Business

Negotiation Skills

In Negotiation, The Past Has No Future

"To enforce the lies of the present, one must erase the truths of the past."
George Orwell

What is going on here? Are we confusing negotiation with the authoritarian view of the future espoused by George Orwell in his novel 1984? This is one of the best quotations I have read on the relationship of the past to the present/future. Ignoring their integral connection will not work in any relationship, business or private. However, we must remember that good negotiation is not an authoritarian process, but rather a means for bringing about fair agreements.

When people negotiate, they may be influenced by their prior experience in many different ways. The cultural norms and expectations of one's family, ethnic group, nationality, or corporate silo are all significant in shaping expectations and negotiating style. Negotiating with someone who represents a profession, a corporate silo, or another cultural group with which one's own group (profession/silo/cultural) has had a troublesome history can certainly be difficult, particularly if the past problems are considered issues to be negotiated in the present.

For the negotiation process to make sense, a good negotiator needs to consider how much importance to give to the past, and how much his/her interests need to focus on the future. The negotiator also needs to understand how much importance other parties place on the past. It is also not realistic to expect any party to respond favorably to attempts to change their own view of history. In criminal law, new techniques such as DNA testing can change the outcomes of decades-old trials. In business and personal negotiation, rewriting history based on new technology is far less likely.

Negotiators who pay proper attention to the interests they're pursuing should have a better capacity to develop a clear sense of the best way to go forward in spite of a troubled history - or even because of past problems. If a supplier has a history of late delivery or failure to fulfill promised specifications, the customer may not want to spend time pursuing an abject apology- but the customer may recognize the importance of taking into account those issues when negotiating about future performance.

While George Orwell's view of how authoritarian governments deal with historical truth may ring true on the world's political stage, negotiators who are getting on with business should use what they've learned from the past to make sure that negotiations yield better future results.

Thus, in negotiation, the past is the past - whether agreed-upon or not. Negotiation is about what comes next; how we're going to reach an agreement that serves our interests in the future. Being aware of the past is sensible, but getting hung up on the past can escalate conflict. Focusing on the future, on one's interests going forward, can make the negotiation process far more productive.

Information Is The Fundamental Asset In Negotiation

Negotiation is all about exchange; people (or organizations represented by people) bargain over who acquires what bargaining chips. Ultimately a successful negotiation process yields an agreement regarding the distribution of things that parties to the negotiation hope to gain from other parties.

People will argue that negotiation generally focuses on price, on value, on who gets what. Each of those propositions is true, especially when applied to specific negotiations. The items of value that can be exchanged range from national boundaries to 'bragging rights' when parents succeed at convincing their child's football/soccer coach to let their kid play rather than sit on the bench. In business negotiation can cover design, delivery, price, intellectual property, which unit of a company gains leadership of a particular project - or how much a person is paid.

However, in each of these situations, before negotiation begins and before agreement can be reached the negotiating parties need to learn some - or many - things. Just thinking about the preliminaries, we must become at least somewhat knowledgeable about a variety of factors: How do I define my needs, my objectives, and my interests? Do stakeholders who depend on me agree with my definitions? Who - or what organizations - can provide good solutions responding to my needs? If multiple parties offer what appears to be what I want, how do I choose among them, with whom does it make most sense to negotiate? Once a choice is made, I need to understand as much as possible about the decision-making process of potential negotiation partners. Among other things, if one person says "Yes", does that mean the deal will be fulfilled? How much time am I prepared to invest in the negotiation process? Does it make sense to conduct discussions with more than one potential supplier/customer/organization at a time? What benchmarks should I use prior to, during, and after negotiating to determine whether the process is going to work?

This list of preliminary questions is open to considerable expansion. Similarly, during the negotiation process, we are on a constant fact-finding mission: What indications are there that I've made the right choice of negotiation partner? How accurate were the assumptions I made about other parties' capacity or willingness to deliver? Is the strategy I adopted working favorably or should I rethink the whole process or specific tactical elements? Has a negotiation partner surprised me - and is the surprise good or bad in terms of my interests? Should I walk away from a particular negotiation partner - or have I discovered I need them more than they need me? Have I found out what value other parties place on things I have to offer - or the extent of my capacity to influence their decisions? Has the information exchanged provided leads towards creative approaches that may increase the value of the negotiation's outcome for the parties?

The answers to these, and the many more questions that arise in the negotiation process, can all be described by a single word: information. Whether we are learning about the price range within which a deal is likely to be reached, the role of ego in a negotiator's decision-making, or whether details included in the discussions contribute to the decision-making process or are simply meant to mislead us, in each case we are gaining information that contributes to our capacity to reach a wise conclusion.

If knowledge is power, and the acquisition of information is the means to gain knowledge, then we must remember to treat each negotiation as a forum for the exchange of information to enable us to arrive at informed, wise, effective agreements. After all, information is the one asset that is exchanged in every single negotiation.

SMALL TALK IS BIG BUSINESS

In some English-speaking environments, people often refer to 'small talk' as an important factor when negotiating to establish and/or strengthen the relationship between the parties. Perhaps 'small talk' is a misnomer. If relationship is an important element in bringing about an agreement each party will willingly fulfill, conversational elements that strengthen the relationship are certainly not 'small' in their importance.

Another side of this analysis may be the reflection that for some Americans - as well as other negotiators - relationship is not viewed as a determinative element in negotiation and as a consequence, conversational attention paid to relationship elements such as "How's your family?" "What do you think about the local sports team?" or "It's good to see you again." may be viewed as inconsequential 'small' talk.

During the last week of February, I was joined by Mohan Joshi, TNSC's Mumbai-based trainer presenting a program in Singapore. Mr. Joshi spent some of his time focusing on the different levels of priority given to the relationship between the parties in Asia and Western countries.

