leadership. Learn about partnership agreements, product launches or
discontinuations, major clients, office locations, and major issues in their market or their
client's markets. Any and all of these subjects could reveal an opportunity to add value.
This research will also provide you with material upon which to base opening
conversations and topics about which to develop questions. The next step is to plan. For
each interaction, determine a goal, then develop your plan. Your questioning should be
carefully planned before you meet each time. You will be asking questions lots of
questions. Your counterpart should be talking much more than you. Asking questions is
the single best means of gaining information from your counterpart's perspective. The
more your counterpart is talking and answering your questions, the more opportunities
you have to understand what has value from your client's perspective. There are a
variety of question types, each with a specific intent or purpose. You're probably familiar
with the concept of open and closed questions. Closed ended questions are used to

initiate conversation, to gain concession or committment, or to confirm a deal point.

Open ended questions are used for a wide variety of purposes, which mostly can be
categorized as information seeking, seeking to reveal or influence a person's
perspective or attitude. The most basic open ended question seeks information on a
specific topic but doesn't specify which aspect or in which form. Open ended questions
can also be used to expand the scope of a conversation or delve deeper into a particular
aspect of the topic. Information about the counterpart, him or herself, can also be
gathered by asking open ended questions designed to evaluate their perspective,
behavioral style, approach to a challenge, or their own depth of knowledge on the topic.
Open ended questions can also be used to re direct conversation. Bring it back when it
has gone off track. Demonstrate one's own knowledge as well as build rapport. There
should be an agenda for each meeting. Whether the meeting is by telephone, over the
internet, or in person. That agenda should be based on a goal for the meeting which will
guide your questioning. I spoke before about gathering information. It is wise to do a fair
amount of research regarding your counterpart, his or her organization, and the product
or service to be negotiated. This research should guide your plan for the meeting and
therefore the questions to be asked. In the early stages of your negotiation, your
questions will be more broad based and designed to learn more about your
counterparts. Your counterpart, his/her organization in the topic at hand. The type of
questions you ask and the style in which you ask them can be used as a means of
developing trust. Showing concern for your counterparts issues and challenges will help
you to develop trust. And understand just how much value some of these issues
represent to their organization. Timing will also be a consideration in your question plan.
As you consider your counterparts needs and feelings. Sometimes you can gain
momentum in the direction of agreement by asking permission to ask a question. It is
difficult to refuse a question when asked first if you are willing to answer it. Of course,
critical to asking questions is your comfort with silence. Once you have asked the
question, stop talking. Do not feel compelled to fill the silence with justifications or
clarifications. Your counterpart will let you know if they're necessary. Prepare for your
face-to-face meeting by determining your goal for the meeting. Planning your questions
and flow of topics. Start with the broadest scope questions and move to questions with
a narrower focus as the conversation progresses. Approach the conversation in a
manner that suits the interactive style of your counterpart. Most importantly, once you
ask a question, stop talking and listen. While you're listening, take notes. Not word for
word, but the critical pieces. Some responses and information may not seem relevant in
the moment, but later might prove to be quite important. When you meet face to face,
also be aware of body language. Try to gain an understanding of your counterpart's
thoughts. Watch facial expressions, gestures, mannerisms, distractions, and reactions.
These body language cues can sometimes tell you a lot. Assume nothing. Ask questions.
Great negotiators are empathetic towards their counterparts. They try to understand all
of the issues, needs and concerns from the perspective of the counterpart. A great
negotiator strives to understand the perspective of the counterpart in terms of their role
in the organization, the significance of this negotiation in terms of their career, the

expectations and the limitations that have been applied by the upper management,
and, which components of the agreement are important and may even be emotionally
charged. The ability to demonstrate this empathy comes from the advanced research
and the high quality questions and trust developing behaviors that have gone before.
This demonstration of empathy also dramatically enhances conversations that explore
new options and combinations of options. When your counterparts believe that you see
the issue from their point of view, they are much more likely to listen to your
suggestions and proposals. Empathy is typically not a behavior that is thought of an
important behavior in negotiation. In fact, if your approach will be to strive for a win lose
agreement, or a hard bargain, then it isn't important. If, however, you are choosing the
path of principle negotiation and seeking to develop trust, work towards a long term
relationship and maximize the value of the agreement for all involved, demonstration of
empathy will be an important behavior. Top negotiators always enter a negotiation with
a plan. This plan does tend to change quite a bit as the negotiation progresses. But a
good negotiator always acts and speaks based on the current plan. I will speak in the
next module about framework agreements and. Which are an important part of the
plan. But there is much more to it. You should plan your timing. Plan your questions.
Plan your agenda. Plan the location and the seating arrangements. Plan how you might
stall your responses or establish rapport. Plan how you will react to any anticipated
emotional outbursts. Or other negotiation tactics. And plan how you will protect and
enhance your power. In this lecture I discuss some important traits of successful
negotiators, as well as their beneficial behaviors. Great negotiators are confident and
display great self-discipline. They are also assertive but not aggressive. Patient, curious,
creative, and comfortable with analytical reasoning. Behaviors coming to great
negotiators are deep listening, plan quality questioning, empathy, and careful planning.
Great negotiators also know that there is no correlation between the amount that they
speak and the result and value of the agreement. There is a higher correlation between
quality of their listening and questioning skills to the overall value of the agreement,
then between their speaking skills and the overall value. It is likely that you have a
preferred style of interacting with others, and therefore negotiation. You need to
acknowledge it and be are that it may not always be the best approach for every
negotiation in which you engage. We each have a tendency to exhibit a certain behavior
pattern in negotiation. But we need to be willing to tailor it a little differently in order to
effectively negotiate with certain counterparts. Each counterpart will be different. And
you will need to tailor your approach to the style and personality of that person. To do
that, you will need to get to know your counterpart and do your best to assess his or her
preferred approach to a negotiation. So what if your counterpart doesn't approach
negotiations as a win win endeavor? Or use a principled approach. This may well be the
case, and the answer is somewhat situation dependent. However, there are a few things
to keep in mind. First, you may be able to encourage the other person to adopt a
principled negotiation style by modeling appropriate behaviors. Do not immediately
change your approach, if your counterparts approach is negative, hostile, or aggressive.
Stay on the high road. Being professional and polite. Asking questions and ignoring

