Module 3 Lesson 10 Negotiating

Front 1

a process involving two or more people/groups where:1. the parties have a degree of difference in positions, interests, goals, values orbeliefs, and2. the parties strive to reach agreement on issues or course of action.

Back 1

Negotiation

Front 2

Interest-Based Negotiations (IBN)

Back 2

the practice of focusing on the interests, and not the positions of the twonegotiating parties. It is the preferred style by the Air Force mediators because, in mostinstances, there will be a continuing relationship between the parties after mediation,and negotiations adjourn

Front 3

Interest:

Back 3

An interest is the reason behind your position. It is the “why” behind what you want.

Front 4

To help determine interests, investigate your position through a series ofcritical thinking (CT) questions that begin with

Back 4

who, what, when, where, and why.

Front 5

There are three basic types of interests: procedural, psychological and substantive

Back 5

procedural, psychological and substantive

Front 6

Procedural interests are

Back 6

those concerning how a process is conducted. Negotiators with these interests are not as concerned with the actual details of the outcome as they are with how an outcome is determined.

Front 7

Psychological interests (sometimes called relationship interests)

Back 7

are concerned with how people feel, how they are perceived, and how they relate with others.

Front 8

Substantive interests,

Back 8

which are perhaps the most important, have to do with things such as schedules, prices, salaries, etc. These make up the bulk of most negotiations.

Front 9

Negotiators should

Back 9

always work to identify and categorize the interests and then work at developing solutions that address the type of interest.

Front 10

Anchoring:

Back 10

Defined as “an offer that is at (or slightly more aggressive) than the aspiration point.”

Front 11

Offers can indicate one’s aspiration point and bargaining zone. The expectation is that the__________________________ pulls or secures an agreement close to one’s aspiration point. Research stronglysuggests that in simple bargaining situations the stronger one’s anchor, the closer the finalagreement is to the negotiator’s aspiration point.

Back 11

anchor

Front 12

Aspiration point:

Back 12

The best each party hopes to get out of a negotiated agreement.

Front 13

Reservation point:

Back 13

The ‘bottom line’; the least favorable option or offer you will accept.

Front 14

Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA):

Back 14

Defined as “an alternative that, should negotiations fail, you are willing and able to execute without the other party’s participation or permission.” Understanding your BATNA and the opposite’s BATNA will help you determine when or if you should walk away from the negotiation table. To formulate a practical BATNA, you must have both the capability (resources) and the will to execute this alternative on your own without any assistance. 3

Front 15

Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA):

Back 15

The “bargaining range” defined as the overlapping (common) area of each party’s aspiration point and reservation point. No overlap, no ZOPA!

Front 16

Demand:

Back 16

A is a statement of terms with no room for adjustment. It is positional and embodies the most precise use of a “take it or leave it” option.

Front 17

Divergent and Convergent Thinking:

Back 17

Divergent thinkers’ mental processes creative/spontaneous. comfortable with uncertainty/ambiguity. prefer flexible plans with many options

Convergent Thinkers tend to be reliable, rational/principle-based. work to reduce uncertainty/ ambiguity. prefer thorough plansthat address all contingencies.

Front 18

MP 2. TRUST INFORMATION POWER AND OPTIONS (TIPO) MODEL

Back 18

The purpose of this model is twofold. First, it illustrates how trust influences your use ofinformation and power, and how information and power influence the way you developoptions to resolve a dispute, solve a problem, and find a solution. Second, understandinghow trust, information, and power impact any negotiation session should motivate you toassess situations beforehand.

Front 19

TIPO

Back 19

TRUST

INFORMATION

POWER

OPTIONS

Front 20

When used correctly, the ________________________ can help you negotiate effectively with subordinates,supervisors, or anyone whose positions, interests, goals, values, and beliefs differ fromyours.

Back 20

TIPO model

Front 21

Trust, as it pertains to TIPO, is defined as:

Back 21

“Your belief and/or evidence that the opposite’s interactions with you are or will be genuine, sincere, and honest.”

Front 22

There are two major categories of trust -

Back 22

Trust In A Process and Trust In A Person.

Front 23

Process trust exists when

Back 23

both parties have faith in a governing institution and believe that it supports their negotiations. You trust that these processes promote outcomes that are justified (fair and impartial), legal, ethically acceptable, and also satisfy the interests of both parties.

Front 24

Personal trust stands alone. It is :

Back 24

not reliant on any institution or third party. At the most basic level, it is established between two people (i.e., supervisor and subordinate).