Is there really a distinction between people from different cultures when it comes to the importance of the relationship in negotiation? One can argue that even one-time negotiations with shopkeepers in markets could have a tendency to be more focused on relationships in many cultures in Asia - as well as Southern Europe and many other parts of the world - than they are in Northern Europe and North America. By reputation, negotiators from the United States want to get right down to business, close the deal, and then move on to the next transaction.

However when the negotiating parties have a history of doing business together - or the hope of doing more together in the future - even in the hard-nosed world of Western business practices, relationship is a far more important element of the overall process.

Successful negotiation - which yields real agreements -- requires that each negotiator treat other parties with respect and empathy. While this may sound like good ethics and even good etiquette, it is also responsive to the pragmatic need to get parties to buy in to whatever agreement is reached. Ignoring the relationship may reflect a failure to consider the egos of other parties - and can have the result of reducing their incentive to reach agreement.

The question remains, "Is relationship at a different level of priority in different cultures?" Relationship itself can be more or less important in any given negotiation - but the way parties handle relationship issues does vary not only on a country-by-country basis, but also in different business sectors within a given country and even in different corporate silos.

People like to be treated as human beings and not just cogs in the machine of commercial progress. In some places, inexpensive gifts may be utilized as a symbolic relationship-building gesture; in other places such gifts may be considered akin to a bribe. Understanding the choreography of how personal relationship is handled in different environments is critical knowledge each negotiator needs.

Paying attention to relationship issues should be undertaken in ways that don't cross the line separating propriety from invasions of privacy or personal space. Treating all people from a given culture - national, corporate, or professional - as clones of each other diminishes the likelihood they will feel as if you are genuinely interested in them as individuals. The joy of negotiating can be found in getting to know your negotiating partner and responding to his or her personality. If relationship were not important, negotiation could be left to computer programs.

Small talk is no small thing in negotiation; it sets the stage for relationships that can lead to trust - and wise agreements.

NEIGHBORS FROM HELL

As many of our readers know, the major portion of our website is devoted to requests for Advice. We have received questions from all over the world about an incredible variety of topics: workplace issues, cross-cultural challenges, and many aspects of the process of negotiation. To our dismay, a tremendous number of queries have come in about relations among neighbors - and these questions almost invariably describe extremely unpleasant circumstances, what one of our correspondents has called 'Neighbors From Hell'.

People express discomfort and feelings of reluctance to negotiate with neighbors to attempt to resolve both minor and major issues. When faced with emotionally-charged situations - even merely the challenge of telling someone you are troubled by a habit or action of theirs, it is crucial to look in the mirror and remind yourself that you are not unworthy, that both you and the issues that concern you deserve to be taken seriously. Reluctance to negotiate guarantees a no-win result for you. Undertaking the process opens the possibility your interests will be served.

Look In The Mirror And Assess Yourself
No one is more entitled than you are to pursue important interests. But it is crucial not to treat other parties as if they are less entitled than you to pursue their interests.
Once you recognize that your interests are worth pursuing, if you do a good job of preparing and considering the alternatives, you should feel confident about undertaking negotiation.
Unfortunately, many people fail to prepare for negotiating with their neighbors (or friends, family members, or colleagues) until a problem has arisen. One should think of dealing with conflict as follows:
Good: undertake an effective approach to conflict resolution
Better: develop and implement wise mechanisms for conflict management
Best: plan ahead and focus efforts on conflict prevention
Know What You're Getting Into -- Ask Questions

Before you move into a neighborhood, whether you're moving into an apartment or a single-family house, do some good research about what you can expect regarding the community. Professional real estate salespeople generally can tell prospective buyers (or renters) about local taxes, the quality of schools, what kinds of shopping and transportation are accessible from the property, the location of places of worship, and other similar issues.

It is important to investigate more deeply. If you know people in the area, you should do your best to have them tell you about neighborhood feuds and bullies, noise issues, how well people maintain their houses, the availability of services (ranging from emergency response time to where to find a good landscaper), issues of privacy, and the relative 'neighborliness' of local residents.

If you don't have personal acquaintances in an area into which you are considering moving, try to find sources of the kind of information you want. For example, if you belong to a religious denomination, find a local member of the clergy who's prepared to level with you. Go to a local library and read several months' worth of the police blotter in the local newspaper to see whether there have been frequent complaints about noise, litter, or other problems.

In my personal experience, asking those sorts of questions has helped people I know choose where to live - and where not to go.

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors - Understand And Respect Boundaries

When the American poet Robert Frost wrote about good fences, he hit on a crucial point of living in a neighborhood. People need to understand and agree on both physical and psychological boundaries. If you play loud music late at night, it is your obligation to take every possible step to contain the noise within your walls. While good neighbors may feel free to exchange visits with one another, arriving unannounced can be construed as an invasion of someone's turf.

If you are buying property - and even if you are renting - it is a wise idea to have the property surveyed and marked before you finalize your decision to buy or rent. Once the surveyor's markers are visible to neighbors, wait a short time to see who complains - and how they behave. That could give you early warnings of potential problems.

Do your best to understand the rules that govern boundaries in your neighborhood; these include governmental regulations, easements, restrictive covenants, and private agreements among neighbors. Find out what may constitute a nuisance under the law or other local rules so that you know what you - and your neighbors - are free to do or barred from doing.

BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) and WATNA (Worst Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement)

When you are considering whether and how to negotiate with neighbors, always think ahead - 'What results will make this negotiation worthwhile? What's the worst that can happen?' Figure out ahead of time what might happen during negotiation that should trigger your decision to walk away from the process. Get a sense of the balance of power among the parties. BATNA and WATNA are two acronyms negotiators use to consider such issues.

