The First Move E-Book

Alain Lempereur

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2010

Seitenzahl: 375

Beschreibung

"Time management is essential for successful negotiations. This book helps you do first things first." --Jeanne Brett, DeWitt W. Buchanan,Jr. Professor of Dispute Resolution and Organizations, Kellogg School of Management, and Director of the Dispute Resolution Research Center "This book brings a breakthrough method to lead efficient negotiations." --Yann Duzert, Professor, Foundation Getulio Vargas, Brazil "Even if you only implement 5% of this method, your clients will find you more attentive to their needs." --John Wong, Senior Partner, The Boston Consulting Group, Hong Kong Office "A one-of-a-kind and most welcome companion for negotiators. It offers a learner-friendly distillation of tested ideas and good practices." --Pierre Debaty, Head of the Brussels Training Office, European Parliament "Drawing on their extensive experience in over 50 countries, the authors provide the best of Anglo-Saxon and continental Europe negotiation approaches." --AJR Groom, University of Kent at Canterbury "Whether you negotiate abroad or in your home country, this book is a must." --Tetsushi Okumura, Professor, Nagoya City University, Graduate School of Economics "Many former enemies started thinking and acting differently after having integrated the principles of this book." --Howard Wolpe, Special Advisor to the Africa Great Lakes region, former Member of US Congress "This negotiation method makes a difference for business and government leaders, who want to act more responsibly." --Theo Panayotou, Professor, Cyprus International Institute for Management & Harvard Kennedy School of Government

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Title Page

Copyright Page

Acknowledgements

Introduction

NEGOTIATION IS EVERYWHERE

KNOWING HOW TO NEGOTIATE WELL IS AN ESSENTIAL SKILL IN TODAY’S WORLD

ONE IS RARELY BORN A GOOD NEGOTIATOR, BUT CAN BECOME ONE

A COMPANIONTO IDENTIFY WHICH MOVE TO MAKE “BEFORE” AND “AFTER” IN NEGOTIATION

CHAPTER ONE - QUESTIONING BEFORE NEGOTIATING

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 1: ABSENCE OF A LEARNING CYCLE

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 2: POSITIONALISM

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 3: THE COMPETITIVE APPROACH

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 4: THE CONCESSIVE APPROACH

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 5: MIXING PEOPLE AND PROBLEMS

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 6: SHORT-TERM PREFERENCE

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 7: THE “UNIQUE SOLUTION” TRAP

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 8: ARBITRARY SOLUTIONS

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 9: OVERCONFIDENCE

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 10: NEGOMANIA

CHAPTER TWO - PREPARING NEGOTIATIONS BEFORE PERFORMING

THE “PEOPLE” DIMENSION: THE THREE RELATIONSHIP TRUMPS

THE “PROBLEM” DIMENSION: THE FOUR TRUMPS TO DEAL WITH ISSUES

THE PROCESS DIMENSION: THE THREE TRUMPS TO RUN THE MEETING

CHAPTER THREE - DOING THE ESSENTIAL BEFORE THE OBVIOUS

TEN STRUCTURING PRINCIPLES FOR GOING FORWARD

A TYPICAL NEGOTIATION SEQUENCE

TIME MANAGEMENT AND LEARNING HOW TO ADAPT

CHAPTER FOUR - OPTIMISING JOINT VALUE BEFORE DIVIDING IT

CREATING VALUE

DISTRIBUTING VALUE

CHAPTER FIVE - LISTENING BEFORE SPEAKING

NEGOTIATING IS COMMUNICATING

ACTIVE LISTENING

ACTIVE SPEAKING

HOW TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN A CONVERSATION

CHAPTER SIX - ACKNOWLEDGING EMOTIONS BEFORE PROBLEM-SOLVING

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF EMOTIONS IN NEGOTIATION

SIX CATEGORIES TO ANALYSE DIFFICULT NEGOTIATIONS

CHAPTER SEVEN - DEEPENING THE METHOD BEFORE FACING COMPLEXITY

MULTILEVEL NEGOTIATIONS

MULTILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS

MULTICULTURAL NEGOTIATIONS

CHAPTER EIGHT - FORMALISING THE AGREEMENT BEFORE CONCLUDING

EVALUATE AND FORMALISE THE RESULTS OF THE NEGOTIATION SESSIONS

INFORMAL ADJOURNMENT OR HOW TO TAKE CARE OF “LAST IMPRESSIONS”

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TO GO FURTHER

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

REFERENCES

INDEX

This edition first published 2010

© 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Registeredoffice

John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ United Kingdom

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com.

The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks.

All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Lempereur, Alain.

The first move : a negotiator’s companion / Alain Lempereur & Aurélien Colson ; edited by Michele Pekar.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

eISBN : 978-0-470-66219-9

1. Negotiation in business. 2. Negotiation. I. Colson, Aurélien. II. Pekar, Michele.

III. Title.

HD58.6.L46 2010

658.4’052 — dc22

2009041785

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Set in 11/13pt New Baskerville by Toppan Best-set Premedia Limited

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book is a synthesis of reflections for actions in negotiation. Our overriding principle is that, as negotiators, we should know which actions should come first. Hence the first application of such principle is that relationships are at the core of every action and must take priority above all else. As an example, our work is the fruit of our relationships and never-ending discussions with colleagues and friends, past and present, who continue to inspire us.