hostile statements and actions. At least initially. Be insistent the conversation focus on
interests not positions. And be clear that your goal is to maximize benefits for both
parties. Also, if it is clear that your counterpart sees only a single pie to be divided, but
your counterpart is striving for a win lose outcome and is not interested in a
collaborative approach, then you must develop a set of objective criteria by which to
judge the agreement. Change the focus of the conversation to how you will determine if
the agreement is sound, and in the interest of both parties. Such a conversation takes
the focus off of positions and turns it interests and outcomes. Stark and Flaherty offer a
list of 100 tactics in the best response to them in their book, The Only Negotiating Guide
You'll Ever Need. If you're struggling with a particularly difficult counterpart, I encourage
you to consult this book and develop a planned response to your counterpart's tactics.
This module focused on the people on both sides of a negotiation and some of their
most beneficial traits and behaviors. It is worth your time to reflect introspectively about
your own approach to negotiation and how you can further develop it to your
advantage. Also, consider reviewing some of the additional resources for this module.
Take time also to review the videos and the interview to follow.

4. Preparation, Planning and Implementation

Lecture transcript 4.1 Making Offers

Welcome to the fourth and final module of this course, Preparation, Planning, and
Implementation. In this module, I will talk about specific actions related to planning,
making and responding to offers, and options to consider for adding value to your
agreement. The most frequently overlooked steps in a negotiation are the planning and
preparation steps. It is just not wise to limit your knowledge of the situation to what
your counterpart tells you and what is discussed in your meetings and telephone calls. It
is critical that you research your counterpart, the organization, the market conditions,
the competition, and previous agreements with this organization. It is also critically
important to plan each interaction. Plan the questions. Plan the questions you will ask
and plan how to present your proposals and your ideas, and plan how you will react to
an, anticipated and some unanticipated behaviors on the part of your counterpart. The
objectives for this final module are to understand the components and timing of first
offers, learn the importance and contents of a framework agreement, learn the
importance and contents of a BATNA, review best practices and suggestions for
successful negotiations. Let's assume that you've fully researched your counterpart and
his or her organization. You have had several discussions, asked many questions, and
feel that you have a good understanding of what is needed to achieve both their goals
and yours. Now you are ready to develop and deliver a first offer. Many negotiation
specialists believe that the likelihood of achieving what you want out of a negotiation is
dramatically improved if you make the first offer. Some will go so far as to say that if
you do not make the first offer, you are unlikely to achieve your goals. Most will simply

say that you simply lose some power and have to work a little harder to regain it. There
are others, though, who firmly believe that you lose power and show your hand if you
make the first offer. In only one situation is it clear that it is in your best interest not to
make the first offer, and that is when the other party knows more about you than you
do about them. The important things to keep in mind are what is contained in your first
offer and when is the best time to present it. When is the timing right? Is it right when
you feel that you have a thorough understanding of the array of value options available
to you? Which ones had the most significance to your counterpart? You have developed
a trusting relationship with your counterpart and you are ready to engage in dialogue
about that agreement. In reality, the better prepared both parties are, the less it
matters who makes the first offer. There is, of course, the possibility that your
counterpart will make the first offer. You have a few choices in this situation. If you feel
there is much more information gathering to be done, you can simply say, I'm not yet
ready to discuss terms, and continue with your questions and information gathering. Or
if you think you are close, then you should have your opening offer prepared before the
meeting. If your counterpart offers first, that's okay. You can follow with a thank you and
an explanation that you too have an opening offer which may be quite different, but
that you would like to explain it, and hope that the two offers will serve as a springboard
for a robust dialogue, leading to much additional value for both parties. Let's be clear.
We're talking here about the first offer, not the first interaction. Your first offer should
come only after developing trust, creating a shared pool of understanding, and asking
many questions designed to help you understand the full set of options available to you
and which hold the greatest value for your counterpart. Only after gathering all of this
information can you make your opening offer. Of course, this is in a perfect world. In
many situations, you do not have the luxury of meeting for information gathering for
very long or too many times. You may be under time constraint by your own
organizational leadership or simply the need to settle the agreement and get on with
business. Therefore, you'll need to balance the need for information gathering with
keeping the process going and keeping your counterpart engaged. Also, if you believe
there is tremendous value in making the first offer, then you will want to add your
assessment of the likelihood of your counterpart making for, making a first offer into
your decision about the timing. The term first offer is important. It is just that. It is not
your only offer or your final offer. It is your first offer. Keep this in mind as you define
your first offer that your counterpart very often will view it as your stake in the ground
and everything following it will be measured against that first offer. You will find that
some counterparts may view the value of their win is based on how far they can move
you from the initial offer. While this may be the case, keep in mind that the firmer you
are about your initial offer, the less credibility you have as you move away from it. I'm
not suggesting you be hesitant about the offer, but I am suggesting that you don't state
it as your best or final offer, unless it is. Consider the personality of your counterpart
and your relationship as you consider how you will approach this step. You may want to
come across as firm but open-minded. Alternatively, you may want to come across as
less committal, as in one thing to consider is what the current going rate is for less than