If you have neighbors who are essentially barbarians, if you have no allies, if the police refuse to get involved when there's a dispute involving neighbors, it may well be that moving away is the best way out of the situation. Of course if you had done the suggested research before moving in, you might have been able to avoid the problems.

Be Prepared

Before you negotiate with a neighbor your have to prepare yourself with information, the consideration of strategies and tactics, an understanding of your BATNA and WATNA - and by reminding yourself that you are entitled to pursue your interests.

In too many cases this may not provide a perfect solution - but if you recognize what's in your best interest, you are more likely to negotiate wisely and effectively.


MANY GREAT NATIONS DIVIDED BY A COMMON LANGUAGE

A few weeks ago a student from the Philippines sent an email asking for an article explaining "THE IMPORTANCE OF ENGLISH IN BUSINESS". Most likely that topic merits a book and not just an article.

Instead, here are some observations about the current primacy of English as the language of choice in international negotiations. Let me begin by saying that when someone from The Negotiation Skills Company is providing consulting services or negotiating in English with people who have a different mother tongue, we always feel humbled by their talent in 'our' language.

English has not always been the language of choice for international negotiation. We must always be aware that nothing stays the same forever and that someday other languages or media will dominate international communication. At the present time, however, the economic power of the United States and other English-speaking countries, the universality of English-language news broadcasts on televisions in hotels frequented by business travelers, and the general likelihood that students' first foreign language is English all contribute to the expectation that if someone doesn't understand your language, there's a good chance they will be able to communicate in English.

If English is the 'default' language of international communication, and since negotiation is about the communication of information (price, specifications, delivery, creative solutions, etc.), English is dominant in negotiation.

There are a number of dangers in this. As the fractured quotation from Winston Churchill used as the title of this newsletter indicates, the fact that people are using one language to communicate with folks who speak different languages is no guarantee that the negotiating parties will truly understand each other. This is true in every language spoken in multiple countries; accents vary, dialects may be incomprehensible between groups, and even the meanings of everyday words can be different. When folks are from countries that don't share a common language, that exacerbates the possibilities of miscommunication.

If someone negotiates with you in English, and if their English is not the same as yours, it is crucial to be transparent in emphasizing the need to make sure there is accurate mutual understanding. One should use diplomatic approaches to raise this issue; after all the words you use can be just as confusing to your negotiation partner as hers are to you.

Before undertaking any negotiation it is crucial to know your own interests, to rank those interests according to priority, and to figure out how you will know when your interests are being addressed. Then listen to other parties for information upon which decisions can be made.

When negotiation is undertaken by people whose common language is not the mother tongue of one or more parties, the most sensible thing to do is ask questions constantly throughout the process that are likely to yield clarifying answers. For example, it is not unreasonable to ask something like: "When you say the product is guaranteed, what is the nature of the guarantee you offer? In my country/market a guarantee includes the following aspects: (then you give a list). What is normal in your country/market when you say 'guarantee'?" Make it clear that you are not doubting your negotiating partner's honesty, but rather that you are pursuing greater understanding.

Negotiations only succeed if the parties 'buy in' to the agreement and are truly willing to fulfill the bargain they have made. The language used in negotiation should be a means of clear communication so that no party emerges from the process wondering whether they've agreed to something they don't understand or to which they have been pushed to agree for fear of losing face by admitting a lack of comprehension.

English is indeed the language of global business. It is best used if it fosters transparency in transactions. Whether the people who use it are native speakers of English or are simply using the best way to communicate with someone with whom they don't share another language, they have to take care to prevent what appears to be a common means of communication does not become a common language that divides the parties.

UNILATERAL VERSUS MULTILATERAL

In recent statements, US President George W. Bush has announced that all US negotiations with North Korea about its nuclear weapons program must be multilateral, that there will not be any bilateral negotiations between the United States and North Korea. Negotiators can draw a variety of conclusions about this approach.

To a certain extent, President Bush is wisely making certain that there is no collusion among a small number of the parties that would undercut an overall agreement among the six countries (North Korea, the U.S., South Korea, Japan, Russia and China) that have been working on the issue. On the other hand, taking a positional approach ('My way or the highway') and insisting that the negotiation process to stay within narrow guidelines could be an obstacle to creative solutions and could bar the possibility of flexibility in future negotiations.

We often feel that the bulk of our negotiating is with single parties - regarding both business and personal decisions. But when we reflect, often elements of negotiations' outcomes have a significant impact on many parties. The dilemma we face is whether to deal with everyone and every issue at the same time or to address a smaller number of issues and/or negotiation partners as part of the process of collaborating to bring about a result that will get buy-in from the largest possible number of stakeholders.

When there are multiple issues and multiple parties, undertaking formal negotiations without adequate preparation can be especially damaging. However it is crucial to play by whatever rules have been agreed to in the preliminaries that precede a formal negotiation process.

The first lesson to take from that is to understand that negotiating parties need to agree in advance on several elements in the process. Timing, location, who is involved, what items are on the agenda, whether there is a deadline, and which parties have which responsibilities are all matters that, if agreed in advance, can make for a smoother process. Decisions on these issues are open to discussion by sub-groups of the total number of parties.

A good multi-party, multi-issue negotiation is more likely to result if each party has done as much homework as possible with other parties as well as non-participating stakeholders. This should make the formal process more likely to yield an agreement acceptable to the involved parties.

Asking preliminary questions to get a sense of other parties' interests, what will drive their decisions, and how they will assess the fairness of the process is a crucial part of preparation. By the same token, there must be a clear understanding among the ultimate negotiating parties that preliminary conversations are meant to smooth the process, not force particular results.

In negotiations among nations, transparency in the development of the process - and adherence to mutually agreed rules - increases the likelihood that the ultimate agreement will be accepted and fulfilled. Undercutting those rules can wipe out the credibility of the process and yield agreements lacking full commitment.