Notably, it is important to recognise the influence of three schools of thought. The first comes from the European diplomatic tradition from the 17th and 18th centuries. Richelieu, Callières, Pecquet, Mably and Talleyrand remain among the most important negotiation pioneers. Much later and especially during the last twenty-five years, the fundamentals of classical negotiation have been enriched by our mentors and friends in the United States, Jeanne Brett, Dan Druckman, Roger Fisher, Steve Goldberg, Robert Mnookin, Jim Sebenius, Larry Susskind, Bill Ury, Mike Wheeler, William Zartman and the members of the Harvard Program of Negotiation, as well as those across the Channel, A J.R. Groom, Vivienne Jabri, Hugh Miall, Andy Williams and Keith Webb. The third wave of influence that contributed to the nuances of French negotiation thought are Christophe Dupont, Guy-Olivier Faure, Alain Plantey, Jacques Rojot, Jacques Salzer and Christian Thuderoz. Without the interactions between these three schools of thought, the ink of this book would have never dried. These scholars of today and yesterday deserve our deepest thanks and recognition.

This book also owes much gratitude to ESSEC Business School Paris-Singapore which, thanks to its humanist, innovative and entrepreneurial tradition, believed in the adventure of ESSEC IRENE, the Institute for Research and Education on Negotiation in Europe, through which a number of pioneering negotiation activities have been possible throughout the world. We are grateful to the ESSEC IRENE members who have been a part of this project: Aziza Akhmouch, Liliane de Andrade, Farid Baddache, Vianney Basse, Viviane de Beaufort, Jean-Claude Beaujour, Imen Benharda, Alexia Bertrand, Eric Blanchot, Lionel Bobot, Adrian Borbely, Isabelle Chalhoub, Guy Champagne, Ta Wei Chao, Florrie Darwin, Bruno Dupré, Florence Duret-Salzer, Antoine Foucher, Olivier Fournout, Thierry Gadaud, Gaspard Gantzer, Rémy Gérin, Bruno-André Giraudon, Andreas Goërgen, Geneviève Helleringer, Michel Noureddine Kassa, Christophe Lattuada, Trinh Le Duyen, Julien Ohana, Ayse Onculer, Ricardo Perez Nückel, Cédric Pierard, François Perrot, Marion Polaud, Misha Raznatovich, Christine Ricour-Dumas, Fahimeh Robiolle, Tina Robiolle, Joseph Stanford, Arnaud Stimec, Charles Tenenbaum, Jean-Marie Truelle, Francis Vandenhaute, and Emmanuel Vivet. ESSEC IRENE has trained tens of thousands of decision-makers who have provided us with many practical illustrations of negotiation theory. Some have read part, or all, of this book and we thank them for their contribution, as well as for the constant challenge they bring to us in making our theories relevant to practice.

Additionally, we send our warmest gratitude to the women and men of academic and non-profit institutions, national and international organisations, and corporations, to whom we owe so much: Michel Barnier, Joe and Hoda Bissada, Jean-Michel Blanquer, Brook Boyer, Hervé Cassan, Juana de Catheu, Charles Cogan, Emmanuelle Cretin-Magand, Pierre Debaty, Yann Duzert, Nicole Goujon, Antje Herrberg, Isabelle Hubert, Norman Jardine, Lidia Juszko, Olivier Lafourcade, Philippe Martin, Liz McClintock, Steve McDonald, Kalypso Nicolaidis, Eugène Nindorera, Fabien Nsengimana, Théo Panayotou, Michel Rocard, Mahamadou Sako, François Verdier, Hubert Védrine, Alain Verbeke, Jeremy Webber, Steve Weiss, and Howard Wolpe.

Many of our colleagues at ESSEC Business School Paris-Singapore, have brought us their skills and competencies in their respective fields. Without the institutional support of ESSEC and of its leaders, Jean-Marie Ardisson, Martine Bronner, Michel Fender, Gérard Guibilato, Alan Jenkins, Christian Koenig, Laurent Laffont, Nicolas Mottis, Françoise Rey, Pierre Tapie, Radu Vranceanu, and Jean-Marc Xuereb, this book would not have been possible. For the English version, we are in debt first to our editor, Michele Pekar, but also to our translators who, with Michele, have helped us to translate not just words but the general spirit of our book into English: Andrew Graham, Alison Healey, and Maria Roshini Mathew. We also would like to thank the IRENE administrative team who have helped with countless tasks in the midst of all our activities: Nathalie Klein, Séverine Lebrun, Francesco Marchi, Brigitte Leroux, Audrey Lolic, and Nathalie Zouzykine.

We would also like to thank Rosemary Nixon, Jo Golesworthy and the entire editorial team at John Wiley & Sons Limited for their support and encouragement.

