| Go Back | Main Menu | OD TOOLKIT |
Negotiation is a part of a strategy to reach a goal. It is what the different parties do when they face each other. It is the crowning piece of a strategy in which they reach some kind of agreement, or someone decides to back down.
Negotiation should be distinguished from the process of convincing each other on the ground of content-arguments. In such a discussion people may also change their mind, or reach some kind of agreement or compromise. This is not a result of negotiation - but of going through the arguments once more and finding common ground.
Negotiation is involved when the strategy of mutual exchange is chosen - and sometimes when the strategy of pressure has been successfully executed.
The process of negotiation differs in different cultures. There are certain ritualistic aspects involved in negotiation - and many subtle signs to be read and rules to be followed. International negotiation is often difficult because the 'language of negotiation' between countries or cultures may not be compatible.
This kind of negotiation can best be compared to the process which takes place when haggling about the price of something one wants to buy. The negotiation takes place within the context that both parties have something which the other one wants. But if the price is too high, the 'sale falls through'. One does not know exactly how much the other is prepared to 'give' - but one can be sure what is the minimum for which one is prepared to make a deal.
The skill in the negotiation lies in part in the preparation (being clear about what one has to offer, being clear what one wants to get for it). It lies in having an idea of the worth of what one has, for the other party. It lies in part in reading the signs that the other party gives correctly, and in following whatever rituals surround negotiation in a certain culture.
The art of negotiation lies in offering sufficient - but not too much. And a relationship of respect: the feeling on both sides that it has been good doing business. One step further is the win-win negotiation. In this negotiation both parties benefit from the deal, as in the mutual exchange and you even try to prevent any loss for both.
Most energy is put into discovering the interests of the other party. That means exploring the needs, interest and underlying assumptions of both sides. Because by doing so you could discover that there are more common grounds than you "heard" the first moment when both express their point of view.
A point of view is a very brief summary of many underlying assumptions which lead to a "yes" or a "no" (totally opposite positions). When you are able to distinguish between the point of view and the underlying assumptions you discover that perhaps you have some mutual interests, some different but not conflicting interests and some real opposite interests. But you have enlarged the common ground and that makes it easier to formulate a solution of which both parties benefit.
This can be done successfully by:
The strategy of pressure is based on having power - power to make life difficult for the target . Power to force them to do/give/grant you your wish, because if not, then........certain threats will become reality.
In order to prepare this kind of negotiation the following preparation is necessary:
Both parties will try to negotiate at the moment they have organized their support in the best possible way. Early negotiation is a problem because there is insufficient time to mobilize people, to gather power. Late negotiation may be a problem because after a while people get tired of a certain issue, and are not prepared to use their 'pull' anymore.
This is a difficult issue. Who negotiates - and who do they represent? How do they communicate with the people they represent? This is especially difficult when one is negotiating for for instance an alliance. How to choose the negotiation team - particularly how to ensure its cooperation?
A negotiation team which starts to disagree amongst themselves, makes life very easy for the other side. This should be avoided.
It can help to agree beforehand who is the leader, and who decides when to do which concession. And who makes clear during the negotiation process what power and threats should be considered? And who keeps an eye on the process of the negotiation: the correct steps, not too much overt aggression for example.
This will differ in different cultures. In the Netherlands somebody chairs the meeting, and asks both parties to put forward their demands. In a discussion which follows the parties threaten each other - in a polite way ("You must understand, I will not be able to stop the workers from going on strike, if you persist in carrying out this latest measure"). After a while both parties begin to concede certain points. The chairperson keeps summarizing what common agreement has been reached - until the deal is clinched - or the negotiation is blocked. And the threats become reality.
One of the most complex things is how to keep your people informed about the process of negotiation. It is not possible to inform everyone immediately, or in detail - because this may harm the delicate balance within the negotiating process. At the same time, if one does not give some idea about what is going on, one may loose support. A lack of trust will weaken the position of the negotiation team.
This problem will be considerable when a negotiation is spread over a number of meetings. And when the negotiation team is representing an alliance - and is therefore backed by a varied body of support-groups. How often does each have a particular point which for them is of the utmost importance.
At times it will not be possible to satisfy everyone. Either in their wish to be informed quickly - or in their wish to have their demands met. The balance of trust can be very delicate indeed.
The negotiation team can do a number of things. They can make clear at the beginning that they need room and time to negotiate - and that their first offer is not likely to be the final agreement.
They can agree to discuss an important offer at home before making a definite commitment.
They can agree to inform everyone fully after the deal has been clinched
They can agree to evaluate their own role, in the whole process.