Outside the international political realm, civilized negotiations aren't generally undertaken against a background of military force. Nonetheless, the desired outcome of a good negotiation process remains the same: an agreement each party will willingly fulfill.

Playing by the rules underscores parties' credibility and a sense that the process is fair. So, to paraphrase an old friend from my undergraduate days, you should remember that negotiation is a process, but you should also remember to follow the process's rules.

TERRORISM AND NEGOTIATION

"Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate." John F. Kennedy

Terror is an enemy of civilization. It is a means of attempting to force others to do your will. In the workplace, bosses who are martinets may be able to terrorize subordinates into following orders, but they have not succeeded in convincing people to agree. When people agree out of fear, the long-term results are negative.

News stories keep bringing us examples of how some people or groups use terror as a tactic in their strategy to get other folks to change their minds. The aim of terror is to break down the underpinnings of civilization by bringing fear to target groups and undercutting civilized means for resolving differences.

Terror is not negotiation. There is no 'give and take' bargaining between parties. It is a matter of 'you give and I take.'

All too often the way someone or some group responds to terror has an impact on how they are perceived by others.

Sophisticated terrorists sometimes make reasonably accurate predictions about the actions of others, then orchestrate their terror tactics to make it appear as if their actions have forced those others to take a step or make a decision they were going to take anyhow. The train bombings in Madrid in the spring of 2004 are an excellent example of that; a preponderance of Spanish voters wanted to elect a new government to end their military participation in the Iraq war. Terrorists created a tragedy just before the Spanish election - and that action gave outsiders the impression that planting bombs could force the electorate in a democracy to change their minds - and change their government.

Less sophisticated terrorists bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City - and achieved the objective of causing death and destruction - but nothing in the way of convincing people to take them seriously.

When the barbarians who use terror are able to convince private citizens or governments to take a particular action, the terrorist threat destroys public confidence and leaves normal people exposed to chaos.

Dealing with terrorists can only work if the process brings terrorists into a civilized negotiation that leads to willingly accepted mutual agreements.

Successful civilized negotiation is based on the understanding that one can better serve his/her interests by collaborating with other parties who have the capacity to provide resources or services that make the whole greater than the sum of the parts. Negotiation is about making the future better, gaining buy-in from the interested parties, and adding value to the situation each party faces. Negotiation is a constructive process.

Many parties to negotiations fear other parties because of their reputations, their perceived power, or their use of sneaky tactics. Countering these obstacles to a successful collaborative process requires looking for answers to several questions and/or using a variety of techniques including the following:
Would I choose to work with this other party of my own free will? Do they have the capacity or the resources to address my interests?
What interests of mine do I wish to serve in the bargaining process? Who can add value to the situation I face?
What is my BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement), that is, can I get my interests served better by dealing with other parties or focusing on other possible outcomes?
How should I react if the party with whom I have to negotiate threatens me or my company? What kinds of threats might they raise? If you think about these issues before negotiation starts, you will be far better prepared for whatever they might throw at you.
When a party's offer or proposal to you is seriously off the mark or inappropriate, don't explode. Sit there with a poker face, stay silent, don't react. They'll get the message.
Remember to keep asking yourself, "What is the point of this interchange?" Why is the party with whom you're negotiating saying or doing something particular? What is the point of what you say or do?
Never never say something that is contrary to your interest. Don't let someone force you to say something you'll regret later.
If someone tries to bully you, tell them "I'm afraid we may fail to reach agreement." Bullies are afraid of failure.

COMMON GROUND VERSUS COMMON INTEREST
Negotiators often find themselves chasing a will o' the wisp called common interests. Parties to collaborative decision-making often feel there's a need to reach agreements in which everyone comes to the same conclusions for the same reasons.

When one looks at even the closest relationships, for example friends making a choice about what film to see, a joint agreement may well reflect different interests. For example, there's a film in current release called The Last Samurai. One friend may want to see it because she 'adores' one of the film's stars; another may find violence entertaining; yet another may be fascinated by the Japanese Samurai culture. In this situation, the common decision does not reflect common interests; it reflects complementary interests.

Using negotiation to find complementary interests is a far more realistic approach than efforts to make decisions based on common interests. Common interests mean the various parties to an agreement want the same result for the same reasons - a rare occurrence, indeed.

TNSC often talks about three C's of interests: Common, Complementary, and interests that are in Conflict. When there is significant conflict between or among parties' interests, the negotiation process can be particularly challenging.

Conflicting interests may be handled most effectively by looking first at possible common ground. The conflicting parties may disagree about almost anything involving each other - but a careful look may reveal that each has interests that can offer them a starting point for negotiating in a civilized manner. The Greek philosopher Archimedes is famous for having stated, "Give me a lever and a place to stand, and I can move the Earth." For conflicting parties, that 'place to stand' may be thought of as their common ground.

Common ground should not be confused with common interests. Rather, common ground should be viewed as a minimal starting point for negotiations - where the parties have a reasonably realistic understanding of where each of them is coming from. In business, buyers and sellers may find their common ground is the understanding each wants the best price for a particular item. The further understanding that the seller wants to receive a higher price and the buyer wants to pay a lower price means that, while there is no common interest (on price) there may be the common ground recognition that one wants to sell the product and the other wants the product. Common ground gives negotiators a starting point.

In a more general sense, common ground may be thought of as a civilizing factor in how parties resolve disagreements. Recognizing that interests may differ, and accepting that those differences may never disappear, can free negotiators to pursue the possible, to be realistic in their expectations, to treat others with respect in order to achieve results that make sense under the circumstances.

CODES SET THE TONE
Several weeks ago Professor William A. Donohue of Michigan State University and author of Managing Interpersonal Conflict (Sage, 1992) introduced me to the importance of codes in negotiation.