Our last words are for our beloved ones, our wives and children, who have supported us and to whom we ask for forgiveness for our repeated absences.

Paris, 2009

INTRODUCTION

EXPERIMENTING WITH A RENEWED METHOD BEFORE RESORTING TO OLD REFLEXES

How to Develop Relevant Responses for Negotiation

Our Negotiator’s Companion is based on three fundamental beliefs. First, negotiation is an integral part of our private and professional lives. Second, mastering negotiation skills is at the heart of our personal and collective social harmony. Finally, even if it is rare to be born a gifted negotiator, it is certainly possible to become one: negotiation can be learnt.

NEGOTIATION IS EVERYWHERE

This phenomenon is all the more true if we add negotiation situations to formal negotiations. Our Negotiator’s Companion treats both in the same way.

• Formal negotiations are those instances in which each participant is aware of his or her negotiating. Commercial, budgetary, corporate, diplomatic, social, real estate, recruitment and salary-oriented interactions identify a few diverse dimensions of formal negotiations.

• Negotiation situations, more frequent than the latter, correspond to configurations when the actors are not necessarily aware that they are negotiating. These include situations in which the parties defend their interests, give arguments for their preferred solution, etc. Notably, they engage in a negotiated process of decision-making.

Formal or implicit, negotiation is present on several levels. Even if some prefer to ignore it, everyone negotiates first with oneself. each of us deals constantly with contradictory motivations and must permanently accommodate them in order to move forward. For example, we negotiate with ourselves about how to spend our time. We want at the same time to spend more time with our families, have a successful professional life and have personal time to cultivate our hobbies. Negotiation is there again each time we get dressed, when, among a plethora of fashion choices, we need to take into consideration the context, our interest in being comfortable and our desire to please somebody by wearing the gift offered to us. These intrapersonal negotiations allow us to express our freedom of choice, Socrates’ demon. This capacity to imagine countless new combinations forms our most intimate liberty.

In addition, each one of us negotiates with friends and family. For certain decisions, pre-established rules may be helpful. A young couple agrees that every winter holiday would be spent with each respective family in turn. For other situations - by far more numerous - a case-by-case approach would be employed. Each vacation place would be negotiated: Should we go to the sea since the children enjoy it? Or should we go to the mountains for the fresh air? Or should we go to the grandparents’ house since we have not seen them in a long time? Even decisions that are seemingly banal such as “Which movie should we see tonight?” entail a negotiation process.

It is, however, in our professional lives and in the political arena where negotiation becomes most apparent.

• In a company, there are legal instances which bring together stakeholders and management, management and staff representatives.

• In addition to formal negotiations, negotiation situations are constantly occurring: promotions, mission allocation and workload, career changes.

• Negotiation is at the heart of many jobs. The buyer tries to get the best prices from suppliers. The sport agent negotiates contracts with teams, brands, players. The consultant attempts to get information from company staff that will be helpful in a restructuring process. The list goes on.

• Negotiation is omnipresent in the political arena, on local, national, regional and international levels.

These multiple negotiation situations happen at various levels of complexity: between two or more individuals, within a group, between two or more groups. All these combinations help to point out an important distinction in negotiations. In contractual negotiations, parties seek formal agreements through deal-making. In conflict or crisis negotiations, parties attempt to reach a settlement with varying degrees of commitment through conflict resolution.

• Badly managed deal-making and contracts may lead to conflict. Let us take the example of two companies which form a strategic alliance without considering potential conflicts that may arise in governance issues and even in day-today management. These conflicts may lead to the failure of the alliance if conflict resolution skills do not enter the arena.

• Inversely, a conflict that is resolved thanks to an enlightened negotiation process may open the way to a successful contractual negotiation, i.e. a settlement.

KNOWING HOW TO NEGOTIATE WELL IS AN ESSENTIAL SKILL IN TODAY’S WORLD

Our societies have evolved from “vertical-dominated structures” in which norms “from above” dictated most transactions, to societies that are more and more “horizontal”, in which stakeholders build their own norms and therefore demand a negotiated process of decision-making. Today, it has become important to progress “with others” and not “against them”. It is important to turn adversaries into partners. The capacity to negotiate well makes the difference in many situations. In this new approach, roles evolve.

• Today’s successful manager is simultaneously a leader and a team member. He is aware of the challenges of his company, associates his team in the decision-making process, and works in close collaboration with personnel and union representatives. He levers fair play in his relationships with clients and suppliers who become true partners, and is accountable to his stakeholders as he integrates their suggestions. In sum, he attempts to respect the interests of all parties involved to whom his personal reputation is linked.

• The political leader whom we admire is the one who engages in reforms with sincerity, based on constant consultation and dialogue with her constituents and beyond. She knows how to conduct a negotiation process and how to get to an acceptable outcome. In addition to ongoing negotiations with various actors, she engages in a virtual negotiation with public opinion, relevant to the public’s interest and consensus building.

