ROSEANN RANDAZZO NEGOTATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION MIDTERM 7/15/11 1.

Describe and discuss the major theories and concepts embodied in Getting to Yes by Fisher, Ury and Patton and offer your own views on these ideas. (50 points) Fisher and Ury introduce their book by stating that negotiation is a fact of life, everyone negotiates something every day and it is a back and forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed. The book assesses two basic categories of negotiation styles. The first chapters purpose is to explain the problems that occur when using the standard strategies of positional bargaining. The rest of the book is dedicated to examining the method of principled negotiation. Detailed within the text are the authors principles for effective negotiation. Fisher and Ury argue that positional bargaining; which includes hard and soft styles of negotiation does not produce good agreements. Positional bargainers see the negotiation process as carving up a fixed pie. Their primary concern is to get a bigger piece of the pie leaving the other person(s) with less. Positional bargainers ten to believe that dominating force equals negotiating power; they tend to play tough, viewing any concession as soft, they may use various hard tactics such as stonewalling, attacking, and trickery (Arts Arbitration and Mediation Services, 2002). Throughout the book Fisher and Ury provide examples of the four principles of negotiation that they developed; and demonstrate that these methods can be used effectively in any type of dispute. Their four principles are 1) separate the people from the problem; 2) focus on interests rather than positions; 3) generate a variety of options before settling on an agreement; and 4) insist that the agreement be based on objective criteria. The authors recognize three basic people problem issues which are perception, emotions and communications. People tend to interpret facts differently. It is important to understand the other parties point of view and each side should envision the problem or dispute in each others place.

ROSEANN RANDAZZO NEGOTATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION MIDTERM 7/15/11 During negotiations emotions can become an obstacle to a successful outcome. It can be a

frustrating process. Some people react with anger fear or embarrassment when their point of view is challenged. The authors suggest that it is best not to judge emotional responses and to understand and acknowledge that emotions are present. It is also recommended not to dismiss feelings and not react to intense emotional responses. Communication is also a key component to a successful negotiation. The most important function of communication is listening. Each side should

summarize the other parties concerns in order to confirm each others understanding of the problem. Positive agreements result from focusing on the parties interests instead of their positions. Asking questions and paying attention to each others interests will allow each party to understand the core of the issue and both will be motivated to solve the issue as partners to the problem. After exploring and focusing on the parties interests instead of their positions it is important for both to create options for mutual gain. In most negotiations there are four major obstacles that inhibit the inventing of an abundance of options: 1) premature judgment; 2) searching for the single answer; 3) the assumption of a fixed pie; and 4) thinking that solving their problem is their problem. Creative alternatives can originate from explorations or brainstorming sessions. According to Fisher and Ury both parties should focus on common ground and common interests that will lead the parties away from the problem and into a mutually beneficial solution. Parties should insist on using objective criteria as a foundation throughout the decision or negotiation process. Industry standards, legal precedent or scientific findings are examples of sources of objective criteria. It is important for both parties to agree on such standard which will create an atmosphere of fairness during the process. Many times one party is more powerful than the other. The authors suggest that the weaker party concentrate on their BATNA. Best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Fisher and Ury note that the reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain. Prior to

ROSEANN RANDAZZO NEGOTATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION MIDTERM 7/15/11 entering into a negotiation each party should establish a bottom line to protect themselves from poor judgment and entering into a bad agreement. A BATNA is a bottom line of the worst acceptable outcome. Weak parties that prepare themselves with information and have a solid understanding of their BATNAs more so than the other side will negotiate a more favorable deal. It is fair to state that using the authors methods of principled negotiation is a better approach than positional bargaining. Principled negotiation allows the parties to develop better relationships during the process. It is based on the belief that when each side comes to understand the interests of the other, they can jointly create options that are mutually advantageous, resulting in an agreement in an amicable and efficient manner. Following their framework to principled negotiation will lead to better outcomes in every day life and work.

