Generally when people think of a negotiation they think of two people taking extreme positions and then compromising until they reach a point somewhere roughly in the middle. This is true of most negotiations in business in Australia. In order to be effective in this type of negotiation, the two parties generally need to be able to postulate and engage standover tactics to make their opposition whimper into submission. Interestingly, in Howard Raiffa’s 34 characteristics of an effective negotiator from my last post, the willingness to employ force, threat or bluff ranks right down the bottom of his list.
Not surprisingly, the ability to persuade others ranks in the top ten at #8; however previous negotiating experience ranks at #19. Open-mindedness ranks at #21 and this too is something that shows the stand-over tactics most commonly employed in boardroom negotiations may not be the most effective way to approach these types of discussions.
The ability to think clearly and rapidly under pressure and uncertainty makes it into #3 and I agree with Raiffa on this point. I do find it interesting though that status or rank in organisation is down at #27. It may serve some businesses well to realise that their ‘top dog’ may not be their best negotiator and this could also be a confidence boost for the ‘underdog’ in a negotiation to know that their rank in the hierarchy of things really isn’t that important.
Raiffa’s list made me reconsider the characteristics of an effective negotiator that I previously held in high esteem. If this list was more widely reviewed then perhaps boardroom negotiations might be more successful then they currently are.
No comments:
Post a Comment