Harvard's Program on Negotiation recently published an article on what they considered to be the top ten negotiation stories of 2012.
The stories range from negotiations in the media industry to the recent concern regarding America falling off the fiscal cliff. In addition to being an interesting read, the article also considers what key lessons can be learned from each of these significant negotiations.
The key lessons that I took from the article were:
- In the flush of hammering out a deal that appears to create synergy for everyone involved, negotiators sometimes neglect to consider how their agreement could affect outsiders, an oversight with ethical and legal implications.
- When a conflict looms, it can be tempting to try to make unilateral decisions on key issues for fear that negotiation with the other side will be a dead end. This strategy may pay off in the short term, but it’s important to factor in the long-term cost of a backlash.
- Don't underestimate the potential value of adapting to your counterpart’s negotiating style in international negotiations.
- When dealing with untrustworthy counterparts, it can be worthwhile to negotiate a “test” agreement within which you make only a few concessions, but be sure the consequences of reneging are explicit to the other party. Prepare for the potential consequences of a broken deal, including damage to your reputation.
- Examine factors such as your interests, the other side’s interests, your alternatives to the negotiation, the shape of a potential deal, the various costs you might incur, and the likelihood that you can successfully follow through on a deal.
- Establish ground rules and policies before a crisis hits to make sure that you are playing on a level, fair field.
- In their most important negotiations, business negotiators would be wise to spend a great deal of time thinking about what would happen in the event of impasse in the current negotiation—and looking for ways to make their BATNA better.
To read the rest of the article, click here.
Conflict, it seems, is everywhere. We humans are a fickle bunch and we tend to hold differences of opinion about all manner of topics. This is fine, great in fact, when people listen to those differences of opinion with respect, courtesty and an open-mind. Unfortunately, this does not always occur and that's when conflict break out.
Experience has shown me that being mindful of how one communicates is particularly helpful in reducing the likelihood of a dispute occurring. It seems the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC) of Australia agrees as they have outlined some tips to keep in mind when communicating with others to prevent differences of opinion or a conflict. NADRAC suggests to:
LISTEN:
- for what you have in common with the other party. This is a good place for you and the other people involved to start looking for an outcome
- for what the other party needs or is concerned about. Respond reasonably to what they are saying
- check with the other party involved to make sure you have understood them.
ASK QUESTIONS:
- that start with 'How can we ...' or 'What possibilities are there for ...'
- to try to find out what is important to the other party involved. For example, you may ask 'Why is that important to you?'
- about how the other party would like to move forward.
RESPOND:
- after listening well
- using 'I think', 'I'd prefer', or 'I wonder whether' as opposed to 'I want' or 'I have decided'
- by making suggestions for an outcome that meets the other party's needs and that you can accept
- by speaking for yourself only.
AVOID
- reacting to demands or threats
- asking questions that accuse, such as 'If that's the case, why did you tell me that ...'
- saying 'You did ...' or 'You are ...' as this can been seen as blaming
- saying 'Obviously'
- making assumptions about what the other party has said. Always check your understanding to ensure it is correct.
To visit NADRAC's website, click here.