People often think of codes as ways to limit other's access to communication - the way spies transmit coded messages in times of war. Or codes are viewed as mechanisms for transmitting information using symbols that require common understanding between the sender and receiver - like the Morse Code or the abbreviations one finds in the text messages folks send using their cellular telephones.

According to Professor Donohue, codes are much more than that. Codes establish the informal rules for structuring the communication patterns in a negotiation. In a sense, his analysis follows the famous statement of Marshall McLuhan, "The medium is the message." If you understand the communication rules that evolve in negotiation you can make sure they don't restrict the deal you are trying to put together. But more importantly, you can learn to shape the rules to your advantage.

For example, negotiators may adopt a very formal code with little humor and personal reflections, and long serious speeches with big words. If this rule is reinforced over several minutes or even sessions, it may be difficult to break into a more informal code that is often more useful for understanding the depth of the issues facing the negotiators.

Generally speaking, a negotiator's code reflects personal style: language full of expletives, using physical posture to attempt to dominate the conversation, or speaking very softly to force others to work hard to hear what is said. In other cases, cultural issues may be reflected in a person's negotiation code: the use of exaggerated language to raise the emotional level of the discussion, cultural differences over personal space, arriving late - or making another party wait. The key is understanding whether the code that emerges in the negotiation either helps or hinders a constructive deal. Sometimes people enter a negotiation ready to make a deal but the code that emerges gets in the way.

How can negotiators understand the code? First, it is important to listen for the elements of the code: the volume of a negotiator's voice, the use or avoidance of humor or personal touches in the communication process, the relative formality of a negotiator's dress, even the decision on how many people should be on each negotiating team. That is, each negotiator needs to analyze his or her own 'hot buttons' when it comes to the communications process. Asking colleagues and friends for their observations about one's approach to communication can enhance the analysis. It is important to understand your own set of sensitivities so that you can figure out whether another negotiating party's code is leading you away from the substantive issues and giving your emotions too much influence over your negotiation style.

Second, once you have analyzed your own code, all the various ways you communicate beyond the mere use of words, then you can do a better job of responding to the communication of others by constantly analyzing their own negotiation coding. Is it what they say or how they say it that has the greatest impact on you? If you recognize that their code threatens to be an obstacle to a proper focus on the issues, how can you bring those coding issues into the discussion to clear the air and make sure neither party is led astray by unintended messages from the other? By the same token, you must also do your best to analyze whether one of the parties is attempting to manipulate the process by utilizing a communications code that complicates the issue about which you should be collaborating. Shape the coding rules to facilitate collaboration.

Years ago a friend told me, "Don't get hung up on style." He was off the mark. Communications style sets the tone of negotiations, and unless we address the issues thus raised, we reduce the likelihood that the negotiation will yield a wise and durable result.

BECAUSE IT'S MINE, THAT'S WHY!
Several weeks ago the New York Times included an article carrying the headline: "California Chablis? No Such Thing, Europeans Say". The story describes the efforts of many European regions to protect their rights to product names: Roquefort, Chianti, or Parma ham. Rights to names are matters of serious conflict - in fact issues where rights are the source of disagreement are fraught with complications not always easily treated by using Interest-Based Negotiation.

Interest-Based Negotiation is an excellent tool for parties whose complementary interests are best served by mutual cooperation. Even in international disputes, it is often possible to find a sufficient quantity of complementary interests to reduce hostility. Thus, for example, Israel and Egypt signed the Camp David accords because each nation recognized that a continued state of war was against its own interests and that even a 'cold peace' was preferable to a 'hot war'.

Rights-Based conflicts present far greater challenges. When each party says, "This result is the only correct one because it is my right", unless some deity each party takes equally seriously dictates the outcome from on high, agreement is extremely difficult to reach. Unfortunately, most often when the question of how the 'boss' deity is to be defined, the differing parties have contrary opinions, so no single source of absolute truth emerges to bring about resolution.

Conflicts over rights take many forms. In some cases the rights involved are fundamentally commercial. Thus the ownership of the appellations of wines, cheeses, and other products identified with or invented in a particular geographic location is a matter of dealing with commercially valuable names. The same is true with product names. 'Coke' is a name owned by Coca-Cola. Years ago, when Chevrolet was developing a sporty car they tried unsuccessfully to buy the rights to the model name Cougar from the Ford Motor Company.

Because names, logos, and other commercial identifiers are themselves items that can be traded commercially, negotiations over ownership can generally be conducted using an Interest-Based approach. The demise of 'Napster' was brought about by successful legal action to protect the intellectual property rights of music publishers and other elements of the music industry. Intellectual property is a commodity in which parties can have commercial interests; lawsuits may yield resolution, but negotiation is another tool for resolving the ownership of rights.

Intellectual property can be called an intangible commercial right. There are other tangible rights over which much blood has been shed: the right of a group of people to occupy a piece of land (Israel/Palestine); the right of a group of people to have greater power than another (Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland and Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda). One can argue that in each of those cases it is possible to find some interest-based approach to resolve many of the conflicts about the relevant rights. Moreover, there was the apparently evanescent hope that a shared belief in a fundamentally common deity (even though the religious divide is the most visible problem) made the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland more likely to succeed.

In my experience, the most troublesome rights conflict relates to the right to a name claimed by people of two different nations. When it comes to naming a nationality or a region, particularly given the American phenomenon of dozens of communities in different states having the same name, it is difficult to comprehend how a 'mere' name can be a matter of enormous emotional significance.