• The lawyer is a negotiator as well. Rather than envision his task as simply one of a plaintiff waiting for a decision from the judge, today’s lawyer is above all an advisor to his client. He develops confidence with his clients and elaborates contracts with a long-term perspective in mind. When a conflict arises, more often than not, he will work on reaching a negotiated transaction rather than go down the uncertain path of a trial.

Through these different professional figures emerges a new form of leadership. This new leadership is based not only on know-how (savoirfaire), but also on knowing-how-to-be (savoir-être). Above and beyond traditional, technical skills linked to their functions, today’s leaders need interpersonal skills essential to long-lasting partnerships and team management. These qualities are strengthened by specific skills that promote good habits which create a true “second nature”, defined in relation to oneself and the other, that gives way to a less hierarchical and a more integrated society.

• The new techniques– that this book will attempt to enumerate and elaborate on - advocate a method of resolving problems whether they be contractual or conflictual. During this process, the negotiating parties search for the diverse motivations of everyone involved in order to construct mutually advantageous solutions. They use justification criteria in order to untie the difficult knots. They insist on the need to involve in the process everyone whose interests are at stake. They are attentive to an efficient information exchange and everyone’s mandate. They listen actively to everyone, including those that were previously seen as enemies. Finally, they only formalise an agreement after having imagined several possible scenarios and after having spent much time on creating value together.

• A new type of leadership encompasses many qualities: a constructive spirit, cooperation, an integrative approach, imagination and creativity, subtlety in form and firmness in content, humility and a sense of service, emotional and relational intelligence, empathy and assertiveness, calm and patience in the search for legitimacy, power-sharing, maximal transparency, accepting a facilitative role in the decision-making process, searching for the largest possible consensus, accountability and responsibility for decisions made.

• Finally, these techniques as well as the way we put them into practice aim for a better-balanced society. Real changes are possible through a negotiated evolution rather than through imposed revolutions. The idea here is to suggest a means in order to construct a mature concept of society; to search for a fruitful and wider dialogue between government and citizens, government and business, government and NGO‘s, citizens and citizens, and managers and workers. In sum, to move toward a more participative and open society.

A good leader is thus a good negotiator. She is the one who succeeds in concluding “new deals”, validating innovative projects, managing and resolving conflicts, increasing organisational resources, diminishing costs and improving the internal and external climate. This “good negotiator-leader” is indispensable for today’s organisations and more largely for the evolution of society at large. But this “good negotiator-leader” does not come spontaneously out of nowhere.

ONE IS RARELY BORN A GOOD NEGOTIATOR, BUT CAN BECOME ONE

Negotiation is a learned skill. Negotiation is neither an innate knowledge nor a theory that can be memorised. It is a combination of methods enlightened by several academic disciplines (sociology of organisations, history, political science, philosophy, strategy, game theory, management sciences, and psychology) and it is tested by reality. Learning negotiation requires two main sources: practical experience and the knowledge of proven negotiation methods acquired through reading, understanding and training.

On these points, allow us throughout this book to share our experience as researchers, trainers and negotiators. With our team or individually, we have coached thousands of current or future business, political and organisational leaders coming from diverse private and public institutions and companies, across four continents and around fifty countries. Each of our training seminars allows us to share participants’ negotiation experiences, to confront different approaches and to identify the most relevant theories available. The ideas and methods of this book are presented since they have been tested and found useful by the majority of our participants. Based on our own research, experience and a comprehensive understanding of modern works on negotiation, our Negotiator’s Companion is also inspired by classical European theorists and practitioners, from the Antiquity until today, for whom negotiation defines a way of life.

Thus, this Companion has been written for everyone, regardless of background, since negotiation concerns every one of us. It does not single out particular types of negotiation - social, legal, commercial, diplomatic, etc. - but rather presents negotiation in general. From one type of negotiation to another, the constants largely outweigh the specifics. Whether it is about a business negotiation between two companies, a negotiation between the city hall and local residents about the construction of a new highway, or a divorce dispute between husband and wife, the preparation grid remains the same (Chapter 2), the tension between enlarging and dividing the pie is omnipresent (Chapter 4), and communication problems that arise are similar (Chapter 5).

As general as our approach may seem, it is operational. Our Companion proposes concrete solutions to problems. It presents numerous examples that illustrate its concepts. Though the approach is operational, it also raises complex questions such as our relationship to the other, or our behaviour towards risk and time. These subjects are not open to generalisations. It is up to our reader to adapt the approach to his or her particular negotiation contexts, style and challenges. Our Companion is not a negotiation theory, but a series of concepts and tools stemming from relevant theories in order to assist our reader to build his or her own personal negotiation method.

A COMPANIONTO IDENTIFY WHICH MOVE TO MAKE “BEFORE” AND “AFTER” IN NEGOTIATION

In negotiation, it is important to be able to distinguish the “before” and “after”. Put in another way, what is “essential” must not be forgotten and must be done first, before what is “obvious”, and often just done by instinct. Keeping in mind this distinction is the key to the negotiator’s success.