ten of these in an order which is, and state the number. This has much to do with the
relationship and personality of your counterpart as well as yours. You may want to come
across as firm but open-minded. Alternatively, you may want to come across as less
committal as in, one thing to consider is what the current going rate is for less than ten
of these in an order which is, and then state the number. This has as much to do with
the relationship and personality of your counterpart as well as yours. For you, the best
preparation for this first offer and future negotiations is to create a template of a best
possible agreement in advance of making offers, and making counteroffers. Roger Fisher
and William Ury refer to a framework agreement in their book, Getting to Yes. In a
framework agreement, you create a template of either a written agreement or an
outline of any other type of agreement, in which you've included all the variables which
you want to be in the agreement, in which you think the counterpart may want to, your
counterpart may want to be in the agreement. Define for yourself what a best possible
agreement would look like from your perspective, being realistic about the need to
create value for your counterpart. It can be as detailed as a draft of an actual
agreement or an outline of a specific variables to be included and the targeted
members you're striving for in each case. While there is tremendous value in writing
down your first offer, a formal written proposal isn't necessary at this point. Also, don't
confuse this framework agreement with your BATNA. The BATNA helps you to know
when to walk. The framework agreement is your definition of the best possible outcome.
The range of possible agreements lies between the two. So how do you decide what
your first offer will be? If you have prepared well and gathered information on a wide
range of value variables, the points of value you choose to define in your first offer
should be apparent to you as you consider the big picture. One way to think about just
how high to go for the first offer is to determine a number which you consider to be the
highest number or value that you would feel comfortable convincing a neutral party was
a fair offer. This is because your first offer is your stake in the ground and is probably a
set of options that is the most you can probably achieve. It should be set to be close to,
in fact, slightly worse than what you perceive the other party's barely acceptable terms.
If you know or have enough information to predict your counterpart's BATNA, then your
opening offer or the most you can hope to achieve should be set to be slightly worse
than the counterpart's BATNA while being as close as possible to your best possible
outcome. Then you can negotiate terms which bring this set of variables to be better
than their BATNA and as close as possible to your framework agreement. Some other
considerations are the location of your meeting and how you will communicate. The
choice of where to meet would be based on your knowledge of the counterpart, and the
type of support you might want to have available during your conversation. For
example, if one or both of you tend to have many interruptions when in your own
offices, perhaps an outside location would be preferable. Also, if you want to have
access to samples or informational resources, your location might be preferable.
Considerations such as travel, availability, and comfort level of your counterpart may
also play a role. As far as how to communicate, face-to-face is certainly preferable.
Many people believe they are just as comfortable and successful doing negotiations by

telephone or email, but studies indicate that there is a significant loss in potential value
for both sides when telephone or email are the primary means of communication. In this
lecture, we discussed the timing, the content, and the presentation of a first offer. The
recommendation is for you to make the first offer and to consider the personality and
operating style of your counterpart when you're planning how you will present the offer.

Lecture transcript4.2 Framework Agreement

In this lecture, I will talk about framework agreements, why they're important, and what
they should contain. Far too often, negotiators enter a negotiated, a negotiation
meeting with only a small amount of information about the counterpart, your
organization, the market conditions, and the competition. Many negotiators enter a
negotiation meeting with only a lowest or highest possible price number from their own
organizations. They have no specific outcome goals, no information about additional
options to add to their agreement, and no information about what their counterpart's
position might be. This is a big mistake. Perhaps you've heard the quote from the
famous baseball player and coach Yogi Berra. If you don't know where you're going,
you'll end up somewhere else. This quote is an absolute truth when it comes to
negotiation. Having no goals is akin to handing over the control of the conversation and
the negotiation to your counterpart. If you have no goals, you have very little power. You
don't know which questions to ask. You don't know if you're making progress or even if
you've been successful when it's over. You must have a set of goals for your negotiation
other than getting the best deal possible. This is probably the goal of most negotiators,
but they haven't defined what the best deal actually is, then there is no way to know if
you've actually achieved it. Therefore, at the beginning of the negotiation process, you
should develop a framework agreement. Think of your framework agreement as the
bullseye on a target you are aiming at. The framework agreement is the ultimate
agreement you could achieve that is realistic. As you do your research, develop your
questions, and explore options with your counterpart, you are doing so in order to move
toward your goal, the framework agreement. Achievable, realistic, these words might
sound familiar to many of you with respect to goals because many organizations
develop smart goals for initiatives such as negotiated agreements. A framework
agreement is a written document that details the goal or goals of your negotiation, and
it is for your own use only. A smart goal is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic,
and time bound. All of these smart goal components should be in your framework
agreement. You should be specific about the final price, what is included, and the terms
of the agreement. By including these specifics, you will be able to measure your final
agreement against your framework agreement to evaluate the results. These specifics
must be achievable and that you know your organization can support what you've
written and that the counterpart's organization is likely to be able to afford and
accomplish what you've written. The goals must also be realistic. Are your delivery
terms realistic given your current turnaround capabilities? Are your expectations of your
counterpart realistic in terms of their position in their market, their internal capabilities,
and costs? And finally, have you defined the various time parameters in terms of start