During a classroom discussion of differences between interest- and rights-based issues, I used the example of the conflict between Greece and a portion of what used to be Yugoslavia over the name Macedonia. There is a province of Greece called Macedonia and, by current international usage, there is an entity called the Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia (FYROM). For all practical purposes, there is no common language or ethnicity - or disputed territory - claimed by the inhabitants of the Greek province and FYROM. All they share is the conflict over the use of a name. As a New Englander, where five of the six adjacent states have cities or towns called Manchester, I was mystified at the emotional significance of ownership of the name Macedonia. A Greek participant in the class was having apoplexy at the mere discussion of the issue. When I suggested perhaps both groups in the conflict should dump the name entirely and use the substitute name 'Coca-Cola', she virtually stormed out of the room. After the conclusion of the seminar she told me that, in spite of her deeply felt anger over the issue, she really appreciated the silliness of my suggested substitute name because it illustrated the absurdity of a fight over a name.

Psychologists tell us our favorite word in our native language is our own name. Good negotiators know that and try to use names as a way to enhance relationships with other parties. But we must never forget that the right to a name, however intangible, however devoid of commercial value is a right that has led to conflicts lasting centuries. Identity theft may be a commercial crime, but it is also an emotionally charged issue that may never go away.

WHEN I NEGOTIATE, WHERE SHOULD I SIT?
We recently received a question from a visitor to our website that raised some interesting issues. He said, "I would love to see an article dedicated to where to sit during a negotiation. I am familiar with the popular recommendation to sit side-by-side during a brainstorming session, but wonder whether that is the most realistic advice related to how to position yourself during a meeting."

Here's our response:

Negotiating works best when the parties are comfortable with the process. Process questions may relate to preparatory agreements on agenda items, what media will be used for communication among the parties, or the critical factors of fair treatment and civilized behavior.

Negotiators need to work in a situation where the different parties' comfort level supports, rather than interferes with the collaborative decision-making process. One of the core approaches used by many negotiators is to separate personality issues from the negotiators' objectives, the reasons they are negotiating. This can be accomplished in several ways:
Have the parties sit on the same side of the negotiating table.
Record all elements of the discussion on a single sheet of paper, a whiteboard, or some other medium that exists by itself and doesn't 'belong' to a single party or group of parties.
Utilize what some negotiators call the single-text approach in which all ideas are treated as independent thoughts with no consideration as to their source. In other words, using this approach, the aim is to have the negotiators consider ideas and not who suggested those ideas. This reflects the underlying philosophy of brainstorming.
In some negotiations using a third-party, normally referred to as a mediator, to shuttle between the negotiators can mean the medium of communication is neutral and therefore the messages moving back and forth do not carry as much emotional baggage as they might when they come directly from the mouths of face-to-face negotiators.
There is no single perfect approach that applies to all negotiations. Because we use so many different media to negotiate: face-to-face conversation, email, phone calls, faxes, and even written communication sent through the postal system (which can give negotiators more time to consider what has been or should be said), the choices negotiators make to increase the likelihood the process will yield a durable agreement must respond to each party's comfort level to be effective.

Given these considerations, negotiators need to make their process choices as transparently as possible. One simple example in face-to-face conversation is the issue of personal space. Many studies have demonstrated that people from different cultures, even different cities within a given country, have different personal space requirements. Thus, when one negotiator needs to be 'up close and personal' to feel comfortable and another party needs distance, there should be straightforward communication about the issue. If either party recognizes that the issue of personal space could have an impact on their comfort, he or she should raise the issue and negotiate a mutually agreeable communication distance in order to increase the negotiators' comfort level for the negotiations about the substantive issues.

The decisions negotiators have to make about the physical layout of the negotiation process include whether they sit across from or next to each other, around a circular table, opposite a whiteboard or flipchart, or in easy chairs with drinks and nibbles on a coffee table each can reach. Negotiators can agree to stand, to make decisions sitting side by side while traveling to a meeting, or to work on some issues face-to-face and others by phone or using email. However one must be careful: treating the decision where or how to sit and/or when and how to communicate as a gimmick to establish who's in charge of the negotiation is not conducive to initiating a collaborative decision-making process.

Discussing the communication mechanism alternatives can be as significant for setting the tone of the negotiation as any expressions of strong feelings during the process itself. A clear understanding of how each negotiating party can contribute to all the parties' comfort with the decision-making process will go a long way towards contributing to an agreement each party will willingly fulfill.

REACHING AND IMPLEMENTING INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
The Anglo-American war to end Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq needs to be examined in the overall context of international negotiations. While there are an enormous number of agreements involving national governments on everything from how war is to be waged to environmental protection to tax treaties, the vast majority of agreements involving parties from different countries are about business.

As is the case in negotiations within organizations or even family groups, international negotiations require a multilateral approach if there is to be buy-in or willing agreement among the parties - whether the parties are political entities or businesses. A successful negotiation is a process by which parties reach an agreement each is committed to fulfill.

With business negotiations, parties work together to reach agreements that will add value to each organization's business. Added value may come from improved financial circumstances, better products or services, timelier deliveries, or expanded market opportunities.

A party that feels forced to do business with a specific entity can find it less burdensome if the business relationship aids their long-term interests in terms of other stakeholders, credibility, or relationships upon which success is based. Looking at each negotiation as an isolated incident may aid short-term decision-making, but can jeopardize potential long-term gains.

The situation of political entities may be viewed as parallel to sole-source suppliers or single customers for an organization's products or services. One has to deal with the parties as they are because no alternatives exist. In such circumstances it is crucial to consider the interests of other stakeholders in the situation. Conflict between existing political entities may lead to war - such as the Anglo-American actions in Iraq. However, with many other stakeholders directly or tangentially involved, the long-term consequences to relationships with countries that are not engaged in the armed conflict needs consideration at every stage in the process. For example, Turkey's interest in joining the European Union may have had an impact on its decision regarding the American desire to move forces through Turkey into northern Iraq.