ROSEANN RANDAZZO NEGOTATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION MIDTERM 7/15/11 2. Draw and verbally describe Fishers circle chart. Explain how it works and offer your own thoughts and ideas on the effectiveness of the circle chart. (5 points) The authors state that there are generally four obstacles that will hinder the progress to a mutually beneficial solution. Problems arise from both parties when they search for premature solutions, look for a single answer, assume that the negotiation is a fixed pie scenario (which does not allow for creative option thinking), and believing that their problem is theirs and not yours to figure out. The authors state that it is important to first invent options then evaluate while specifically focusing on mutual gains while offering and assisting with solutions to their problems. After focusing on the counterpartys interests and concerns, Fisher and Ury

recommend brainstorming (by using the below circle chart) to generate creative options and diagnose and resolve problems. Circle Chart The Four Basic Steps in Inventing Options First step is to recognize the problem basically separate inventing options from deciding on those options and getting to the core of the issue. Second step in the process is to analyze the problem and determine the cause of the problem, Third step ask what the possible solutions may be. Consider the approaches. Fourth step is to follow the approaches with the next steps necessary to move forward; verify and determine goals. It is my opinion that the process of the circle chart is best to work with on a one on one negotiation. I can only base my opinion from my professional experience with Boards (multiple people from 7-9 participants) and that is that it may be difficult to determine or pinpoint an exact

ROSEANN RANDAZZO NEGOTATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION MIDTERM 7/15/11 problem because during a meeting the problem will keep evolving to the point where they themselves dont know how to identify the problem (politics hinder the moving forward process and most Board members come to the table with their own agendas that of course are not shared). Therefore, the circle theory would not be effective in my situation in theory and not very practical.

Step 2 Analyze the problem. What are the causes, and barriers to solving the problem? Step 1 State the problem What is the Reality vs. Desired result?

Step 3 Considering Approaches. Question what the possible strategies, Theoretical fixes

Step 4 Consider specific action ideas. What are the next steps? Goals and verify them.

ROSEANN RANDAZZO NEGOTATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION MIDTERM 7/15/11 3. Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side appears to be more powerful? How do I enhance my negotiating power? Your answer must include references to core readings and your opinions as to the effectiveness of these techniques. (20 points) In any negotiation it is not unusual for one party to be or appear to be more powerful than the other. The way you negotiate is very important and can make a difference. A negotiation strategy or style can make the difference between a great agreement and an agreement that is barely acceptable. Of course the party with the most power may try to manipulate the

negotiation. Your concern it to protect your parties interests as much as possible. Trying to determine the strength of each partys position can be dangerous. If it is established that the other party is more powerful it can be intimidating and may hinder the negotiators performance; and if it is concluded that the other party is weaker it may also hinder the negotiators performance by neglecting to thoroughly prepare. Never underestimate or overestimate the position of the opposing party. The best way to enhance negotiating power is to have a solid BATNA. Having the best bottom line, walk-away alternative to measure up against will allow the negotiator to understand and consider alternative options. According to Leigh L. Thompson, When negotiators have a great BATNA they have a lot of power. Because negotiators are not willing to settle for less than the value of their BATNA, they can hold out for a greater share of resources. Thompson also suggests that a negotiator should allude to options that they have but do not reveal it entirely. This will also create power because it signals that the party can walk away. According to Fisher and Ury sources of negotiation power consists of being prepared by having a good solid BATNA, developing a good working relationship, good communication and listening, understanding the interests and concerns of the other party, creating options, and using

ROSEANN RANDAZZO NEGOTATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION MIDTERM 7/15/11 a objective criteria. It is also important to research the other partys BATNA. The more information that is known about the counter party the better the chances of both parties of concluding on what works and is best for both (win-win). It is my opinion that utilizing the sources for negotiating power is effective. I have used them during contentious and adversarial Board meetings. When used properly and collectively it can defuse any concerns of the counter party and lead to a fair agreement.