date, length of contact, and change requirements? Your framework agreement should
include the primary subject or issue at hand, and all the negotiated variables and
options that you want to go with it. For example, if you're negotiating a service contract,
be sure to include the price you are hoping to charge or pay for the service, for the
payment terms, the delivery terms, the duration of the contract, and what deet, and the
details of what is included in the service. Finally, the framework agreement is a
document that you write for your own in-house purposes which defines the agreement
you would like to have if you achieve your goal. It is your best possible outcome
agreements or your target, and it is not designed for sharing with your counterpart. It
might, however, be the basis for the agreement you eventually finalize. As you progress
through your negotiations, you will find that there will need to be changes made to the
framework agreement. This is fine and to be expected. Just be sure to make those
changes to your framework agreement. Remember, if you move a target but keep
aiming at the original location, you are very unlikely to hit it. You need to have an
updated framework agreement to use it as a guide. In this lecture, I explain the
framework agreement. I explain the framework agreement and its importance for
providing direction to you as you plan, research, generate questions, and consider
options. Write your framework agreement as a very detailed smart goal, being sure that
it is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time bound.

Lecture transcript4.3 Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement

Just about any book, article, or paper that you read about negotiation, at some point,
will refer to a BATNA. So what exactly is it? The acronym, BATNA, stands for best
alternative to a negotiated agreement. And was coined originally by Roger Fisher
and William Ury in their book Getting to Yes. So you developed your framework
agreement and know the direction you're headed. You're even prepared to make
modifications as the negotiation proceeds. Before you go into a negotiation though, you
should also determine your BATNA. Many negotiators give little consideration to what
will happen or what they will do if the negotiation fails. They might have a list of
possibilities in there head but they haven't thought them through to determine
feasibility. The single biggest mistake I see in this respect is having a list of possible
alternatives either written down or in your mind. But no specific plan for which of these
options or combination of options will be done if no agreement is reached. Looking at a
collection of alternatives as a single whole tends to make the alternatives appear to be
much better than they are. Imagine that you are a service provider negoti, in a service
provider negotiation for a cleaning service agreement for an office. If you don't get the
agreement, what will you do? Are you thinking you'll go to the other 50 companies in
the building? Drop your price. Cut our services in the offer. Come back next year. Higher
the competitor's best worker. Or come back in a few months with a, with references. The
reality is that you can't and probably won't do all of these things. You can only do one or
a couple of them in combination. Which one will it be? There is tremendous power in
having a good BATNA. You are less desperate, you reduce the unknowns and fears

associated with not finalizing an agreement. And most importantly, you have a realistic
scenario against which to compare all incoming offers. You need to have a clearly
defined BATNA and compare every proposal against it, asking yourself is this better than
the BATNA? If it isn't, you are either not done negotiating or maybe it's time to walk
away. In determining your BATNA, you must consider all the possible alternatives of the
agreement, you hope, of an, of an agreement that you hope to make. A high quality
BATNA will go through a thorough explanation of all possible alternatives and outcomes.
To do this, begin by creating a list of all possible actions you might take if no agreement
is made. This list should be comprehensive and include everything you can think of,
even if they seem a little outlandish at first glance. The second step is to determine a
few of the most promising ideas and then develop them into practical alternatives that
could realistically be implemented. The third stage is to evaluate the ideas developed in
step two and select the best alternative. Once you have created your BATNA, you can
judge every offer with all of its various options added against your BATNA. You have
much more power here because it is much easier to break off a negotiation, or to make
changes if you know where you're going afterward. Consider also what your
counterpart's BATNA might look like. They might even disclose it to you during your
information gathering. This would be extremely valuable information. This raises the
question, should you share your BATNA with your counterpart? I'm afraid there is no
straightforward answer to this question. This depends very much on your counterpart's
behavior, and his approach. If your BATNA is considerably better than what your
counterpart is offering, then it might be in your best interest to share it with your
counterpart. If however, your BATNA is worse than what they're offering, then you would
be wise not to share it. Remember, perceived power can be just as effective as real
power. When the other side is considerably more powerful than you, spend even more
time developing a detailed BATNA. Understand the merits of each component of your
BATNA and you better be able to evaluate and dialogue about merits of the components
of the agreement. Many organizations use a bottom line strategy, which I did talk about
in an earlier module. This can also be effective. Employing a bottom line strategy means
that those in authority over you or over your counterpart have provided the absolute
lowest or highest prices that are acceptable, and perhaps some other terms. This
information can certainly keep you where your counterpart from developing any
agreements that would be disagreeable or injurious to your organizations. But they tend
to deliv, to limit development of high value agreements. The mindset of the companies
bottom line agreements is to simply do better than the bottom line. The mindset that a
company is a framework agreement and bottom line strategy is one that uses creativity
to seek new options and combinations that increase the value of the agreement to both
sides. In this lecture, I explained the use of BATNA or best alternative to a negotiated
agreement. I believe it is a wise negotiator that always has a clearly defined BATNA
before beginning the writing of or the evaluation of a proposal.