In international negotiations, just as in the case of negotiations among tribes within a single corporation, the overall context must be given appropriate attention before the negotiations are undertaken or completed. Otherwise there is a risk to the parties that the negotiation will not yield a durable agreement.

International negotiations require careful preparation, a comprehension of cultural complexities, and sensitivity to the context in which negotiated agreements will be implemented. This is true in business as well as in the area of politics or other public sector decision-making. Remember that without buy-in, you haven't really got a deal.

A WORLD OF TRIBES
Several years ago, an article in The Economist included a sentence calling the European Community (this was before it became the European Union) a 'community of nations'. The next issue of the magazine contained a letter to the editor taking issue with that analysis, calling the European Community a 'community of tribes'.

When we look at most large entities - corporations, communities, or countries - we very often find they are made up of 'tribes'. In business, salespeople think differently from purchasing managers, marketing specialists have a different view of the world from that of folks responsible for manufacturing, and the same holds true for other professional groups.

One of the consequences of this tribalism within organizations is that inconsistencies can result which present obstacles to business success. Perhaps the greatest horror story I can remember came from a participant in one of our workshops. He worked for a client of ours with 110,000 employees. One day he was given five minutes' notice that he was to participate in a conference call between his company and a major client. When he joined the call, he had the unpleasant experience of listening to his colleagues argue among themselves for thirty minutes on the phone - while their client group listened in stunned silence.

Recognizing differences among tribes can be a critical element in negotiation. There is always a risk that a negotiator will assume that a person who dresses a certain way or was born in a particular country has particular characteristics or responds to some issues as if one has pressed a 'hot button'. A negotiator must be careful not to let their assumptions about another person's cultural background blind them to that other person's characteristics as an individual.

Preparing to negotiate with members of other tribes within your company, folks from different companies or business sectors, or people from other national cultures requires lots of research and preparation. While it is important to learn what you can about 'their culture' in general, it is far more valuable to engage other parties by asking questions that will help you clear up potentially mistaken assumptions about their tribe - or their individual viewpoints.

If my conference-calling client's colleagues had discussed their agreements and disagreements ahead of time, they could well have changed the impression given to the client representatives on the receiving end of the conference call. The lesson is to do your homework early. Don't wait for problems to arise when they can do the most damage.

When dealing with folks from outside your own team, ask questions that reflect your respectful interest in getting issues clarified - and deriving information that can lead to more effective and appealing resolutions on the issues of importance.

TANK THE ECONOMY
Our negotiations yield consequences for a variety of stakeholders: The Negotiators: ourselves and the people with whom we're negotiating The Negotiators' Constituents: members of our team - whether it be our company or our family Other Stakeholders - folks with whom we may not have a direct relationship but to whom our negotiation results have some significance.

Keeping the stakeholders in mind can be a tremendously practical way to bring about a result that meets the test of a successful negotiation: an agreement the parties are committed to fulfill.

Keeping the stakeholders in mind is critical for another reason; we all have an obligation of stewardship in our dealings with other people, whether in our professional lives or in our roles as members of the community. In negotiation, people who think only of themselves are generally called by the unflattering term 'positional bargainers'. They take the 'my way or the highway' approach and view the process as a confrontation from which they intend to emerge as the winners. This implies that others will emerge as losers. And it is this sort of thinking that appears to threaten to drive the US economy into the tank.

Harming the US economy means that other stakeholders - other economies in the global marketplace - are likely to suffer damage.

The alleged accounting chicanery that has led to the scandal ascribed to Andersen Accounting, Enron, Worldcom, ImClone, Tyco and other corporate giants can be analyzed from the perspective of negotiation. If negotiation is viewed as the exchange of information between parties in order to influence the parties' actions, we can see the actions of decision-makers in the accused companies as a faulty negotiation in which disinformation rather than facts was used to induce others to act. By presenting false information, investors were induced to purchase or hold stock - while insiders were selling; employees were influenced to accept corporate actions that harmed employees both on the job and in terms of their retirement; lending institutions were influenced to extend credit to non-creditworthy businesses.

Each of those groups of stakeholders (the investors, employees, and lending institutions) derived harm from the positional bargaining of corporate leaders who demonstrated no concern about any stakeholders other than themselves.

A good negotiator must always govern what he or she says or does by measuring whether it helps or harms his or her interests. A good negotiator must also recognize that, because negotiation is not a competitive sport, unless another party's interests conflict with their own, there is probably no reason to erect obstacles to their negotiation partner's interests; it will not increase the likelihood of true mutual agreement. Losing parties tend to walk away grumpy, looking for ways to avoid their obligations.

The failure of a small number of America's corporate leadership to give consideration to the interests of their constituents and other stakeholders has given a black eye to the system; they have succeeded at making lawyers and used-car salesmen look good. Negotiators need to be fair; that brings about buy-in among the parties. By behaving unfairly, the corporate 'bad apples' have harmed the reputation of the vast majority of businesspeople who take their stewardship roles seriously.

Negotiators know their reputation follows them wherever they go; in fact many times a negotiator's reputation arrives at his destination before he does.

Taking stakeholders seriously in the negotiation process increases the likelihood of a wise agreement. When corporate leaders take stakeholders seriously it increases the likelihood of a viable and fair marketplace which serves the interests of decision-makers, their constituents, and the others who depend on a fair and equitable outcome.