ROSEANN RANDAZZO NEGOTATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION MIDTERM 7/15/11 4. Discuss Jim Camps views on negotiation strategies and tactics as advocated in No and offer your own views on these ideas. (50 points) Jim Camp instantly begins the book with a statement: No is the best word in negotiation and yes is the worst word. He believes in using the word No as an approach to negotiating which is contrary to the popular strategy known as win-win or principled negotiation (such as in Getting to Yes by Fisher and Ury). Camp explains that we do not like to hear or say No because of the fear of the word that is tied to the possibility of losing the negotiation. He states the impulse to say yes (as advocated in Getting to Yes, as well as its many other compromise, assumption, fear, and emotion based imitators) undermines you, at the very least, while the No strategy will liberate and protect you by releasing the emotional pressure in a negotiation. Negotiations are emotional. He believes that we want to hear yes so much that we compromise and settle for bad deals because of fear of rejection or fear of failing and our neediness. Camp provides us with the tools detect the signs of neediness in ourselves and to maintain control and remove emotions. Needing to close the deal makes a weaker negotiator

because the focus is coming from a place of emotion. A poorly equipped negotiator will be absorbed by that alone (within the middle of the emotional pendulum). A negotiator cannot control the

counterparty; however they can focus on controlling themselves. He also suggests making people feel comfortable with you (President Lincoln example) and with the ability to say No, that it is actually ok. Every No received is negotiable and reversible. It opens an opportunity to a better solution to evolve. The book also suggests not setting performance goals. Just be natural and dont rush to close, because that will then be your only focus. Have a mission and purpose. Allow the other

party to believe that you are in their world, ask the right questions and provide them with a vision of

ROSEANN RANDAZZO NEGOTATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION MIDTERM 7/15/11 the solution to their problem. Blank slate, the other side may be thinking something totally different. Ask simple questions repeat them 3 times if necessary, have an agenda prior to the negotiation and confront baggage and problems head on. Clear the air to understand and recognize their emotions. Preparation is the key to a successful negotiation. knowledge of the other party is essential. Doing homework and obtaining

Find out who actually makes the decisions. Once

information is available it can be used like a game of chess and anticipate their motivation and next move. The no system is not just contrarian. It creates an entirely new paradigm for

negotiation one that makes common sense, then intellectual sense, and finally practical sense in your life and work (Camp). It is my opinion that this book does not nullify the win-win approach. Depending on the circumstances both of these methods can be valuable to use.

ROSEANN RANDAZZO NEGOTATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION MIDTERM 7/15/11 5. Describe and discuss the main issues and tensions in creating and claiming value as discussed in The Manager as Negotiator excerpt by Lax and Sebenius Offer your own views on the concepts. (25 points) Opposing views are a constant in negotiations and in almost everything we do. How do we as negotiators make it work? How do two opposing sides come to a workable solution? Before any consideration, resolution or solution occurs, we have to understand the two opposing forces are undeniably linked to an ultimate solution. Lax and Sebenius link us to the resolution by their theory of creating and claiming; the Yin and Yang of negotiation. It is a given, that most people feel that when it comes to negotiation, it should be a win situationthe (claimers). However, there are others, those that come off softer in their negotiation, the (creators). The value creators are people who believe that co-operation is the key to success. Value claimers on the other hand, have a take no prisoners attitude when it comes to negotiation. Lax and Sebenius claim, that not only do these two opposing forces work together, they are inherent to resolving a conflict. It comes down to the understanding of both values. It really has to do with ourselves as individuals, and our styles as negotiators. If, according to the article, negotiation is inherently adversarial, then we are absolved to a certain amount of tension within the negotiation. Tension occurs when the inventive and cooperative clash with a win at no cost attitude. But how does this tension affect negotiation. It affects it in the following ways. Value creators will attempt to resolve issues with a co-operative attitude. They believe that winning encompasses a give but not necessarily a give in. They strive to find somewhat of a middle ground, while value claimers seek to take advantage of the weak mind of value creators. How can we really define what will work in any given negotiation? It is really relative to what the parties want at any given moment; and how loyalty, bias, and perhaps

10

ROSEANN RANDAZZO NEGOTATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION MIDTERM 7/15/11 misconception really play into the outcome. Basically, how do our own needs and wants as an individuals play in to the current negotiation? I believe that each negotiation has its own individual needs. Every negotiation is relative to its own outcome. There can be people that on either side that choose to play hardball the claimers or those that choose a more middle of the road stance the creators. We need to go into every negotiation not only playing these parts, but understanding where these stances will take us. Armed with the knowledge of the creator and the claimer we are afforded both sides of the coin. We can enter a negotiation as both the claimer AND the creator. And with this knowledge we can choose to win.

11