Lecture transcript4.4 Developing Options for Negotiation

I have spoken extensively in this course about the importance of developing options and
seeking creative combinations of the variables that could be added to the central issue
of your negotiation. In this lecture, I shall discuss some of these options and how to go
about using them in your negotiations. And you should be considering the interest,
not the positions of the organizations or people involved. When you focus on
positions, you tend to become focused on specific details or specific demands. Being
made instead of finding the most advantageous solution to a problem or a means of
fulfilling a need. Once you've fully researched your counterpart's organization, the
market conditions, the need to be met, the cost associated with it. It is the time to, this
is the time to consider options that might make a proposal more attractive. Put yourself
in your counterpart's position. Try to think from his or her point of view and ask how
could I fulfill this need in the most attractive manner possible? What does my
counterpart most likely have in his or her framework agreement and which components
can I easily provide? What can I add that either us, that is either a strength of my
organization or a low cost add on that will make my , proposal more appealing? You
should also consider your position in terms of your counterpart's BATNA. What do I need
to offer to be a better alternative than my counterpart's BATNA? And that is fair from my
counterpart's perspective. Think creatively as you analyze your options for price in
terms of its relationship to volume, delivery, contract period, payment terms and
specifications. Seek unique combinations that serve the needs and interests of both
organizations. Then begin to seek additional options associated with each of these
components. For example, volume, does it matter to your organization which version of
a product is purchased in terms of volume cost savings? Are the red ones more
expensive to produce than the blue ones? In the case of contract period, does the
contract period need to be the same for all categories of, union employees? Could the
contractive length, period length be contingent upon the wage changes? What about
delivery? Is their flexibility in the delivery timing or the location or packaging which
might make a difference. In the service sector, instead of delivery, we might look at
timing. Are there events, holidays, or times of year that might increase or decrease the
value? There are so many possibilities. Consider each of the main negotiating points
that I have mentioned. Price, volume, delivery terms and specifications in turn. For
each, what are the various possibilities, and then, what creative combinations of
possibilities can you create, which make an appealing proposal, that aligns with your
smart goal? Of course, this assumes that you've chosen the path of , principle
negotiation, and that you intend to achieve the greatest value for all parties in the
negotiation. If you chose the path of win lose, or simply bargaining or bartering over a
defined and unchanging amount or value. Then none of this is necessary. However, the
reality of most negotiated agreements is that they will need to be revised, renewed and
updated over time. The better your relationship with your counterpart and the better
your proposal, the more smoothly future interactions will go and the more likely you are
to do business with each other, with the other organization again. Bartering, bargaining,
and win-lose approaches to negotiation do not lead to positive long term relationships.
In this lecture, I discuss the options and variables. For you to consider and creatively

combine to create a proposal that comes as close as possible to both your and your
counterpart's framework agreements and maximizes the value of the agreement to both
organizations.

Lecture transcript4.5 Best Practices of Negotiation

As we wrap up this course on the art of negotiation, I'd like to leave you with some rules
to live by or best practices when it comes to negotiation. First and foremost is that in all
negotiations your ultimate goal is to maximize the value for both parties. You will
undoubtedly encounter many counterparts who do not share this goal, but you should
always start with that as your pursuit. Negotiations focus solely on the distribution of a
single option or unchangeable set of options are destined to end up as hard bargaining
negotiations, which are almost always win, lose. Always seek new opportunities to add
value to the agreement instead of battling over an unchanging pool of options. Begin
the process of negotiation by building trust. It is a critical component of a quality
negotiated agreement, and can't be started too soon. It's wise to begin the process of
trust development in all business relationships, both within your organization and
without. Even if you're not engaged in a negotiation. Do this by building connections,
demonstrating your competence and reliability, speaking accurately and honestly,
providing support and assistance without an expectation of compensation and engaging
in meaningful, straightforward, and positive dialogue. You never know with whom you'll
end up negotiating and it pays to have developed trust before you begin. Tailor your
approach to the personality of your counterpart. Every counterpart will be different, and
every negotiation will be different. In the early stages, spend your time learning about
your counterpart. Is his or her preferred style of interaction, typical body language, and
the topics and issues which seem to generate emotional responses? Model good
dialogue and questioning behavior. And work to understand and consider options from
your counterpart's point of view. As you are asking questions, listening to responses,
and observing body language, work to understand what is happening in your
counterpart's mind. And try to understand his or her motivations and limitations.
Observe his or her interactive style. For example, does he prefer to minimize small talk
and get straight to the point? Does she like to chat about the weather or the current
events before getting down to business? Does she have lots of pictures of family or
friends in the office? Or none? These observations can tell you quite a bit about your
counterpart's preferred operating style. Ask questions, lots of questions. Please note
that I am not recommending that you turn your conversation into an inquisition. But
that you use questions for a wide variety of information gathering, information sharing
and idea testing. If anything is unclear or confusing be sure to ask about it. If your
counterpart reacts negatively or strongly to something you say, you may want to ask
why or if you are interpreting their response accurately. Use quality questioning to
demonstrate your interest in the counterpart's needs and expectations, options that
might be of interest and his or her level of comfort with the negotiation. Ask questions
also to clarify your counterpart's level of authority and empowerment. And determine
just how much power he or she really has in this negotiation. Listen and observe, listen