PUTTING ALL YOUR CARDS ON THE TABLE
When we ask people what qualities they expect to find in a good negotiator, one of the top choices is virtually always 'honesty'. Liars may be able to convince people with whom they are negotiating, but generally parties who've been on the receiving end of a lie do their best to get out of the dishonestly-reached agreement. There's an old expression: "If you cheat me once, shame on you. If you cheat me twice, shame on me."
Telling the truth is not the only aspect of honesty in negotiation that needs to be examined. The question often arises, "Should I put all my cards on the table when the negotiation begins?" Revealing everything up front reduces your capacity to implement strategic choices as the negotiation goes forward. Unless someone asks you for information it is not fair to them for you to assume they want every single detail. Doing what computer folks call an 'information dump' makes it appear that everything you present is of equal value or significance and it places a burden on other parties to sort through it all, looking for information they actually want.
Sales people have a saying, "When someone starts to agree with you, it's time to stop talking." If you prepare for your communication with an Interest Map(c), a tool listing the broad range of issues that might possibly be of interest to others, you can organize your communication strategy by trying to learn what facts or issues other folks need to have explained in order to comprehend your highest-priority points.
As you prepare for negotiation, put your thoughts together in bullet-point format or an outline rather than paragraphs. This is obviously directly applicable to written communication, but even someone who is well-organized enough to think and speak in paragraphs can do a better job of getting directly to the most important points by arranging thoughts in bullet-point form, reducing each idea to its skeletal form rather than a more elaborate coverage of every last detail.
Your negotiation strategy should be aimed at learning what information other parties need to make their decisions - as well as what you need to learn from them in order to further your interests.
Making sure that you are honest in presenting information is crucial for your credibility. Limiting the information you present and organizing the order in which it is presented will increase the efficiency of the negotiation, give other negotiators the opportunity to give you a clearer picture of what's on their mind, and keep you from boring them with irrelevancies.
NEGOTIATION SKILLS FOR MANAGERS
Since its publication by McGraw-Hill in March, the book has received favorable comment from readers in the United States, Great Britain, Belgium, and Spain. It is being translated into Spanish under the direction of Professor Ricardo Altimira-Vega of Madrid, into Chinese by McGraw-Hill (with a significant contribution from a former student of mine from China), and will be published in India.
If you haven't already got your copy, the book is in bookstores along with others in McGraw-Hill's Briefcase Books series. You can also order the book online on our website at www.negotiationskills.com. Those copies will be shipped by Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, or Amazon.fr. The book has been the subject of radio and television interviews and newspaper and magazine articles in the US and UK.

THINK GLOBALLY, NEGOTIATE LOCALLY
Don't let the headlines fool you into thinking that the world has changed so much that negotiation has to be undertaken in a whole new light. Geopolitical events, economic conditions, and terrorist acts that give individuals reason to feel paranoid may reflect something new - but none of these circumstances has transformed the basic elements of human nature.
Our number one obligation as negotiators is to pursue outcomes that serve our interests. While the 'world situation' - whether it be political or economic - may influence our choices of people with whom to negotiate or the resources that are available, the process of negotiating wisely still rests on sensible process decisions. We need to prioritize among process elements that TNSC refers to as The Seven Pillars of Negotiational Wisdom(c):
Relationship - what impact will this negotiation have on our business or personal relationship with other negotiators or our constituents, the parties who stand to gain or lose depending on the negotiation's outcome?
Interests - what are the reasons that drive our pursuit of particular objectives - and can another party's ideas or resources help serve our interests better than what we bring to the table?
BATNA - our Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement may be derived from resources we control or influence. We may have choices of parties with whom to negotiate or may be better off relying on ourselves. BATNAs can change during negotiation each time we learn a new piece of information.
Creativity - are we to be governed by standard operating procedure, or can our interests be better served by thinking out of the box? If our ideas are the only ones worth taking seriously, it is hard to justify bringing additional parties into a negotiation -- the decision-making process.
Fairness - do we feel as if we are being treated fairly? How do other parties feel? If a negotiator feels she or he is not being dealt with in a fair manner, he or she may agree for purposes of bringing the bargaining to a close, but may walk away without having bought into the agreement.
Commitment - negotiations can only be called successful if they lead to agreements the parties are committed to fulfill. Learn whether the people at the bargaining table have the capacity to keep the promises they make. Use the negotiation process to build in long-term mechanisms for assuring the agreement will be honored.
Communication - information is the fundamental asset in negotiation. We communicate best by listening. Using questions and listening is the best approach for making sure negotiators are on the same page. We should keep asking ourselves whether the negotiation process is being used as a successful way of communicating information.
By considering which of these deserves more attention in a given negotiation before the negotiation process begins, we are likely to do a better job. The recent past may have presented some shocks, but to be a good negotiator, you have to accept that things may not always go the way you expect. Keep the Seven Pillars in mind, and you should be able to respond wisely to the circumstances you face.
ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF CIVILITY
The mission statement of The Negotiation Skills Company, Inc. is: "Advance the cause of civility."
Our philosophy is founded on the belief that except for an extraordinarily small number of people, human beings share common interests in peace and fairness and personal freedom.
The attacks on the United States of America were an attack on the fundamental interests of civilized people. An anonymous enemy attacked, without named purpose, destroying innocent lives, using civilian aircraft as weapons of war.
The cowardice and viciousness displayed by the anonymous barbarians attacking without named ideological purpose did more to bring Americans together than any event since the Second World War. Our office has received messages from all over the world expressing sympathy and condemning the attack.
In developing our negotiation consulting and training programs over the past ten years, The Negotiation Skills Company has never deluded itself into thinking that, by ourselves, we can save the world from barbarity. But we were founded based on the obligation of every civilized person to take whatever steps they can to initiate or carry on positive change.
When we work with individuals or companies or other organizations wanting to enhance their capacities to reach solutions in a peaceful, civilized manner TNSC is fulfilling our moral and ethical commitment to 'advance the cause of civility'.
Yesterday's attack on America and on civilized standards of human behavior demonstrates our ongoing obligation to pursue our mission. And it underscores the duty of all people of good will to take whatever steps they can towards making the world a better place.
There are evil people in this world; with some six billion people, there have to be several hundred or even several thousand 'bad guys'. But they cannot set the rules - and they will not.

About Author