Por no estar montado a la hora de rematar la mangana (excepción

1. Check for congruence and agreement of the other participants. 2. S u m m a r i z e the actions to be taken. Use the backtrack frame to take

advantage of the fact that we r e m e m b e r endings more easily. 3. Test agreement if necessary.

4. U s e a conditional close if necessary. 5. Future pace the decisions.

N E G O T I A T I O N

Negotiation is c o m m u n i c a t i n g for the purpose of getting a joint decision, one that can be congruently agreed on both sides. It is the process of getting what you want from others by giving others what they want, and takes place in any meeting where interests conflict.

Would that it were as easy to do as it is to describe. T h e r e is a balance and a dance between your integrity, values and outcomes, and those of the other participants. T h e dance of c o m m u n i c a t i o n goes back and forth, s o m e interests and values will be shared, s o m e opposed. In this sense, negotiation permeates everything we do. We are dealing here with the process of negotiation, rather than what you are actually negotiating over.

Negotiation often takes place about scarce resources. T h e key skill in negotiation is to dovetail outcomes: to fit them together so that everyone involved gets what they want (although that m a y not be the same as their d e m a n d at the b e g i n n i n g of the negotiation). T h e presupposition is that the best way to achieve your o u t c o m e is to make sure that everyone involved achieves theirs too.

T h e opposite of dovetailing o u t c o m e s is manipulation, where other people's wants are disregarded. T h e r e are four dragons that lie in wait for those that practise manipulation: remorse, resentment, recrimination, and revenge. W h e n you negotiate by seeking to dovetail o u t c o m e s the other people involved b e c o m e your allies, not your opponents. If a negotiation can be framed as allies solving a c o m m o n problem, the problem is already partially solved. Dovetailing is finding that area of overlap.

Separate the people from the problem. It is worth remembering that most negotiations involve people with w h o m you have, or want, an o n g o i n g relationship. W h e t h e r y o u are negotiating over a sale, a salary or a holiday, if you get what you want at the other person's expense, or they think you have pulled a fast one, you will lose goodwill that m a y be worth m u c h more in the long run than success in that one meeting.

You will be negotiating because you have different outcomes. You need to explore these differences, because they will point to areas where you can make trade-offs to mutual advantage. Interests that conflict at one level may be resolved if y o u can find ways of each party getting their o u t c o m e on a higher level. T h i s is where stepping up enables you to find and make use of alternative higher level outcomes. T h e initial o u t c o m e is only one way of achieving a higher level outcome.

For example, in a negotiation over salary (initial o u t c o m e ) , more m o n e y is only one way of obtaining a better quality of life (higher level outcome). T h e r e m a y be other ways of achieving a better quality of life if money is not available - longer holidays, or more flexible working hours, for example. Stepping up finds bridges across points of difference.

People may want the same thing for different reasons. For example, imagine two people quarrelling over a p u m p k i n . T h e y both want it. However, w h e n they explain exactly why they want it, you find that one wants the fruit to make a pie, and the other wants the rind to make a Halloween mask. Really they are not fighting over the same thing

at all, M a n y conflicts disappear w h e n analysed this way. T h i s is a small example, but imagine all the different possibilities there are in any apparent disagreement.

If there is a stalemate, and a person refuses to consider a particular step, you can ask the question, 'What would have to happen for this not to be a problem?' or, ' U n d e r what circumstances would you be prepared to give way on this?' T h i s is a creative application of the As If frame and the answer can often break through the impasse. You are asking the person w h o m a d e the block to think of a way round it.

Set your limits before you start. It is confusing and self-defeating to negotiate with yourself w h e n you need to be negotiating with s o m e o n e else. You need what Roger Fisher and William U r y in their marvellous book on negotiation, Getting to Yes, call a B A T N A , or Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement. W h a t will you do if despite all the efforts of both parties you cannot agree? H a v i n g a reasonable B A T N A gives you more leverage in the negotiation, and a greater sense of security

Focus on interests and intentions rather than behaviour. It is easy to get drawn into w i n n i n g points and c o n d e m n i n g behaviour, but really nobody wins in these sorts of situations.

A wise and durable agreement will take in c o m m u n i t y and ecological interests. A mutually-satisfying solution will be based on a dovetailing of interests, a w i n / w i n , not a win/lose model. So what is important is the problem and not the people, the intentions not the behaviour, the interests of the parties not their positions.

It is also essential to have an evidence procedure that is independent of the parties involved. If the negotiation is framed as a joint search for a solution, it will be governed by principles and not pressure. Yield only to principle, not pressure.

T h e r e are some specific ideas to keep in mind while negotiating. Do not make an immediate counter-proposal immediately after the other side has made a proposal. T h i s is precisely the time w h e n they are least interested in your offering. Discuss their proposal first. If you disagree, give the reasons first. Saying you disagree immediately is a good way to make the other person deaf to your next few sentences. All good negotiators use a lot of questions. In fact two good negotiators will often start negotiating over the n u m b e r of questions. 'I've answered three of your questions, now you answer some of m i n e . . Questions give y o u time to think, and they are an alternative to disagreement. It is far better to get the other person to see the weakness in his position by asking h i m questions about it, rather than

by telling h i m the weaknesses you perceive.

G o o d negotiators also explicitly signal their questions. T h e y will say something like, ' M a y I ask you a question about that?' By d o i n g so they focus the attention of the m e e t i n g on the answer and make it difficult for the person questioned to evade the point if he has agreed to answer the question.

It would seem that the more reasons you give for your point of view the better. Phrases like 'the weight of the argument' seem to suggest it is good to pile arguments on the scales until it comes d o w n on your side. In fact the opposite is true. T h e fewer reasons you give, the better, because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. A weak argument dilutes a strong one, and if you are drawn into defending it, you are on poor ground. Beware of a person w h o says, 'Is that your only argument?' If you have a good one, say, 'Yes'. Do not get drawn into giving another, necessarily weaker one. T h e follow up may be, ' Is that a/P If y o u take this bait y o u will just give h i m a m m u n i t i o n . Hopefully, if the negotiation is framed as a joint search for a solution, this sort of trick will not occur.

Finally, you could use the as if frame and play the devil's advocate to test the agreement ('No, I don't really think this is going to work, it all seems too flimsy to me . . .'). If other people agree with you, you know that there is still work to be done. If they argue, all is well.

N e g o t i a t i o n C h e c k l i s t