to what your counterpart is telling you and not telling you. Avoid listening with an
agenda. Don't think about what you will say next while your counterpart is speaking.
Listen to what he or she is saying and respond appropriately. Listen for changes in
volumes, changes in tone, changes in or, or hesitation. Take note of what you hear after
the meeting and think through what was said and what was not said. Generally
speaking, the recommendation is to talk less and listen more. The more your
counterpart talks, the more you learn about his or her expectations, requirements,
position, and values. While you are listening, asking, and answering questions and
presenting proposals, control your emotional responses and exercise self-discipline.
Strong emotional responses should only be used intentionally and in a very limited and
controlled manner. It is easy to lose power when showing excessive emotion. Even if
your counterpart is engaging in emotional outbursts, strive to remain calm and in
control. Model the self-control which you need for your counterpart to exhibit. As you
are preparing to meet or present your proposal keep in mind that you probably have
more power than you think. This power is only useful to you however if you use it. So
don't be afraid to use perceived power if you're confident that your counterpart
perceives this power to be real and it can be just as useful as real power. As you get the
point of presenting and negotiating proposals, keep your focus on increasing value and
not just distributing it. It is far too easy when negotiations become challenging, our
counterparts attempt to use particularly negative tactics, to fall into hard bargaining or
simple distribution of what has already been defined as the main point of the
negotiation. Always be on the lookout for means or options to add value to the
agreement by considering creative combinations. Once a proposal is on the table and
negotiations over various points are underway, focus on interests, not positions.
Positions tend to be argued, but the interest that underlie might include some
compatibility. There are likely to be multiple interests which underly a position and
multiple means of achieving the interests. Find out by asking why and why not. When
you present an idea, suggestion, or proposal, always present your reasons first and the
proposal afterward. If you present the proposal first, your counterpart is likely to stop
listening to you, stop listening to your reasons, and perceive them as justifications after
the fact. During your dialogue, be clear on your goals and objectives for the resulting
agreement but also be clear that you're open to new ideas. This is the greatest
justification for having a clear and complete framework agreement and a clear and
detailed BATNA. Look at each proposal or suggestion as one option of multiple options.
You should not present you, yours as your only position nor should you perceive your
counterparts as his or her only position. Regardless of how it was presented. Finally, you
must prepare and plan. Prepare by doing research, learning everything you can about
your counterpart, the organization, the market conditions, your competition and your
own options for delivery, volume, packaging, payment terms, inventory, inclusions and
support. Use what you have learned to plan. Plan your questions, your framework
agreement, and your BATNA before you make or consider any proposals. Plan how and
when you will offer a proposal and how you will respond to the potential reactions of
your counterpart. These basic guidelines are my recommendations for all negotiators.

Beyond these, it is very much about your personal style and how you adapted to the
needs of the specific negotiation in which you are engaged.

Getting Past No: Negotiating With Difficult

People
by

William Ury
Citation:
Getting Past No: Negotiating With Difficult People, William Ury, (New York: Bantam Books,
1991).
This book summary written by: Conflict Research Consortium Staff.
In Getting Past No, Ury presents a five-step strategy for negotiating with an uncooperative,
intransigent opponent. There are usually reasons behind a person's uncooperative behavior.
People may behave badly in negotiations out of anger or fear, because they don't know any more
effective way to behave, because they don't see any benefit from negotiating, or because they see
asserting their own power as the only alternative to being dominated. Intransigent behaviors are
likely to provoke an angry response, and so the effective negotiator faces the additional challenge
of controlling their own reactions.
The first step in bringing the other party around to more effective negotiating behavior is
controlling one's own behavior. When confronted with a difficult situation, people typically
either strike back, give in, or break off the relationship. These are counter-productive responses.
When facing a difficult opponent, Ury recommends "going to the balcony." Do not react.
Instead, keep your mental equilibrium by distancing yourself emotionally and viewing the
situation objectively. Identify your underlying interests and your best alternative to a negotiated
settlement (BATNA). Decide whether it is worth negotiating in the situation. Take a moment to
recognize the tactics your opponent is using, and to recognize your own feelings and "hot button"
issues. When in negotiations, pause, take a time-out, or review the discussion to date in order to
gain time to "go to the balcony." Never make a decision on the spot; always withdraw, even
briefly, to review the settlement objectively.
The next step is to disarm the opponent by stepping to their side. The goal is to reassure the
opposite side and help them regain their own mental balance. Listen actively to them, by asking
clarifying questions and paraphrasing their statements. Acknowledge their points and feelings.
Apologize if appropriate, or at least express sympathy for their problem. Focus on areas of