Chapter 1 shows how questioning is essential before negotiating. Ten instinctive pitfalls will be covered in order to emphasise the importance of apriori suspension of judgment or movement. The rest of the book will propose alternative solutions to these pitfalls.

In Chapter 2, we will show how preparing a negotiation is essential before a meeting. Negotiating is anticipating first, and acting second. An unprepared negotiation is an invitation to failure. We will examine how to organise an effective preparation by focusing on three key questions: Who is negotiating? The people dimension. What are they negotiating about? The problem dimension. How should they negotiate it? The process dimension. Readers will learn the ten key trumps in negotiation planning and will be introduced to a number of concepts that will be mobilised throughout the book.

The heart of our method will be covered in Chapter 3, which details the essential before the obvious in the negotiation sequence. That which is obvious is to treat the question at hand, present one’s interests, advance self-advantageous solutions, claim a large piece of the pie and conclude an agreement. But before managing the obvious “objects” of negotiations, it is essential to put people first, i.e. to cultivate the relationship, and also to organise the process. Sequencing carefully these three dimensions - people, process and then problems - is a key of success for all negotiations. What is also essential is to listen well to understand the other’s interests before promoting one’s own, to envisage several solutions before choosing the right one, and to only conclude an agreement after having verified that it lies within one’s mandate.

Another instinctive reflex in negotiation consists of grabbing as much of the pie as possible, while leaving only crumbs for the other. But before slicing the pie, it is essential to work together so as to make it as large as possible. We explain this in Chapter 4 through mutual information exchange and effective responses to hard bargaining.

In order to begin a negotiation with a clear and efficient communication, it is also essential that the negotiator master two skills in the following chronological order: listening before speaking. This is the subject of Chapter 5. Speech fascinates the negotiator as in it lies the power of persuasion. But, without having evidence of understanding the other, how can anyone be sure to then be convincing? We all listen and speak, but do we know how to listen and speak well?

If a certain rational intelligence is necessary to create value before distributing it, it must be accompanied by relational intelligence in order to master difficult negotiations. Here, it is essential to properly manage and appease emotions before treating the problem at hand. Chapter 6 examines difficult behaviours that are commonly viewed as aggressive in negotiation situations, and proposes some constructive responses to confront them.

Chapter 7 illustrates three contexts in which negotiations may become even more complex: negotiations which include agents negotiating on behalf of principals, multiparty negotiations and multicultural negotiations. Here, more than ever, it is essential to fine-tune one’s own personal method before undertaking any action. The multiplication of parties involved and the multicultural dimension evoke instinctive behaviours as a natural survival reflex. Thus, it is essential to guard oneself against possible pitfalls as illustrated in Chapter 1, and prepare better, anticipate and implement an effective negotiation sequence and resolve continuously the difficulties associated with communication and the relationship.

Logically, the final part of the book, Chapter 8, treats the last step in a negotiation: formalising the agreement before ending the talks. This last step is dependent on all the previous ones covered in Chapters 1 to 7. Too often, the lightness of a good atmosphere and the willingness to move on to other things lead us to premature closure without being attentive to the last detail. Instead, it is essential to check meticulously all the points agreed upon, devise an action plan which clearly states the responsibilities of each party, and enumerate the rights and obligations of all involved, including making sure that the agreement falls within both parties’ mandates.

Enjoy reading, and hopefully, enjoy negotiating!

CHAPTER ONE

QUESTIONING BEFORE NEGOTIATING

How to Move Beyond an Instinctive Approach

It goes against general wisdom to drive a car without having taken driving lessons; or to cook a sophisticated meal without having opened a cookbook; or to embark on a journey to a faraway land without having consulted a guidebook or someone who has previously travelled there. Yet, nearly everyone negotiates without ever having taken a negotiation course, read a book on the subject, or consulted an expert. Whilst we live in a world where conflicts are frequent, we seek to resolve them without having the slightest idea of how these conflicts arise or subside.

Negotiation is an instinctive practice of the highest order. An individual tends to negotiate ad lib according to what he or she considers the best way, and very often believes to be the only way. Negotiation is a social activity for which instinct exerts the greatest influence, often with disastrous results. Years of observation help to identify, among these instinctive practices, those most damaging. Without making an exhaustive list, we enumerate certain ones that result in unfortunate consequences.

Dictated by habit, these practices are at the root of strains in interpersonal relations, rising transaction costs, an inability to make progress, a loss of dynamism in the negotiation process, wasted resources, project failure, the risk of tarnishing the personal reputation of the negotiators and hindering their future transactions, conflict escalation, the signature of agreements that are difficult to ratify and still more difficult to apply, and generally, an overall loss of time. The list could go on. It is important to recognise that a purely instinctive approach to negotiation risks all these negative repercussions. Each individual must examine his or her instinctive practices, question them, and revise them as necessary.

This is why the critical prerequisite to negotiation is questioning. Self awareness, with some reflections and casting doubt on our practices, permits a better appraisal of our skills, some distance from the subject, as well as a greater chance to evolve. As Descartes wrote in his Discourse on Method, doubting, i.e. questioning, is essentially “to root out from the mind all mistakes that could have slid into it previously”1 and to lay solid foundations. Here, we find the point of departure for building a personal negotiation method.

It is this constructive doubt that will be examined in Chapter 1. To assist us in identifying the dormant instinctive negotiators within, we present ten instinctive practices that are pitfalls for the unwary. The goal of discussing them is to provide an outline of appropriate negotiation alternatives. Please note that the pitfalls and alternative behaviours are simply presented as sketches here. The latter will be detailed in later chapters.

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 1: ABSENCE OF A LEARNING CYCLE

This is the first of the instinctive pitfalls and impacts all that follow. A “turn-the-page” attitude in negotiation is very common for the uninitiated. Here, we move on hastily from the negotiation of the previous day to apparently another completely unrelated. This is often the case when the negotiation has been poor or the result unproductive. This is, after all, only human: Nobody enjoys brooding over failure. However, the same behaviour is observed for negotiations that go well and are topped off with success, the common reflection being: “What good is reflecting on what has happened, if all has passed well”? This attitude stems from a false assumption that mastery of negotiation can be achieved solely through ongoing experience. Certainly, experience is invaluable in the path toward progress. However, there is a condition: experience must undergo retrospective analysis in order for it to have value. Otherwise, we risk forgetting the keys to success and tend to repeat mistakes. We may ultimately perform the same way every time, equally badly, like the musician who stumbles upon the same wrong note every time she plays a certain piece.

Top athletes have understood this well. After every performance, they view, critique, and review in slow motion the videotape of the event. Sometimes, even practice sessions are filmed so that athletes can analyse their technique and tactics before the big day. This helps them to obtain two types of information. First, they identify their strong points, which they will build upon in the next competition. Second, they identify the weak points where they have room to improve, and which they will prioritise in training. The same concept of analysing experience is used by fighter pilots who “debrief’ their last mission while planning the next, so as to improve their performance each time. The negotiator ought to be inspired by such excellent habits.

Learning lessons from a single negotiating experience is but one step of an entire process. After each negotiation and in order to improve the next one, why not take the time to reflect on the following questions?

• What have I learnt about negotiation in general?

• What have I learnt about myself as a negotiator?

• What should I continue to do the same and why? (Alternatively: What are my strong points? Which ones can I capitalise on?)

• What should I do differently? Why and how? (Alternatively: Which are my weak points and where do I have room for improvement?)

• What are my personal objectives for improvement in the next negotiation?

It would be worthwhile to record your responses to these questions in a file and to update them after every negotiation, like a ship log. You will thus be better equipped to prepare for the next negotiation, which you will again follow up on with time for reflection, and so on. You will be able to put your successive negotiations into perspective, and the lessons you would have learnt will serve you in future negotiations. Here are some examples of what you can do to enrich this virtuous learning cycle.

• Observe carefully real negotiations to which you are privy. You can benefit a great deal from studying the conduct of others. Maintain an analytical mindset, by examining the situation as both a positive critic - who recognises exemplary practices - and a negative critic - who weeds out the unsatisfactory ones.

• Dissect the negotiations you come across in the media, including real negotiations or interactions in films.

• Read books and articles devoted to negotiation, with a resolve to define and refine your own method.

• Approach professional and personal situations from the angle of negotiation, so as to get better acquainted with the tools presented in this book.

A constant exchange between experience and analysis allows the negotiator to establish a personal approach, by shedding unproductive reflexes and adopting other, more effective methods.

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 2: POSITIONALISM

Positionalism can be summed up by: “Agree to my position”, or “There is only one solution: mine”, or “This is not negotiable”. The instinctive negotiator camps on his position as long as possible, in hopes that the other party will exhaust herself and give in. The end result is very rarely the one that was sought. It is, generally, one of the following, or a combination of several of them:

• The two parties experience rising costs to the point that the negotiation gets stuck.

• The parties allocate increasing resources to defend their position, to the detriment of other projects.

• The relationship between the two parties deteriorates.

• The other party leaves the negotiation table.

• One party concedes and eschews any future dealings with the other; one party concedes, feeling that it has “lost face” - and is determined to make the other pay for it in the long-term.

At best, positionalism transforms negotiation into a hard bargain where each party adopts an extreme position as a point of departure, maintains it for as long as possible, refuses to relent, and only backs down in small steps, minimising each move, as though it posed a threat to its reputation. The efficiency of this approach is virtually nil.

The pitfall of positionalism may be avoided by negotiating on interests,2 or, better still, on the underlying motivations of the negotiator. Chapter 2 will treat this idea in greater detail. Let us illustrate the difference between positionalism and negotiation based on motivations through the following story.

