Monday, December 04, 2006

Negotiation Chapter 2: Strategizing,Framing,and Planning



Chapter 2: Negotiation : Strategizing, Framing, and Planning

With effective planning and target setting, most negotiators can achieve their objectives; without them, results occur more by chance than by negotiator effort.

Goal – The objectives that dive a negotiation strategy Te first step in developing and executing a negotiation strategy is to determine one’s goal. Negotiators must anticipate what they want to achieve in a negotiation and prepare for these events in advance.

- Direct effects of goala on choice of strategy.
There are important four aspects of how goals affect negotiation to understand:
1. Wishes are not goal – a goal is a specific, focused, realistic target that one can specifically plan to achieve.
2. Our goal are often linked to the other party’s goal – Goal that are not linked to each other often lead the parties either to talk past each other or to intensify the conflict.
3. There are boundaries or limits to what our goals can be – goals must be reasonably attainable.
4. Effective goals must be concrete or specific, and preferably measurable.

- Indirct effects of goal on choice of strategy.
The pursuit of a singular, substantive goal often tends to support the choice of a competitive strategy.

Strategy – The overall plan to achieve one’s goals
Strategy refers to overall plan to accomplish one’s goals in a negotiation, and the action sequences that will lead to the accomplishment of those goals.
- Strategy, Tactics, or Planning?
Tactics are short-term, adaptiv moves designed to enact or pursue broad strategies,which in turn provide stability,continuity, and direction for tactical behaviors. Tactics are subordinate to strategy; they are structured, directed, and driven by strategic considerations. Planning is an integral part of the strategy process – the “action” component.

- Strategic option – Vehicles for achieing goals
A unilateral choice of strategy is one that is made without the active involvement of the other party.
1. Alternative situational strategies. Requiring the negotiator to determine the relative importance and priority of the two dimensions in the desired settlement.
2. Avoidance: The nonengagement strategy. There are many reasons why negotiators might choose not to negotiate. First, if one is able to meet one’s needs without negotiating at all. Second, is simply may not be worth the time and effort to negotiate. Third, the decision to negotiate is closely related to the desirability of available alternatives-the outcomes that can be achieveed if negotiations don’t work out.
3. Active-engagement strategies: Competition(win-lose bargaining), collaboration(win-win negotiation), and accommodation(win-lose strategy that involves an imbalance of outcomes.)

Defining the issues – the process of “framing” the problem
Framing is determining what issues are at stake. Framing is abour focusing, shaping, organizing the world around us. Frames emerge as the parties talk about their preferences and priorities; they allow the parties to begin to develop a shared or common definition of the issues related to a situation, and a process for resolving them.
Why frames are critical to understanding strategy. There is general agreement that people often use frames to define problems. Frames are inevitable; one cannot “avoid”framing. Frames can also be chaped by the type of information that is chosen, or the setting and context in which the information is presented.

Types of frames. There are different types of frames that parties use in disputes:
· Substantive – what the conflict is about.
· Outcome – what predispositions the party has toachieveing a specific result from negotiation.
· Aspiration – what predispositions the party has toward satisfying a broader set of interest or needs in negotiation.
· Conflict management process – how the parties will go about resolving their dispute.
· Identity – how the parties define “ who they are.”
· Characteristization – how the parties define the other parties.
· Loss-gain – how the parties view the risk associated with particular outcomes.

Another approach to frames: interests, rights, and power
· Interest – People are often concerned about what they need, desire, or want.
· Rights – People may also be concerned about who is “right” – that is , who has legitimacy, who is correct, or what is fair.
· Power – People may also wish to resolve a negotiation on the basis of power.
The frame of an issue changes as the negotiation evolves
The issue development approach focuses on the patterns of change that occur in the issues as parties communicate with each other. There are several factors shape a frames.First, the negotiation context cearly effects the way both sides define the issue. Second, frames can be shaped by the conversations that parties have with each other about the issues in the bargaining mix. At least four factors can effect how conversation is shaped:
· Negotiators tend to argue for stock issues. Or concerns that are raised every time the parties negotiate.
· Each party attempts to make the best possible case for his or her prefered position or perspective.
· In a more “macro” sense, frames may alxo define major shift and transitions in the overall negotiation.
· Finally,multiple agenda items operate to shape the issue development frames.

Reframing is dynamic process that may occur many times in conversation. It comes as parties challenge each other, as they present their own case or refute the other’s, or as they search for ways to reconcile seemingly incompatible perspectives.