agreement. Ury stresses the importance of saying and eliciting the word "yes" to reduce tensions
and foster an atmosphere of agreement. In expressing your own views adopt a both/and
approach. Say "Yes, and..." instead of "But..." Make I-statements rather than accusative youstatements. "Whatever language you use, the key is to preset your views as an addition to, rather
than a direct contradiction of, your opponent's point of view."(p. 51)
Step three is to reframe the dispute in terms of interests rather than positions. The best way to
get the opposite side to focus on interests is to ask open-ended, problem solving-oriented
questions. Ask "why" questions to elicit the opponent's interests. If they resist, ask them "why
not" questions about alternative solutions. "What if" questions introduce new options without
directly challenging the opponent's position. Position-based negotiating tactics can be handled
by ignoring them, or by reformulating them. Reinterpret firm positions as aspirations.
Reinterpret personal attacks as expressions of concern, or as attacks on the problem. If the
opponents continue to use counter-productive tactics, it may be necessary to explicitly (but
tactfully) identify the problematic behavior, and have a negotiation about which tactics are
appropriate.
Step four, Ury says, is to "build them a golden bridge" to draw them from their position to an
agreement. Make it easy for them to say yes by removing common obstacles to agreement.
Opponents may resist ideas that are not their own. Avoid the temptation to tell other side what
the solution is. Instead, ask them for their ideas and constructive criticisms. Offer them choices.
An opponent's resistance may indicate that she still has unmet interests. Try to understand the
other side's logic and perspective, and do not overlook intangible interests such as needs for
recognition, identity or security. Many people will reject an agreement rather than lose face.
Find ways for opponents to agree without appearing to compromise their principles or sacrifice
their dignity. One way is to seek third-party recommendations. Ury notes that "a proposal that is
unacceptable coming from you may be acceptable if it comes from a third-party."(p. 102) Give
the other side credit for finding a solution. Suggest ways of present the agreement to
constituents in the most favorable light. Finally, people may resist an agreement if it is too much
change, coming too fast. Break the agreement into a progression of smaller agreements. If they
resist, reassure them that no commitment is final until all are. Do not rush the final agreement.
Allow the opponent to "go to the balcony" before making their decision.
What if the other side refuses to take the golden bridge to an agreement? Step five, complements
step four, offering ways to make it hard for the opponent to say no. The common reaction at this
point is to resort to power tactics and try to force them to agree. This is counter-productive. Ury
says, "Instead of using power to bring your opponent to his knees, use it to bring him to his
senses."(p. 113) The goal is to educate the other party to realize that an agreement is in their best
interest. Ask them reality-testing questions about what will happen if no agreement is reached.
Alert them (without threatening) to your BATNA. If they still resist agreement, you may need to
deploy your BATNA. Ury offers this rule for any exercise of power in negotiations: "The more
power you use, the more you need to defuse your opponents resistance."(p. 121) Couple power
tactics with conciliatory moves. Seek to neutralize your opponent's attacks, rather than
responding with counter-attacks. Seek allies from the larger community. Third-parties can
inhibit threats or attacks, and can pressure both sides to resume negotiations. Remind the
opponent of the attractiveness of the proposed agreement, and reassure them that your aim is

mutual satisfaction. Because imposed settlements are unstable, it may be better to negotiate an
agreement even in cases where you have a decisive advantage.
In conclusion, Ury reminds us that the goal of negotiations is not to destroy the other side, nor to
dominate them. The goal is to win them over, so that they become partners in a shared problem
solving process.

NEGOTIATION TACTICS FOR GETTING PAST NO

1. Dont React . . . make this an out of body experience and adopt an
attitude of detachment.
Name the Game . . . whats behind their behavior?;
Know Your Hot Buttons . . . there are certain physiological responses that
impact you, and you may be aware of words or phrases
that incite or anger try to avoid hitting these buttons;
Buy Time to Think . . . pause or gather your thoughts; its all right to be
silent and get past the impulse to reactthis is a good
time for humor or diversion in order to cool down before
. making a decision or taking a position.
2. Dont Argue . . . listen to understand rather than listen to reply.
Listen Actively . . . ask questions and paraphrase to show you care and
understand;
Acknowledge Their Point . . . agree whenever you can and be prepared
to offer an apology;
Agree Whenever You Can . . . youre building the bridge from your side
and asking them to begin theirs;
Acknowledge the Person . . . show respect and stay away from hostile
bargaining;
Express Your Views Without Provoking . . . try not to use the word but
rather, follow your point with the word and;
Create a Favorable Climate for Negotiation . . . try to breed respect and
speak from the first person I;
3. Reframe . . . ask for their advice few people can resist opening-up to you
with their advice and opinionits flattering.
Joint Problem Solving Atmosphere . . . ask why do you want this?; help
me understand why;
Ask Problem Solving Questions . . . ask why not this?; what makes that
a fair outcome?; ask what if questions for discussion;
Go Around Stone Walls . . . treat this as an aspiration rather that a demand;
Deflect Attacks . . . focus on the problem and the person is not the problem;
Expose Tricks . . . ask for clarification; ask what is the purpose; make
reasonable requests;
Negotiate About the Rules of the Game . . . call the person on their behavior.
4. Build Them a Golden Bridge . . . youre both going to walk across it.
Involve the Other Side . . . give them ownership in the resolution; dont sell
your ideas but engage them in joint problem-solving;

Satisfy Unmet Interests . . . ask whats important to them;