The shrub in Madagascar One day the Malagasy government receives a visit from the representative of a Swiss multinational pharmaceutical company. The envoy explains that his company is preparing to start industrial production of a new medicine, made from a rare shrub that grows only in Madagascar. The Swiss company proposes to invest and create jobs on condition that it is granted exclusive rights to the land where the shrub grows. To the Malagasy government, this seems to be a great opportunity, as the shrub was previously of no use. As discussions begin, an American multinational cosmetics company also requests a meeting with the Malagasy government. This company is preparing to launch a new line of cosmetic products based on ... the same shrub. The American company makes a similar offer with the same condition: rights to 100% of the said land. In a dilemma as to whom to grant exclusivity, unwilling to offend either, the Malagasy government proposes that the two representatives meet to negotiate a settlement. But in a fervent spirit of positionalism, the two companies continue to demand full use of 100% of the available land. To overcome the problem, the two parties come up with the idea of a bidding system. At this point, the negotiation falls into a rut. It is only at this moment that positions give way to motivations. When the question on the specific use of the shrub arises, it is discovered that production of both the medicines and cosmetics require active molecules, but that these are different for each. The positions of the two parties clashed (“We want all the shrubs”), but the true motivation in this affair was the use of particular substances, which were fortunately found on two distinct parts of the shrub: the leaves for one, the roots for the other. The positional reflex posed an obstacle to identifying the true motivations at hand: obtaining the substances. By contrast, more acute consciousness of motivations permitted both companies to find a solution in order to launch their respective products, and the Malagasies have the benefit of receiving double of what was initially proposed.

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 3: THE COMPETITIVE APPROACH

The competitive approach is often coupled with positionalism. “My position must prevail and in order to make it so, I must dominate the other”. In this scenario, there is an a priori mistrust of the “other”. In fact, this approach considers all transactions as a zero-sum game. Inspired by military thinking, it views all negotiations as conflicts where there is one winner and one loser. The “other” is the enemy and all must be done to win. Because “business is business”, all tactics are justifiable. Any form of cooperation is denounced as weakness or even treason!

If our description seems to be a bit strong, it is important to note that many instinctive negotiators favour this approach. Far from promoting a path toward partnerships, this conception of negotiation plants the seeds for a poisonous climate, multiple blockages, tensions and conflicts. Value creation is severely reduced or even nonexistent. If any agreements get signed, they occur under enormous pressure, leaving the parties feeling that they have given up too much and must try to get it back the next time.

The pitfall of the competitive approach may be avoided by privileging an approach that is predominantly cooperative.3 Chapters 3-6 illustrate this point. Establishing confidence, taking into account the other’s motivations and not just one’s own, favouring listening over speaking, exchanging information in a balanced way, making long-lasting commitments and keeping oneself in check are all keys to a predominantly cooperative approach.

Why is our approach “predominantly cooperative” instead of just simply “cooperative”? If negotiation is instinctively conceived through a competitive perspective - there is one winner and one loser - negotiation has also experienced a velvet revolution by our colleagues at Harvard, Fisher and Ury, who advocated a “cooperative approach”. Fisher and Ury encouraged a transformation of the battle of the wills into a more balanced approach that seeks a peaceful relationship among the parties, and resorts to rational methods to reach solutions based on objective criteria. The end result is a mutually satisfying agreement, immortalised by the expression “win/win”.

This theory, more commonly called “principled negotiation” marked a turning point in the way negotiation was conceived and approached. However, as any theory, it has its limits.4 Practice never lends itself easily to theory in any case. It would be wrong, however, to label principled negotiation as idealistic since many of the ideas it presents are pertinent and operational, especially those concerning the preparation phase of a negotiation. Perhaps it is simply too optimistic. Think of the frustration and disenchantment of the principled negotiator when confronted by other negotiators who are not so “principled”.

Our own approach integrates many of Fisher and Ury’s ideas but also summons more realist literature that attempts to resolve some of the shortcomings of the “win/win” theory. For example, the question of dividing the pie is only partly resolved in Fisher and Ury’s approach. Even though one may be successful in making the pie larger, at the end of the day, it still needs to be sliced. It is for this reason that our approach is “predominantly cooperative”, since far from denying the difficulties of dividing the pie, it prefers to recognise and confront them head on. In fact, we need to maintain all the fruits of the “win/win” theory and, at the same time, accept that the end result may not always lead to de facto symmetrical equality in gains, an absolute satisfaction of everyone’s motivations, and an absence of all tensions.

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 4: THE CONCESSIVE APPROACH

If the Fisher and Ury revolution shook up negotiation theories and practices, it did so not only by challenging the myths that the best negotiator is the one who employs a competitive ruse, but also by questioning the merits of compromising or “give and take”. Even if the “win/lose” approach - which often translates into “lose/lose” - is undesirable, the usual “give and take” approach also has its shortcomings. The latter’s major flaw is that it assumes that each side must make concessions toward the other and meet “in the middle”, in order to compromise and avoid a conflict, which results in missing opportunities to create value (Figure 1.1).

The pitfall of the concessive approach may be avoided by focusing on problem-solving. The latter approach goes beyond a simplistic conception of negotiation in which gain can only be acquired at the expense of the other party, and vice versa, and permits the parties to optimise their satisfaction through value creation. It is neither conciliatory or accommodating (“I give in to the other party”), nor competitive (“I get everything I want and the other party gets nothing”), nor concessive or compromising (“I give some, the other party gives some”), nor conflict avoiding or zero sum (“neither receives nothing”) (Figure 1.2).