Front 25

Here are just three trustbuildingmeasures that help set the expectation for an honorable exchange between partiesinvolved in negotiations:

Back 25

1. Providing, or being provided, information in a way that both parties understand.

2. Delivering on promises made.

3. Taking a genuine interest in your opposites’ interests.

Front 26

The level of trust directly influences _______________________________________________________________________. When we trust our opposite, we believe the information they present istruthful and accurate.

Back 26

the amount of information shared between/among negotiating parties

Front 27

We have powers that enable us to accomplish various actions.Determining our opposite’s powers helps us decide whether we should use “power over” or“power with” during negotiations. Here is a quick review of the powers:

Back 27

1. Position Powers

2. Personal Powers:

Front 28

1. Position Powers:

Back 28

Coercive and Reward

Connection

Legitimate

Front 29

2.Personal Powers:

Back 29

Referent (or Charisma)

Information

Expert:

Front 30

1. Position Powers:

Coercive and Reward

Back 30

some examples of coercive power can be pursuingdisciplinary (administrative) actions, taking away one’s privileges, posing restrictions, andrecommending non-judicial punishment.

Front 31

1. Position Powers:

Connection:

Back 31

This power pertains to who you know or are affiliated with. This power depends on the other’s belief you have powerful connections

Front 32

1. Position Powers:

Legitimate:

Back 32

This is based on one’s rank, position, or level of authority. Although you may be able to use this “Power Over” your opposite, consider the relationship and only use this power when your intentions are legal, ethical, and appropriate.

Front 33

2. Personal Powers:

Referent (or Charisma):

Back 33

People respond to this power because they have a high identification with you, respect and admire you, or tend to follow and agree with you because they aspire to be like you

Front 34

2. Personal Powers:

Information:

Back 34

This power comes from one’s knowledge, use, and sharing of data or information that others may need or desire. Access to secure data systems, leadership meetings, briefings, even gossip, increases your information power base.

Front 35

2. Personal Powers:

Expert:

Back 35

This power comes from one’s expertise in a specific task, subject, or career field. Subject-matter experts are valuable members of any organization. How you use and share this power base can improve or reduce trust and ultimately the outcome of your negotiations.

Front 36

D. OptionsThe final part of the TIPO model uses the foundation of trust and the elements ofinformation and power to develop options.

Back 36

also referred to as the possible solutions, choices, and alternatives, are just different ways of coming to a mutual agreement to solve a problem,

Front 37

When seeking options, there are two important steps that must be accomplished first:

Back 37

1. Define the problem, situation, or dispute

2. Identify the required&available resources (information, power, time, people, money, etc.) needed to solve the problem, improve the situation, or settle the dispute. More resources usually lead to more options

Front 38

Conversely, low trust between parties negatively influences information, undermines optiondevelopment, and results in the useof

Back 38

"power over" rather than the use of "power with"

Front 39

Our understanding of the TIPO model is important but to take full advantage of itsusefulness, we also need to assess__________________________, _____________________________ , _________________________________

Back 39

“who” we are dealing with, know what is at “stake”, and know the criticality of the current “situation.”

Front 40

E. The Who, Stakes, and Situation

Who are you dealing with?

Back 40

A subordinate, peer, supervisor, someone from another unit, service, or country? Whendealing with supervisors and peers, insisting may not be appropriate ,our oppositemay have more position power than uS.

Understanding “who” we aredealing with and the importance of the relationship can help us decide the bestnegotiation strategy to use

Front 41

E. The Who, Stakes, and Situation

Stakes:

Back 41

What do you stand to gain or lose? If the issue is unimportant (the stakes are low), you could evade it or even comply with the other party. Conversely, if the issue is critical to you (the stakes are high), insisting or cooperating may be appropriate. Even evading may be the right choice

Front 42

E. The Who, Stakes, and Situation

Situation:

Back 42

What are the current and future circumstances? In a worst-case scenario like an emergency, you may only have a few seconds to act or make a decision. If there is no time to make an informed decision, you may have to “flex” your position power to at least impose a short-term solution.