Help Them Save Face . . . do unto others as you would have others do unto
you; a persons pride is a very intimate and private part of each
of us and should be respected and protected;
Dont Rush . . . especially at the end, this could unravel the deal.
5. Use Power to Educate . . . we are what we know.
Let Them Know the Consequences . . . try not to be threatening or
aggressive but realistic and sincere;
Discuss Alternatives to Resolution . . . defuse their reaction; use objective
standards or outside data; be balanced;
Keep Sharpening Their Choice . . . once important interests have been
identified, the resolution can be crafted;
Forge a Lasting Agreement . . . coercion or misunderstanding will undo
what you thought was done; be precise with expectations;
Aim for Mutual Satisfaction, Not Victory . . . at some point you both agreed
to be respectful winners and to take away from the
negotiation what you truly need and not necessarily what
you want.

Getting Past No William Ury

Navigate the obstacles that stand between you and Yes. Reach the optimal solution when both sides
engage in the problems that divide them.

Getting Ready Breaking Through Barriers to Cooperation

Negotiation is the process of back and forth communication aimed at reaching agreement with
others when some of your interests are shared and some are opposed
Joint Problem Solving
o Jointly attack the problem instead of attacking each other
o Identify the interests (concerns, needs, fears, desires) that motivate opposing positions
o Explore different options for meeting interests
Five Barriers to Cooperation - the sequence of the above 5 steps are important, but you must
continually circle back to the beginning of the process
1. Your Reaction regain your mental balance and stay focused
2. Their Emotion help the other side regain their mental balance to stay focused
3. Their Position accept what they say and reframe it to deal with the problem; act as if they were
your partner
4. Their Dissatisfaction bridge the gap between their interests and yours; help them save face to
make it look like a victory for them
5. Their Power show them that they cannot win by themselves
Change the Game: do the opposite of what you naturally feel like doing in difficult situations
Meeting Preparations
o Prepare, Prepare, Prepare - before, after, and then adapt Lessons Learned
o Interests a partys position on what they want; tangible motivations
Figure out and rank your interests dont trade off on the important interests
Figure out their interests and their perceptions

o Options do not explore on a single solution; explore creative options to satisfy interests
o Standards independent measuring stick that decides what is a fair solution (i.e. market value,
equal treatment, law, historical experiences); do your homework
o Alternatives Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)
Identify your BATNA consider three alternatives
Identify their BATNA
o Proposals commit on what you aspire to and would be content with

Using the Breakthrough Strategy

Dont React: Go To The Balcony step back, collect your wits and view the situation
objectively
o Action provokes reaction and reaction provokes counter reaction, which is a futile and costly
confrontation
o Striking back rarely advances your immediate interests and damages your long-term relationships.
You may win the battle, but lose the war
o Breaking off all communication can be a costly mistake; dont lose sight of your interests
o Recognize Tactics
Stone Wall refusal to budget
Attacks intimidation to make you uncomfortable
Tricks manipulate you into giving in
o Know Your Hot Buttons
o Buy Time To Think
Pause and Say Nothing quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to act
Rewind The Tape repeat what you heard; neutralize the impact
Take A Time Out call a caucus to discuss the new offering
Dont Make Important Decision On The Spot
Dont Get Mad, Dont Get Even, Get What You Want
Dont Argue: Step To Their Side
o Disarm the person by defusing hostile emotions; get them to hear your point of view by doing the
opposite of what they expect
o Listen Actively
o Acknowledge Their Points
o Agree Without Conceding
o Build A Working Relationship
o Express Your Views Without Provoking
Dont say yes, but.say yes, and
Make I statements, not You statements
Acknowledge Differences With Optimism
Dont Push: Build Them A Golden Bridge
o Mediate so that your proposal is not rejected because its not their idea
o Build on their ideas
o Ask for constructive criticism
o Offer them a choice
o Satisfy their unmet interests
o Dont dismiss them as irrational
o Dont overlook basic human needs
o Help them save face to back away without backing down
o Dont rush - dont ask for a final commitment until the end

 Dont Reject: Reframe

o Redirect the other sides attention away from positions
Identify interests
Invent creative options
Discuss fair standards
o Treat hard-line positions as an informative contribution to the discussion
o Ask Problem Solving Questions
Why
Why Not
What If
Ask for Advice
Why Is That Fair
Make Questions Open Ended
o Reframe Tactics
Go around Stone Walls ignore it, reinterpret it or test it
Deflect Attacks reframe as an attack on the problem to be solved jointly
Expose Tricks ask clarifying questions to turn tricks to your advantage
o The Turning Point Changing the Game
Dont Escalate: Use Power To Educate
o Break through the barrier of power plays - An eye for an eye makes everyone blind (M. Ghandi)
o Let them know the consequences - warn, dont threaten
o Demonstrate your BATNA
o Tape the Third Force
Build a coalition of supporters
Use third parties to stop attacks
Use third parties to promote negotiation
o Let them know their choices
o Negotiate even when you are winning
o Forge a lasting agreement
Minimize risks
Build dispute resolution procedures
o Reaffirm your relationship
o Aim for mutual satisfaction, not victory
Turning Adversaries Into Partners
o Your goal is not to win over them, but to win them over
o Be patient and persistent
o Small breakthroughs add up to major breakthroughs