It is important to recognise that reaching this optimal point in the north-eastern part of the graph is difficult. Such success requires a combination of good negotiation techniques, favourable circumstances and a willing partner. However, it is possible to move there, toward the northeast, and away from a compromising approach based on concessions. It requires a good understanding of all parties’ motivations and value creation through imaginative options. In order to illustrate this approach, here is an example that is borrowed from principled negotiation.5

FIGURE 1.1 NEGOTIATION THROUGH A CONCESSIVE APPROACH

FIGURE 1.2 NEGOTIATION ACCORDING TO A PROBLEM-SOLVING APPROACH

The Camp David Accords — In 1978, Israel and Egypt met to negotiate peace, each demanding sovereignty over the Sinai: Israel for security purposes, Egypt for historical ones. Any compromise involved drawing boundaries and this was not acceptable to either. In the end, a plan was agreed upon that let Egypt have complete sovereignty of the Sinai as long as Egypt designated and implemented several large demilitarized zones that would assure Israeli security.

Full acknowledgement of sovereignty for one nation and of security for the other made the difference. This example shows the necessity in negotiation to resist halfway solutions. The concessive approach often results in less than satisfactory situations, such as a meal in which your Champagne cocktail and dessert coffee are both served at room temperature. The Camp David Accords overcame both positionalism and a concessive approach. While the negotiation on positions (keeping the Sinai or getting it back) or on concessions failed, the negotiation which took seriously the underlying motivations (sovereignty/security) succeeded.

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 5: MIXING PEOPLE AND PROBLEMS

Every negotiation requires at least two people who will form or deepen a relationship in order to discuss a problem - a series of substantive issues. Spontaneously, many negotiators mix the substance and the relationship. This may cause confusion as questions over content and over people get mixed up:

• On the one hand, a negotiator may be tempted to make large concessions on the problem for the sake of the relationship. Let us take the example of a senior consultant who wants to maintain good relationships with her colleagues by attributing missions not based on objective criteria (correlation between the mission and consultant’s skills, workload, interest in promoting an economy of scale among attributed missions, etc.), but rather on the opinions and desires of the latter. More particularly, she adopts an accommodating mode that puts her at the forefront of potential blackmail “for the sake of the relationship”: “Do this for me; we have known each other for such a long time” or “Listen, we’re friends; don’t tell me you can’t do this for me”.

• On the other hand, one may sacrifice the relationship for the substance. The instinctive negotiator, anxious to obtain concessions on the issues at hand, may want to put pressure on the other, and thus badly hurts the relationship. “Never mind the bumps in the road; I only care about getting a deal”. This assumption is not only inexact but is a fine example of the following pitfall of focusing on the short-term.

Sometimes, there is an accumulation of these two types of attitudes that leads to a widespread, counterproductive negotiation tactic: a velvet hand in an iron glove. The instinctive negotiator is voluntarily aggressive and hard with the other party since he believes that this is the way to win on substance. Inevitably, however, he will be made aware of the disastrous effects of such an attitude and in an attempt to make amends, will then become soft on the problem.

When a negotiation is about resolving a conflict, the confusion between substance and relationship is even more pronounced. The instinctive negotiator forgets to resolve a problem with the person in front of her and instead attacks the person whom she confuses with the problem. Chapter 6 will present a series of approaches on how to manage emotional tensions in this type of situation.

The pitfall of confusing substance with relationship may be avoided by privileging a soft approach on the people, while being tough on the problem.6 It is about putting an iron hand in a velvet glove.

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 6: SHORT-TERM PREFERENCE

This pitfall is about the instinctive negotiator who focuses only on the short-term to the detriment of the long-term. The negotiator should keep the future in mind and would be wise to presume that two people on our small planet will meet again. Let us examine the following true story.

The diplomat’s flat– A young Canadian diplomat is sent to Paris for his first mission. He rents a flat owned by a French diplomat who has just been sent on a mission abroad. After paying two months rent for the deposit, he moves into the flat. After three years, the young diplomat must return to Canada. Based on the fact that he has taken very good care of the flat, he hesitates to pay the last two months of rent. After all, he has already paid the owner the equivalent amount as a security deposit and needs the money to put down a new deposit on a flat in Canada. Property owners, in general, do not appreciate such action. In the end, he decides to follow the rules by the letter, and pays the last two months of rent. Of course, four months went by before his security deposit was returned. Twenty-five years later, our diplomat is appointed Canadian Ambassador to Israel. Upon arriving in Tel Aviv, he made the rounds in order to meet his fellow ambassadors. When he arrived at the French Embassy, the French Ambassador looked vaguely familiar. Indeed, the French Ambassador was the former owner of the flat he rented in Paris ...

The pitfall of focusing on the short-term may be avoided by assuming that the negotiation might continue indefinitely.