Front 43

MP 3. NEGOTIATION PREFERENCES AND STYLES CHART (NPSC)

Back 43

A. Task and People OrientationEvery negotiation involves some sort of task and the interaction of two or more people orgroups of people. The first step in selectinga negotiation style that is most appropriate for the situation is determining whether the taskor the people or both are important

Front 44

A. Task and People Orientation or the people or both are important

Back 44

Every negotiation involves some sort of task and the interaction of two or more people or groups of people. These two variables form the “framework” used to visualize and understand the differences between the five negotiation strategies. The first step in selecting a negotiation style that is most appropriate for the situation is determining whether the task

Front 45

People Orientation:

Back 45

This approach centers on the who relationship that exists between individuals or groups involved. In some situations, developing and/or maintaining the relationship is more important than the task at hand. This focus on the relationship is not necessarily about developing a friendship; it is about understanding the importance of the relationship, past, present and future. People orientation (i.e., time spent on cultivating a relationship) is in direct proportion to the amount of power our opposites wield and how much of that power we need to accomplish the task.

Front 46

Task Orientation:

Back 46

Depending on the stakes and situation, this approach places more importance on reaching an outcome, solution, or resolution. In the military context, it is getting the mission done. High task orientation means we are very motivated to resolve a problem or respond to a critical situation. Conversely, low task orientation means we do not wish to (or need to) resolve the situation at this time. Maybe we are satisfied with the current situation or status quo or perhaps we do not agree with any of the proposed solutions, or we do not understand the problem and need more time to gather data. Whatever the situation, it is vital that we consider connections between task and relationship or (people orientation

Front 47

B. Negotiation Strategy Selection shows five negotiation strategies:

Back 47

1) Evade,

2) Comply,

3) Insist,

4) Settle,

5) Cooperate

Front 48

B. Negotiation Strategy Selection

Evade (“Not now, can you come back later?”)

Back 48

Use this passive, unassertive, strategy to maintain the current situation. It is useful when: 1. the current situation favors any proposed solution;

2. the issue at hand is unimportant to one or both parties;

3. there are other, more pressing priorities; 4. the opposite is way too powerful or competitive.

Front 49

B. Negotiation Strategy Selection

When assessing TIPO, the Evade strategy may be appropriate:

Back 49

Trust: When trust is low

Information: When opposites provide little to no information to work the issue

Power: When we have little or no power and/or our powers are being diverted

Options: When we have little or no control over the outcome of a selected option

Front 50

B. Negotiation Strategy Selection

Comply (“Yes, absolutely, let’s do it your way!”)

Back 50

Use this passive strategy when preserving the relationship between you and the other party is more important than the task. Under this strategy one party complies with or gives in so the opposite (more assertive party) gets what they want. Use of this strategy tends to delegate responsibility to the other person or party.

Front 51

B. Negotiation Strategy Selection

When assessing TIPO, the Comply strategy may be appropriate:

Back 51

Trust: When there is a trusting relationship Information: When we have information that we are willing to share

Power: When we have little or no power, but have high trust. This strategy may also be used when we have sufficient power

Options: When options favor our opposite.

(Complying is useful for establishing rapport and building goodwill for future negotiations.)

Front 52

B. Negotiation Strategy Selection

Insist (“Take it or Leave it”)

Back 52

Use this assertive, winner-takes-all, task oriented strategy when obtaining your objectiveis paramount, regardless of the cost to the opposite’s interests or to the relationship.

Front 53

B. Negotiation Strategy Selection

When assessing TIPO, the Insist strategy may be appropriate:

Back 53

Trust: When trust does not exist or valued. not IF we win, but HOW MUCH we win.Information: information is suspect or, of little value.

Power: we have powerto see the agreement through during the execution phase.

Option: no time to gather information, share power (even though wetrust our opposite), or discuss options (i.e., crisis, emergency, short notice task).

Front 54

B. Negotiation Strategy Selection

Settle (“Let’s just split the difference and call it a day”)

Back 54

Use this “compromising” strategy when there is little chance of getting everything you want but a solution is needed. This strategy minimally satisfies the task interests of both parties and begins with a “soft offer” in order to leave room for maneuvering toward a solution.

Front 55

B. Negotiation Strategy Selection

When assessing the TIPO model, the Settle strategy may be appropriate:

Back 55

Trust: trust exists / desire by both to reach a solution quickly.

Information: both willing to share info that at leastsupports a short-term solution.

Power: we have as much power as the opposite or have less power than theopposite believes we have.

Option: When options favor both parties’ interests and a quick solution is necessaryeven if it is a short-term solution that enables more time to build trust, gatherinformation, or gain power.

Front 56

B. Negotiation Strategy Selection

Cooperate (“Let’s work together and come up with an even better idea”)

Back 56

The strategy,depends heavily on each party’s collaborative efforts and desire to achieve a mutually satisfactory outcome (task orientation) while simultaneously managing a trusting relationship (people orientation).

Front 57

For Cooperate occur both parties must be willing to:

Back 57

1. trust each other (or be willing to cultivate trust) 2. share information 3. share decision-making power 4. suspend judgment on possible solutions

Front 58

When assessing TIPO, the Cooperate strategy may be appropriate:

Back 58

Trust: When a great deal of trust exists. Information: shared. With unconditional trust (primarily personal trust) full disclosure is possible.

Power: When trust is strong, defensive mechanisms are not important all parties are willing to share power.

Options: Strong trust leads to a free exchange of ideas and information, which in turn leads to multiple ways of solving the problem.

Front 59

MP 4: KEY FEATURES OF THE COOPERATIVE NEGOTIATION STRATEGY (CNS)

Back 59

CNS Changes Negotiation from a Contest of Wills to a Search for Solutions: Byfocusing on the underlying interests, we treat disputes and issues as mutual problems tosolve rather than a contest of wills and personalities.

Front 60

CNS not only Focuses on the Problem but also Actively Manages the Relationship:

Back 60

In a negotiation, developing friendships is not the goal. Although we do not have to like our opposite, we need to respect them just as they need to respect us

Front 61

CNS Focuses on Understanding the Underlying Interests:

Back 61

CNS recognizes that parties’ interests are the heart of the dispute and are the reason why parties posture over their positions. It is more important for parties to know anWHY they want something (the interests) rather than just focus on WHAT they want (the position).

Front 62

CNS Recognizes that Information Sharing and Critical Thinking Are at the Heart ofProblem solving:

Back 62

CNS rests on a skill set that includes open communications, active listening, and critical thinking. These skills are needed for parties to understand perceptions of events, priorities, concerns, fears, and any other piece of information that helps in the search for viable solutions.

Front 63

MP 5. MEDIATION

Back 63

an alternative form of dispute resolution where parties turn to (rely on) aneutral third party who uses interest-based problem-solving techniques to assist in resolvingtheir dispute

Front 64

The interest-based problem-solving approach to dispute resolution ischaracterized by

Back 64

focusing on interests, not positions, creating options for mutual gain, and using objective criteria to ensure legitimacy of any agreement.

Front 65

before weventure too far into the realm of mediation we should consider some associated terms andphrases.

Back 65

Evaluative Mediation:

Facilitative Mediation:

Front 66

Evaluative Mediation:

Back 66

, a subject-matter expert mediator describes the issue, offers an opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s side, and suggests options to resolve the matter.

Front 67

Facilitative Mediation:

Back 67

(mediator) who enhances communication encourages parties to discuss matters. parties clarify issues, reevaluatepositions, and analyze interests. The Air Force has adopted the facilitative style ofmediation for all workplace disputes, as it is currently the best practice for AFworkplace dispute mediations

Front 68

Stakeholders:

Back 68

Stakeholders are other outside parties who have a vested or personal interest in the initiation, processing, and resolution of an existing dispute.

Front 69

Caucus:

Back 69

confidential and private meeting between each of the parties (individually) and the mediator. Caucuses offer the mediator the “behind-the-scenes” perspective from each party to ensure there is a potential zone within which the parties can reach agreement.

Front 70

Mediator:

Back 70

facilitates communications, promotes understanding, and focuses negotiating parties on their interests (rather than their positions), and seeks creative problem solving to enable the parties to reach their own agreement.

Front 71

Impasse:

Back 71

This occurs when there is the failure to make progress toward resolution. It is a significant challenge in any mediation and moving past impasse is a skill that separates great mediators from the rest.

Front 72

Reality Checking:

Back 72

This is a process where the mediator gets the parties to understand, typically through a series of questions, the weaknesses of their case, issue, or demand. When parties have a very weak position (argument), no claim for what they seek, no legal basis for the settlement they desire, or unrealistic demands of the other party, reality checking is necessary.

Front 73

Fostering Understanding of Others’ Views:

Back 73

One of the strongest barriers is the inability of the parties to “see” the problem from their opponent’s point of view. A skilled mediator can assist in overcoming this obstacle by using empathy. Empathy is understanding another’s situation, feelings, and motives. It is the ability to put oneself in the other person’s position and “walk a mile in their shoes.”

Front 74

Emotional Control:

Back 74

For the mediator, it is very important to have no outward reaction to a party’s emotional display. A reaction can jeopardize the mediator’s all-important neutrality and credibility.

Front 75

five stages of mediation:

Back 75

mediator opening statement, parties’ opening statements, joint discussion, caucus, and closure;

Front 76

STAGE 1, Mediator Opening Statement.

Back 76

This is where the mediator meets with both parties together for the first time. The mediator begins the session with introductions followed by an opening statement. The purpose of the opening statement is to establish a structure for the mediation session, ensure the parties’ understand the mediation process

Front 77

STAGE 1, Mediator Opening Statement.

The first item of any opening statement is

Back 77

the mediator’s introduction of themselves and explains the credentials and qualifications they possess that make them a suitable mediator. identity, but also their qualifications

Front 78

STAGE 1, Mediator Opening Statement.

Secondly, the mediator assures the disputing parties that

Back 78

they will maintain a neutral and impartial position throughout the session. He or she should also confirm the parties’ consensual agreement to mediate, that their attendance is strictly voluntary, and that they are prepared to or at least attempt to resolve the dispute.

Front 79

STAGE 1, Mediator Opening Statement.

Before moving to the next part of the opening statement,the third thing all mediators should

Back 79

offer an opportunity for the parties involved to add any additional ground rules they feel are important.

Front 80

STAGE 1, Mediator Opening Statement.

The fourth part of a sound opening statement is

Back 80

explaining the mediation process (the five stages) and reiterating the confidentiality of the process ensuring each party understands what can and cannot be held or withheld in confidence.

Front 81

STAGE 1, Mediator Opening Statement.

Lastly, the mediatorshould

Back 81

congratulate the parties for being willing to attempt to settle their dispute through mediation and assert a note of confidence in the process of which they are about to undergo.

Front 82

STAGE 2, Parties’ Opening Statement.

Back 82

Each partyshould fully explain the issue, their interests, and positions as they see it so that all parties,including the mediator, understand

Front 83

Mediators can learn a lot about the parties and the issue during this stage. During theparties’ opening statements, he or she may discover hidden concerns or interests, thusrevealing the true source of the dispute. This type of information is invaluable later whengetting the parties to focus on interests instead of positions

Back 83

STAGE 2, Parties’ Opening Statement.

Front 84

This can also help the mediator determine who may need caucuses more oftenand how much they will need to assist them in understanding the other party’s views on theissues. Always remember, for mediation to work, all parties should view it as a means ofcommunicating to potentially reach a settlement, rather than a forum for evidence gatheringand accusations

Back 84

STAGE 2, Parties’ Opening Statement.

Front 85

STAGE 3, Joint Discussion.

Back 85

in this stage mediation moves into a forum of joint discussion. parties and the mediator interact with and assist the parties in focusing less on their positions and more on their interests. mediator facilitates a conversation between the disputing parties.It is in this stage where the mediator and disputing partiesbegin to consider possible options to resolve the situation.

Front 86

STAGE 4, Caucus.

Back 86

means “private meeting”. This is an optional stage that can occur at any time during the mediation process but, when needed, usually occurs when joint discussions collapse. These are private, confidential one-on-one discussions between the mediator and each party.

Front 87

STAGE 5, Closure. This is the final stage of the mediation process

Back 87

If a resolution is not reached, the closurestage may require the mediator reconvene a second mediation session, refer the parties toanother mediator, or even recommend other resolution methods like litigation.

Front 88

MP 6. NEGOTIATING ACROSS CULTURES

Back 88

When interacting with foreign cultures, effective negotiators must determine whether theiropposite is a member of a high- or low-context society and consider the perspectives,beliefs, values, and worldviews associated with that culture.

Front 89

Low-context cultures are

Back 89

primarily task-oriented and work toward negotiating a resolution as quickly as possible. The task-oriented person would most likely use the Insist strategy and their position powers to get what they want.

Front 90

High-context cultures are

Back 90

more people-oriented and prefer to establish trusting relationships with others prior to engaging in negotiations. High-context negotiators use the Cooperate Negotiation Strategy (CNS) with the expectation that both parties will collaborate as partners, sharing information and power in order to reach a mutually satisfying solution.

Front 91

The Cooperative Negotiation Strategy (CNS) in Cross-Cultural Negotiations.

Back 91

Tosuccessfully negotiate in a cross-cultural setting, each party must keep the keys of CNS inmind. Remember, CNS is taking the time to consider the people involved in thenegotiations as well as the task at hand.

Front 92

. WHAT TOOL IS USED DURING JOINT DISCUSSION THAT LEADS THE PARTIES TO CLARIFY ISSUES ?

Back 92

Effective questioning

Front 93

It is in this stage where the mediator and disputing parties begin to consider possible options to resolve the situation. After they have brainstormed options, parties should agree on criteria for selecting the options that satisfy the interests of both parties.

Back 93

JOINT DISCUSSION