BASICS SHHET: NEGOTIATION

1. INTRODUCTION
A. Build A Rapport
Use body and verbal language to make yourself appear interested in the other.
VERBAL:
⁃ Appreciation: Show Appreciation for Settling the matter via Negotiation instead of Litigation.
⁃ Use their name: Using a person’s name helps you to connect with them and also shows that you
are interested in and value them.
⁃ Comfort: Ask them if they are comfortable and if they need anything.
NON-VERBAL:
⁃ Smile to make them like you. Smiling and being approachable are part of rapport building and
will help win trust and confidence.
⁃ Mirror them: Adopt a similar posture and position and subtly mirror their body language.
Mirroring gives the other person a subconscious reassurance that you are “just like them,” so they are more
likely to trust you.
⁃ Provide a favour: Your counterpart may not have asked for a favour, but that doesn’t mean you
shouldn’t do one for them anyway. GOT AN EXTRA BOTTLE OF WATER.




B. FACT GATHERING
- Reading the problem and establishing all the facts that work in our or other party’s favour.
- Outlining the Facts according to their own perspective
- Acknowledged the efforts made by the other party
- How we are facing a problem because of the issue between the 2 parties.
- Giving an overall view of the Facts.

2. NEGOTIATION PREPAREDNESS

A. Identify the issue: It is only at the conceptualisation stage of conflict development that the most
effective solutions can be found, so part of handing conflict must be watching for the process of
conflict development to begin.
- Based on the differences between both the parties, some basic issues on each fact are identified.
- Identifying Integrative or Compatible Issues: Where there is no conflict and deal with them first to
bring a positive start.
- Identifying Distributive or Conflict based Issues: Where both parties had one interest at stake, they
were in conflict. Identifying such interests and framing the Issue.
- Identify which interest is Dependent on each other: If one Party will do this, then other party will
do that.
- HE/SHE WERE CALM, not aggressive, while discussing the interests that led to conflicts.

B. Recognize needs:
- Was able to recognise What did they need to prove by this negotiation? And was very receptive to
the needs of the opposite party.
- One party will seek to accommodate another party’s interest if that interest is far more important
or valuable to that party. In turn, the other party can be convinced to accommodate the negotiator
on a separate interest that is more important or valuable to her. In this way, the total value achieved
by the parties is greater.
- Set a goal - know which things are not negotiable and be clear about them.
- Stay firm- don’t let yourself be distracted or “hooked in” by manipulation, anger, tears, etc.
 - Be aware of someone else’s feelings and be clear that is how they feel, not a signal that you are
wrong.
- Sometimes it may be most important to make your statement.

C. Know his/her limitations:

3. Persuasion

A. Body language: Passive/Aggressive/Assertive-

1. THE BALANCE WAS STANCED: USING MIRRORING TECHNIQUE: Adopt a similar posture
and position and subtly mirror their body language.
2. USE ASPECTS FROM THE ASSERTIVE AND PASSIVE ASPECT AS AND WHEN
REQUIRED

B. Approaches to Negotiation: Confrontation/collaboration:

- He/she saw the other party as a friend and not an opponent.
- It was only in certain circumstances when the other party was not willing to collaborate, that he
adopted a slightly assertive behaviour to ensure that he was negotiating from a position of power.
- Add any two from these:
o Interest in the needs of the counterpart.
o Understanding of the counterpart’s needs.
o Willingness to co-operate end compromise.
o Mind focused on settlement not obstacles.

C. Negotiation Technique(s) used:

- SALAMI: Salami is a technique used to achieve an objective a little bit at a time rather than in one
giant step.
o Show them you understand what and why they believe
o Explain his own POV and the facts that point at that
o Use their needs and your need and come up with a collaborative solution.
- FAIT ACCOMPLI: Those who employ it must understand and accept the consequences if the
strategy fails.
o Refused to accept the terms that were going against us.
o Refuse to cooperate later, if this is not followed.
o Put everything on the line to achieve that one thing.

- STANDARD PRACTICE: “Standard Practice” is a strategy used to convince others to do or not

to do something because of so called “standard practices”. It often works very well because it
infers it is the best way to do whatever needs to be done, and is probably a safe approach.

- DEADLINE: Time is critical to people and organisations. Consequently, deadlines can be an

effective negotiation strategy. All too often we are aware of time pressures upon ourselves. But
assume the other party has plenty of time. A better assumption would be that if we have deadlines,
the other party probably has them too
o He/she analysed: Before entering a negotiation, ask yourself these questions:
1. What actual deadlines and time constraints am I under? Are these self imposed or
controlled by so meone else?
2. Are these deadlines realistic? Can I change them?
3. What deadlines might be controlling the other side? Can I usc these to my advantage?

- FEINTING: Feinting gives the impression one thing is desired when the primary objective is really
something else. An employee, for example, may negotiate with the boss for a promotion when the
real objective is a good increase in salary.

- APPARENT WITHDRAWAL: Apparent withdrawal may include some deception as well as

deferring and feinting. It attempts to make the other negotiator believe you have withdrawn from
consideration of an issue when you really have not. Its purpose may be to ultimately get a
concession or change in position.

- LIMITED AUTHORITY: Limited authority is an attempt to force acceptance of a position by

claiming anything else would require higher approval. Individuals who claim to have limited
authority arc difficult to negotiate with, because the reason they use to not meet your demands is
due to someone else, or some policy or practice over which they have no control.

Negotiation Style(s) displayed:

- Defeat
o Those with a competitive negotiation style are usually less willing to compromise and, in
extreme cases, can be aggressive.
o Assertive, Self-Confident, focused on deal and Results.
o Tend to pursue their own concerns, sometimes at the expense of others.
o Higher in Assertiveness and Lesser in Cooperativeness.

- Collaborative
o The collaborative negotiation style is a joint problem-solving technique. It aims to create a
win-win scenario
o Honest and Communicative
o Finding Novel and Creative Solutions that satisfy the concern of both the parties
o Suggest many ideas for consideration before deciding.
 o High in assertiveness and cooperativeness, PROMOTING BOTH Substance and
Relationship.

- Accommodate
o Accommodate the other party’s needs
o Pressure to preserve the relationship, placing interpersonal relationships above the fairness
of the outcome.
o Tends to smooth over tension and minimize differences and build good relationships

- Withdraw
o Less Assertive.
o Avoid stepping into or creating any tensions
o They stay neutral, objective and removed from the situation
o There is an element of SELF SACRIFICE in case of any conflict.

- Compromise
o Characterised by compromise, meeting the other party half way, looking for trade-offs,
spitting the difference and half-way measures.
o However, it is different from the collaborative style in that it does not aim for a win-win
scenario.
o Instead, compromising negotiators seek a solution in which both parties sacrifice part of
what they want for resolution.
o Think of haggling for a lower price at a flea market—the buyer offers the seller a lower
price, hoping they’ll meet somewhere in the middle. In this situation, neither party gets
everything they want, but they walk away with their need or desire partially fulfilled.

(D) Developing Alternatives/Options (2)

BATNA/WATNA/MLATNA/ZOPA-

BATNA:

This tool is a technique whereby information is prepared in advance to have a backup option to arrive at a
solution or possibly to create a pressure on the other party. Experienced negotiators often advise parties to
prepare the best option for resolution of an issue for themselves on all stages of negotiations.

- Harvard law school offers the following algorithm to determine the best alternative i.e., BATNA:

1. To designate all available alternatives to present negotiations, in other words, what would you
do in case of unsuccessful negotiations?
2. Then assess the value of each alternative option, that is to say, how much does each alternative
cost to me (not only in monetary equivalent)?
3. To dwell on the alternative, which is the most valuable to you (this is your best alternative to
agreed decision).
4. After you define your own BATNA, calculate the minimum offer you are ready to accept within
the current negotiations.

WATNA:
 - WATNA stands for the Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. In the preparation phase of
your negotiation, you need to consider what is the worst that will happen if you do not sell in a
particular negotiation.
- Going to the worst case scenario in your negotiation preparation has a particular benefit: you might
reconsider your bottom line. In negotiation skills, it is good to know what you would reconsider
and the rationale.
- In the example of selling a home, you may need to sell your home by a certain deadline to relocate
for a new job. Well, that limits your options in the particular negotiation. In this case, you might
restructure your bottom line back to $350,000 or even lower to sell faster. WATNA is a very helpful
tool to consider prior to entering into any negotiation as it helps you have more clarity and
negotiation success.
ZOPA:
- This is the area (range) of negotiations, where parties of negotiations attempt to find common
ground. No matter how much time was spent on negotiations, an arrangement can never be reached
beyond zone of possible agreement. To achieve an agreement successfully, parties to the
negotiation should try to understand the interests, needs and values of each other.
- To arrive at a common decision, parties to the negotiation shall try to find an area, which includes
at least some common provisions and ideas for each of party.
- One of the basic conditions to determine ZOPA is the necessity of parties to know their alternatives:
the best and the worst. ZOPA will be possible when there is potential solution, which will be
profitable for both parties to the negotiation, more than their alternative options.