Summary. There are three ways to understand frames: as catergories of experience; as interests, rights, and power; nad as a process of issue development. Understanding frames – which means understanding how parties define the key issues and how conversations can shift and transform those issues.

Understanding the flow of negotiations: stages and phases There are seven key steps to an ideal negotiation process:
Preparation: deciding what is important, defining goals, thinking ahead how to work together with the other party.
Relationship building: getting to know the other party , understanding how differences or similarity between you and the other, and building commitment toward achieving a mutually beneficial set of outcomes.
Information using: negotiators assenble the case they want to make for their preferd outcomes and settlement, one that maximize the negotiator’s own needs.
Bidding: the process of making moves from one’s initial, ideal position to actual outcome.
Closing the deal: to build commitment to the agreement achieved in the previous phrase.
Implementing the agreement: determining who needs to do what once the hands are shaken and the documents signed.

Getting ready to implement the strategy: the planning process The dominant force for success in negotiation is in the planning that takes place prior to the dialogue. Effective planning requires hard work on several fronts:

Defining the issues
Usually, anegotiation involves one or two major issues and several minor issues. In negotiation, a complete list of the issues at stake is best derived from the following sources: 1) an analysis of the overall situation,2) our own experience in similar situations..3) research conducted to gather information, 4) consultation with experts.

Assembling issues and defining the bargaining mix
After assembling issues on an agenda, the negotiator must prioritize them. Prioritization includes two steps:1) determine which issues are important and which are less important.,2) Determine whether the issues are connected or separate.

Defining interests. Interest may include:
- Substantive : directly related to the focal issues under negotiation.
- Process-based : related to the manner in which the negotiators settle the dispute.
- Relationship-based : tied to the current or desired future relationship between the parties.

Defining limits. Good prepararion requires that you establish two clear points: 1) limits - are the point where you decide that you should stop the negotiation rather than continue,because any settlement beyond this point us not minimally acceptable. 2) Alternatives – are other deals negotiators could achieve and still meet their needs.In any situation, the better your alternatives, the more power you have, because you can walk away from the deal in front of you and still know that you can have your needs and interests met.

Defining one’s onw objectives and opening bids. There are numerous ways to set a target. Targets may not be as firm and rigid as limits or alternatives; one might be able to set a general range, or a class of several outcomes that would that would be equally acceptable. Similarly, there are numerous ways to set an opening bid. An opening may be the best possible outcome, an ideal solution, something even better than was achieved last time.
- Target setting requires positive thinking about one’s own objectives.
- Target setting often requires considering how to package several issues and objectives.
- Target setting requires an understanding of trade-offs and throwaways.

Defining the constituent to whom one is accountable
Constineunts – bosses, parties who make the final decision, parties who will have and critique the sulution achieved. Moreover, there may be a number of observers to the negotiation who will also watch and critique the negotiation. Finally, negotiation occurs in a context – a social system of laws, customs, common business practices, natural norms, and political cross-pressures.

Understanding the other party and it’s interests and objective
There are several key pieces of background information that will be of great importance:
- The other party’s current resources, interests, and needs.
- The other party’s objectives.
- The other party’s reputation and negotiation style.
- The other party’s alternatives.
- The other party’s authority to make agreement.
- The other party’s likely strategy anf tactics.

Selecting a strategy. .the negotiator should clearly determine which strategy he/she intends to pursue.

Planning the issue presentation and defense – how will I present the issues to the other party.? One important aspest of actual negotiations is to present a case clearly and to marshal ample supporting facts and argument; another is to refute the other party’s agreements with counterargument.

Defining protocol – where and when the negotiation will occur, who will be there, agenda, etc. There are a number of elements of “protocol” or process that a negotiator should consider:
- Agenda. A negotiator may unilaterally draw up a firm list of issues, and even establish specific goals, well before the initial negotiation meeting. This process is valuable because it forces the bargainer to think through his or her position and decide on objectives.

- The location of negotiation. Negotiators tend to do better on their home turf – their own office, building, or city. If negotiators want to minimize in which advantage that comes with home sturf, then they need to select neutral territory in which neither party will have an advantage.Such as, held in conference rooms or hotel meeting room(Formal deliberations); held in restaurants, cocktail lounges, or room that offer an array of furniture(Informal deliberations).

- The time period of negotiation. If nrgotiatiators expect long, protracted seliberations, they might want to negotiate the time and duration of sessions.

- Other parties who might be involved in the negotiation.

- What might be done if negotiation fails.

- How will we keep track of what is agreed to?

No comments: