INTRODUCTION

Definition

 Conflict negotiation is a back-and-forth communication process

designed to anticipate, contain, and resolve disputes so that parties

with some shared and some opposing interests can reach mutually

acceptable solutions.

 Conflict negotiation refers to a voluntary, two-way communication in

which parties involved control both the process and the outcome.

 In simplest terms, negotiation is a discussion between two or more

disputants who are trying to work out a solution to their problem.

[This interpersonal or intergroup process can occur at a

personal level, as well as at a corporate or international

(diplomatic) level].

Key Components Conflict Negotiation:

WHAT DO PEOPLE GENERALLY NEGOTIATE

People negotiate all the time; they negotiate for major things like a new job,

and other times for relatively minor things, such as who will wash the

dishes1.

 Friends negotiate to decide where to have dinner.

 Children negotiate to decide which television program to watch.

1
Roy J. Lewicki, Bruce Barry, and David M. Saunders, Essentials of Negotiation, Sixth Edition (Dubuque: McGraw-
Hill Education, 2016).
NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola
  Businesses negotiate to purchase materials and to sell their products.

 Lawyers negotiate to settle legal claims before they go to court.

 The police negotiate with terrorists to free hostages. Nations negotiate

to open their borders for free trade

The structure and processes of negotiation are fundamentally the same at

the personal, diplomatic, and corporate levels.

WHY PEOPLE NEGOTIATE

Negotiations occur for several reasons:

a) to create something new that neither party could do on his or her own

 to bring Important issues to the surface and have them clarified

 to generate new information and options

 to create innovative and improved solutions

b) to resolve a problem or dispute between the parties.

c) For purposes of strengthening Working relationships as both parties

honestly and respectfully negotiate their differences

CHARACTERISTICS OF A NEGOTIATION OR BARGAINING SITUATION

[Key Components Conflict Negotiation]:

1. There are two or more parties

 There must be atleast two or more individuals, groups, or

organizations.

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

  In some cases people can "negotiate" with themselves—as

when someone debates whether to spend the afternoon

studying, playing tennis, or going to the football game—

2. There is a conflict of interest between two or more parties

 The Interests, needs and/or wants of the parties are incompatible or

at variance. That is to say “what one wants is not necessarily what

the other one wants

3. Negotiations are voluntary.

Negotiation is largely a voluntary process. It is a strategy pursued

by choice; seldom are we required to negotiate.

4. Negotiations encompass elements of influence.

The parties negotiate because they think they can use some form of

influence to get a better deal that way than by simply taking what

the other side will voluntarily give them or let them have.

5. Presupposes search for mutual gain.

The parties, at least for the moment, prefer to search for agreement

rather than to fight openly, have one side capitulate, permanently

break off contact, or take their dispute to a higher authority to

resolve it. Negotiation occurs when there is no system—no fixed or

established set of rules or procedures—for solving the conflict, or

when the parties prefer to work outside of the system to invent

thenown solution

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

 6. Give and Take: When we negotiate, we expect give and take. We

expect that both sides will modify or give in somewhat on their

opening statements, requests, or demands. Although the parties

may at first argue strenuously for what they want, each pushing the

other side for concessions, usually both sides will modify their

positions and each will move toward the other. As we will discuss,

however, truly creative negotiations may not require compromise;

instead the parties may invent a solution that meets the objectives

of all sides.

7. Successful negotiation involves the management of intangibles as

well as the resolving of tangibles (e.g., the price or the terms of the

agreement). Intangible factors are the underlying psychological

motivations that may directly or indirectly influence the parties

during a negotiation. Some examples of intangibles are

(a) the need to "look good" to the people you represent,

(b) the desire to book more business than any other salesperson in

your office, and

(c) the fear of setting a precedent in the negotiations.

According to the Harvard School of Negotiations, the components

include

1. Interests [what do parties really want]

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

Each negotiation approach shares similar components. The first is interests.
Critically, interests differ to positions – a position is what a party wants
whereas an interest is why.

2. Alternatives [what will I do if we don’t agree]

Interests allow you to measure your alternatives to the agreement and paint
a picture of your best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) and
worst alternative to a negotiated agreement (WATNA). Ideally, you should
not negotiate for anything south of your BATNA. This isn’t always possible
and understanding your alternatives – as well as the other party’s – will be
determinative in a successful negotiation.

3. Relationships [I am prepared to deal with the relationship]

In a negotiation, relationships can help determine the following:

 how fixed your stance on certain positions

 how aggressive you can be on certain issues, and

 what negotiation approach you can take.

Before engaging in a negotiation, you should always ask:

 How important is the relationship with the other party to me?

 Will I ever see the other party again?

 Is my reputation important?

You may choose to negotiate harder if you don’t care what the other party
thinks. Further, even if you don’t interact with this party again, you may
consider your reputation if they are part of a particular industry or market in
which you work or operate.

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

4. Options [what are the possible agreements or bits of it]

Options are the different combination of outcomes possible. They differ from
alternatives, which explore what happens if you cannot reach an agreement.
For example, when you were negotiating to buy your first car, an alternative
might be to buy from another dealer or buy a second-hand car online. An
option might be that you pay a little extra for aluminium tyres and roadside
warranty.

When you have reached this element of a negotiation, it means you are
progressing towards reaching an outcome. However, be mindful that
discussing options is intended as a brainstorming exercise. It’s not a signal
for taking offers or making concessions. The idea is that you create options
first, and evaluate them second.

Discussing options can empower both parties as they have a say in resolving
the issues. So take care to avoid expressing judgment or drawing
conclusions.

5. Legitimacy [what criteria will I use to persuade each of us that it

agreement is reasonable]

How do you substantiate the fairness of your offer? How do prove that your
counter-party’s offer is unfair? You need some objective standard of fairness
for the claims made and not just something that you have discussed at the
negotiating table.

For example, if the car dealer offered to let you finance the vehicle, how do
you know the interest they are charging is reasonable? A legitimate offer
would be comparable to a market rate. Legitimacy not only solidifies your
offers, but it can weaken the other party.

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

 6. Communication [I am ready to listen and talk effectively]

Communication is an obvious element that is part of all negotiations. It goes

beyond voicing your position and your offer. It also involves listening, the
tone of your voice and even body gestures and movements.

Some easy communication tips to remember are:

 Ask open-ended questions to gather as much information

 Listen actively (this means putting your phone away from sight), and

 Be relaxed – stiff body postures can send the wrong message to the
other party.

Remember, you want to know more than just what the other party is offering
or their positions. An effective negotiator will be able to communicate and
speak about interests.

7. Commitment [what commitment should I give or take]

The final element of negotiations is ensuring that there is a commitment by

both parties. Commitment is two-pronged. Firstly, you want to ensure that
the outcome that you have agreed to is realistic. Secondly, both parties must
be able to uphold their end of the bargain. Where these outcomes are non-
existent, it is likely that the parties will have to negotiate their deals again.

To ensure that there is the requisite commitment, some key questions to

consider at the beginning of the negotiation might be:

 What kind of commitment can I expect at any future negotiations?

 What is the other party’s level of authority?

 How authorised is the other party?

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

For example, if the car dealer was only an associate and had to get the
paperwork signed off by the principal salesman, then it is likely that they
cannot fulfil all their promises. Asking these questions before you negotiate
can save you the time and hassle of having to renegotiate with the person
with actual authority and commitment responsibilities.

PHASES OF NEGOTIATIONS

Steps To Take Before the Negotiations Begin [PRE-NEGOTIATION]

Step 1. Identify the issue to be negotiated

Before you begin to negotiate, carefully define the issue and articulate it

clearly. Identify what you hope to achieve as a result of the negotiation and

how this contributes to your reform agenda. Be sure your expectations are

well grounded in the reality of your experience and are not overly ambitious

or unrealistic. Some issues do not lend themselves to negotiation. Conflicts

based on differing values may be extremely difficult to negotiate to a

mutually acceptable solution. As noted, however, in the arena of health

reform, key stakeholders generally share similar core values. Conflict

therefore is more likely to surface in defining the objectives of reform and

determining the methods to be employed for implementing reform. For the

purposes of negotiation, it is helpful to dissect complex conflict situations

and redefine the issue in terms of individual components. Negotiating the

overall problem issue by issue may facilitate some measure of agreement

with the opposition even if not all aspects of the conflict are resolved. This

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

strategy can improve the immediate outcome as well as the prospects for

future negotiation.

Step 2. Secure the participation of the right people on your side

For a successful negotiation, you need the right people at the table. Your

ideal negotiating team will vary in number and makeup depending on the

situation, but in general, you need a team that has the power and

authority to negotiate effectively, make decisions on behalf of your

group/organisation, and implement the negotiated agreement.

The negotiation process and results will likely be hampered if there is a

substantial power differential between the opposing sides. If your

assessment indicates that your own negotiating team is not of optimum

strength in terms of power, authority, technical knowledge, negotiating skills,

etc., it is important to seek the participation of other individuals who can

balance your areas of weakness. Another strategy is to align with other

groups or organizations to increase your collective negotiating power

Step 3. Identify your counterpart(s) for the negotiations and make

meeting arrangements. To identify the most appropriate counterparts,

consider the following criteria in your selection: -

 Willingness to negotiate: At a minimum, your counterparts need to

be willing to negotiate. Ideally, they also should be motivated and

committed to seeking a mutually acceptable solution. –

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

  Power and authority to negotiate: Each negotiator must have

sufficient power and authority to carry out the agreements reached

through negotiation. –

 Legitimate spokesperson/representative for their group or

organisation: It is critical that each individual in the negotiation is

accepted and trusted as a legitimate representative of his or her 140

group or organization. –

 Influence on other parties potentially affected by the

negotiations: Other people, groups and organisations are likely to be

affected by the outcome of the negotiations. If the issue to be

negotiated is very controversial, select those individuals with the

greatest influence on these other parties from the list of potential

counterparts. The greater your counterparts’ influence, the greater the

likelihood that they will successfully implement the negotiated

solution. –

 The complexity of the issue: This may influence the number of

parties involved in the negotiation. In selecting the appropriate

individuals, try to strike a balance between fostering a creative

environment and including too many disparate interests and/or

personalities. Limit the number of negotiators to those individuals

whose participation is absolutely necessary. In many circumstances, an

organization will nominate one or more individuals to negotiate on its

behalf.

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

In these cases, since you will not be “selecting” your counterparts, use the

criteria above to judge whether to agree to the proposed individual or

suggest an alternative.

Once you have identified the most appropriate negotiators, confirm their

participation and availability.

Arrange to meet at a mutually satisfactory time, when all parties are free

from other distractions. The physical setting of the meeting influences the

negotiating environment, so reserve the venue well in advance. Be sure it

has ample space and light and that it is perceived to be neutral territory.

Step 4. Prepare for negotiation

Thorough, advance preparation is critical for successful negotiation. It

ensures that your expectations are realistic, that you can anticipate what

might happen during the negotiation process, and, as a consequence, that

you are better equipped to respond in a thoughtful, effective manner. The

previous section of these guidelines outlined how to assess your personal

investment in the and how to psychologically prepare yourself for the

negotiation process. The additional information in this section will help you

prepare, organize, and present the information you need to successfully

negotiate with your opposition and reach mutually acceptable agreements.

Review the steps involved in the negotiation process: Thoroughly familiarize

yourself with the structure of the negotiation process by reviewing the

negotiation guidelines until you feel comfortable that you understand and

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

have mastered the steps. Complete the Negotiation Preparation Worksheet:

To be well prepared, you must not only understand the steps involved but

also begin to anticipate how the actual negotiation will play out. Complete

the Negotiation Preparation Worksheet in Annex 4-C to better assess

potential opportunities and problems, focus on the substantive issues that

most concern you, and generate valuable information you can use in the

negotiations. Collect additional information about the issue and / or your

counterpart(s): Take a moment to reflect on your preparation and ask

yourself some critical questions. Do you know enough about the issue? Are

you clear about your interests and what is at stake? Do you know enough

about your counterparts’ interests? If your answer is “no” to any of these

questions, you need more information and are not adequately prepared for

the negotiation process. To remedy this, 142 consult experts or third parties,

and review written documents, media sources, and literature to get more

information. Prepare to communicate effectively: Before entering the

negotiating room, review the previous section on effective interpersonal

communication skills. Mastering these skills will allow you to concentrate on

the larger, substantive issues under negotiation, as communicating clearly,

directly, and appropriately with the opposition becomes more effortless. You

may also want to develop a mental list of neutral terms and phrases that

serve as alternatives to any inflammatory language that may be in your

current negotiating repertoire. During the negotiation process, you are likely

to face a couple of unexpected curves. Main- tain your focus on the

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

substantive issues and the desired results of the negotiation. This will help

you adjust your strategy as needed while keeping your emotions and short-

term frustrations from interfering with your success. Careful self-

management is critical to your success (as described in the previous

section). Your behavior will greatly affect your results by influencing your

counterparts’ behavior, by coloring how other participants experience the

negotiation process, by shaping the process / outcome of the negotiations,

and by determining the potential for negotiation and collaboration in the

future

Steps to Take During the Negotiation Process

Step 1. Clarify expectations and establish ground rules

Reach a preliminary consensus about what you and your counterparts

collectively hope to achieve and the process you will follow to get there

before you launch any substantive discussion of the issues. This consensus

helps you develop clearly stated, realistic expectations for the negotiations.

Begin the process by sharing what you would like to see as an outcome of

the meeting and inviting your counterparts to do the same. To develop

feasible solutions, you must consider all the possibilities as well as the

externalities that define what each party can and cannot do. These may

include contractual requirements, available resources, political

accountability, laws, policies, and organizational regulations. Framing your

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

negotiations within a realistic context helps ensure that each party will have

the commitment and resources needed to implement negotiated solutions.

Clarify the process you will follow to get to a negotiated agreement. The

process must be transparent, be mutually acceptable, and utilize an interest-

based approach. These guidelines provide a simple, sound negotiation

process which you can propose to your counterparts. You can discuss this

approach with them and modify it slightly as needed based on their

feedback. This initial dialogue will set the stage for the remainder of the

negotiations, and so it is particularly important to communicate clearly,

listen attentively, and demonstrate respect for the opposition. Establish

some basic ground rules to guide the negotiation process and help all parties

feel secure along the way. These rules will depend on the issue,

circumstances, and personal preferences of participants - they can be few or

many and can be related to process, behavior, or communications. If the

issue is politically sensitive, clarify whether the negotiation 144 proceedings

will be confidential, anonymous, or public. In any event, all parties should

know who will have access to the proceedings and when this information will

be shared. Establishing time limits for meetings and rules of common

courtesy (no interrupting and equal discussion time for all sides) also creates

an atmosphere of mutual respect

Step 2. Define and explore the issue.

The issue is the essential point of discussion or debate during the

negotiations and must be clearly defined at the start of the process to ensure
NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola
that all participants are working toward the same end. You and your

counterparts need to share your understandings of the issue and as many of

the underlying causes and symptoms as possible. Compare, contrast, and

discuss your various perspectives in order to develop and articulate your

shared understanding of the issue. Record the resulting statement of the

issue on a flip chart and hang it within clear view to serve as a visual

reference and reminder throughout the negotiation process.

Step 3: Explore interests.

Openly explore and discuss the interests at stake for all sides because these

interests serve as the building blocks for developing possible solutions.

Therefore, you must not only clearly articulate your own interests but must

also encourage your counterparts to do the same. Throughout this stage, ask

each other exploratory and clarifying questions. If someone is having trouble

expressing his or her interests, reframe questions to help stimulate the

process. For example, "What specific concerns do you have about this

issue?" "What business-related 145 interests concern you?” "What is at stake

for the programs, projects, or reforms you are trying to implement?” It is

helpful to track each party’s interests by recording them on a flip chart in

separate columns. When the lists are complete, highlight shared or common

interests. It is important to recognize the legitimacy of the full range of

interests identified, but attention should be focused on the mutual interests

for the remainder of the negotiation session

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

Step 4: Invent options for mutual gain.

The purpose of this step is to develop as many options or solutions to the

problem as possible. All parties must work together so that any solution

adopted is the result of a truly participatory pro- cess during which

everyone’s voice was heard. This is a three-step process: inventing options

for mutual gain (Step 4), developing objective criteria to evaluate the options

(Step 5), and agreeing on the best possible solution (Step 6). Clarify that,

during Step 4, participants should focus solely on generating ideas, not on

judging them or selecting among them. These latter tasks will occur in the

next two steps. The more creative, expansive, and collaborative you are in

inventing options, the more ideas you generate. You may also consider

having a facilitator on hand to manage the brainstorming session so that you

can focus your attention on generating ideas along with your colleagues.

Record each idea the group generates on a flip chart. Once you have

exhausted your creative juices, quickly review the list of options. Clarify

vague ideas, expand on incomplete options, eliminate duplications, and

cluster similar ideas as needed. 146

Step 5: Use objective criteria to evaluate options

Evaluating proposed options is a particularly sensitive but critical stage in

the negotiation process. You may be inclined to start by classifying the

options as “acceptable” or “unacceptable,” or state what you are “willing”

and “not willing” to do. Although this is tempting because of its simplicity,

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

this is not the most productive approach because it bypasses any

explanation of the underlying assumptions, interests, and logic used to arrive

at such conclusions. This type of dialogue can derail interest-based

communication, lead to position-based bargaining, and cause all parties to

become more defensive and entrenched in their respective positions. The

task at this stage is to jointly agree to evaluate the different options based

on some objective criteria, rather than on personal preferences or pressure.

An objective criterion is a principled reason, or independent standard of

fairness, against which the different options can be measured. Numerous

objective criteria can be used for evaluating possible options in any

negotiation. The parties must determine which standards are most

appropriate for their negotiation and how they will apply these standards to

evaluate the options. Frame this task as follows: “Together we’ve developed

several possible ways of addressing the issue. Let’s focus now on figuring out

which option is the fairest. What standards would you suggest we use to

evaluate these options?” You may suggest one or more criteria and then

invite your counterpart(s) to share his or her ideas

Step 6. Agree on the best possible solution.

In some cases, one solution stands out as clearly superior. When this

happens, you can summarize your understanding of the emerging decision

and test whether there is consensus within the group. Remember that

silence does not mean agreement; ensure that you hear from each party

before you assume anyone’s consent. In other cases, reaching consensus on

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola
the best solution requires additional effort. Here are several techniques for

reaching consensus when the initial evaluation of options (Step 5) does not

identify a conclusive result: - Re-evaluate the identified options using

additional criteria that were not used previously. - Identify areas where there

is some preliminary agreement. - Explore the areas of disagreement through

open dialogue. - Solicit ideas from the group on how to jointly address and

resolve the areas of disagreement. - Solicit ideas from the group about

modifying the proposed solutions. For example, “What would it take for this

solution to be fair and/or acceptable to you?” Consensus means that

everyone accepts the decision, is willing to support its implementation, and

can live with the consequences. Group consensus is built through open

dialogue and requires time, patience, and a willingness to seek common

ground and work through differences. “Although consensus can not always

be found, it can be developed more often than might be expected.” 148

Building consensus is clearly preferable to making group decisions by voting

or by majority rule, which can be risky when negotiating conflict. You never

know whether the minority - those who opposed the decision but were

overruled - will accept the group’s decision or attempt to block its

implementation. In some cases, it may be impossible to reach a mutually

acceptable solution. When there is only a partial consensus or no agreement,

the group should jointly decide to suspend the negotiations. Suspending

negotiations at this point can

1) allow participants the opportunity and time to reflect,

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

2) diminish feelings of frustration, and

3) encourage the generation of new

Before concluding the negotiations, however, you must prepare a summary

of the discussion, list barriers to agreement, and identify the conditions to be

satisfied before future negotiations can take place. If you are committed to

reaching an agreement, you must also identify followup steps and develop a

timeline that will enable the negotiations to resume in the near future.

Step 7: Develop an implementation plan

Achieving consensus on the best solution assumes that all parties share a

mutual commitment in principle, but it does not detail how that commitment

will be translated into action. Once you 149 have agreed on a general

approach or solution, you must develop a specific strategy for implementing

that solution. Before developing the implementation strategy, briefly detail

the resources you and your counterparts are willing to commit to the

endeavor (financial, material, and human) and the specific skills or expertise

you and your organizations can contribute. This will be the basis of the

implementation strategy, which will detail the specific actions to be taken

and the roles and responsibilities of each participant. Finally, you need to

identify the methodology and timing for monitoring and evaluating progress.

After reaching full agreement, you and your counterparts must record the

terms of agreement, review, sign, and date them.

Step 8. Take extra steps to support your agreement.

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

An astute negotiator has more than just the know-how and skill to manage

the negotiation process; he or she also is able to support the implementation

of the agreement after the formal negotiations have concluded. Negotiation

usually occurs among a small group of people, and behind “closed doors.”

However, once the participants step outside, they must communicate the

results of the negotiation to the larger constituency they represent.

Negotiators must be able to explain the rationale behind their decisions and

how they address the key interests of their constituencies. 150

Implementation of your agreement is more likely to succeed if you think

through in advance what groups may be affected by the agreement and how.

What external opposition might have a negative impact on your

counterparts’ willingness and ability to implement the solution after they

leave the negotiations? How can you craft a message to communicate the

results of the negotiations to important constituencies to enlist their support

and diffuse any existing or anticipated opposition

OTHER FORMAT:

There are generally four phases of negotiations including:

Phase 1: Preparation

Certain issues should be thought about before entering the discussion.

 Analysis of conflict situation

 Gathering of information, as necessary

 Identifying needs interests of own side and other side(s).

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

  Consideration of preferred options for the outcome of negotiation as

well as the Best Alternative To an Negotiated Agreement (BATNA).

 Making contact with other side(s) and agreement on a venue and

process for the negotiations, including ground rules, issues to be

discussed.

Phase 2: Interaction

Negotiation is a process of communication in which the parties aim to

„send a message“ to the other side and influence each other. Thus, power

in negotiation lies in the ability to favourably affect someone else‘s

decision. Some assume that because threats of physical force exert

influence, the ability to make such threats is the essence of negotiating

power. But making threats is a costly and dangerous way of trying to exert

influence.

Phase 2 includes the following core steps:

 Sharing of the different perspectives on the situation.

 Agreement on a definition of the issue(s).

 Generating options for addressing the issue.

 Evaluation and prioritization of different options according to the

needs and interests of all sides.

 Selection, and possibly combination, the best options for meeting

the needs and interests of all involved.

Phase 3: Closure

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

The aim is for a negotiation process in which all parties are committed to

achieving a settlement that can meet the legitimate needs of all sides. This

does not mean that they need to give in to the demands of the other side,

but does require a willingness to consider and combine options creatively in

the desire to find a solution. If negotiators are representing a larger group,

they then must come with a clear mandate from their respective

constituencies and a clear process for reporting back and maintaining

accountability.

 Agreement on the best option or combination.

 Development of an action plan for each party.

 Plan for a review of the agreement.

OTHERS

Other practitioners break it into

There are around seven recognised phases of negotiation, these are

1. Planning and fact-finding phase

2. Opening phase

3. Discussion phase

4. Proposal phase

5. Bargaining phase

6. Closing phase

7. After Decision phase

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

(1) Planning and fact-finding phase: This initial phase includes finding of

facts and information related to the other party and fact. It involves

identification of matters and issues that could be raised during the process of

negotiation. The issues and matters that are recognised shall be prioritized

for both the parties. This process also helps in estimation of other side’s

priorities. The needs of the other side should be contemplated upon. The

space and zone for an agreement that is possible must be established like ,

The agreement that is wanted by both the parties in favourable

circumstances, the agreement that could be acceptable to both the parties

or maybe a point from where no longer negotiation shall be continued.

(2) Opening phase: An opportunity is provided in this phase to give a

direction to the process of discussion which helps in gaining control over the

discussion.

In this phase, simple language should be used and the questions asked by

the parties must be answered carefully. Some important points to be

remembered by the negotiator at this point are:

(a) Use polite language and take questions from the parties and answer

them gently.

(b) The fact that reputation is matters to a great extent in many cultures

must be remembered.

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

(c) Any such act or speech that might embarrass the other party must be

avoided Criticism or use of strong language that might have an effect of

humiliation on the other party must always be avoided.

(3) Discussion phase: In this phase both the parties are allowed to

present their case with no interruption. It is important to ask questions so as

to comprehend the interests of the other party. Listening to the other party

is very pertinent at this stage.

(4) Proposal phase: This phase involves making of offers and proposals for

a conclusion.

(5) Bargaining phase: The proposals and offers made by the other part

must be perused and see if it is compatible. If not, options for making the

proposal more effective for a mutual gain can be given. Common interest of

the parties must be kept in mind.

(6) Closing phase: At this stage the decision or the conclusion that is

reached must be summarized and explained to both the parties to avoid

future disputes.

(7) After decision phase: Steps to strengthen the relationship must be

taken. And efforts must be made to make the relationship better and

respectful.

APPROACHES TO NEGOTIATIONS

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

Approaches are basically the attitudes adopted by negotiators. The

approaches are not any different from styles of negotiations. Although

terminology may vary, most authorities on conflict agree that individual

styles, or approaches of conflict management can generally be described as

falling into one of the following five patterns:

 collaborative,

 competitive,

 compromising,

 accommodating, and

 avoiding.

1) Collaborative/Intergrative

Collaboration is the most useful style. It leads to a real win win-situation for

both parties

A collaborator gives so much importance to the issues and his own interest

as that of the other.

Collaboration addresses how how all the interest can work togthate and if

they can be addressed together (the orange case).

The collaborator work with the opposite party to find ways by which both can

achieve their goals.

The parties brainstorm new ways together

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

[Assertive and cooperative; Working for a solution that satisfies everyone’s

concerns; Digging into issues to find alternatives that suit all parties

concerned; Learning from other people’s insights; Resolving the need to

compete for resources; Finding a creative solution to an interpersonal

problem]

The style requires the following:

 A lot of hard work;

 Exercise;

 Patience;

 Deep insight;

 And creative thinking

2) Competitive/Distributive/Assertive

Since disputes or conflicts comprise mixture of competiting interests, the

party whose main goal is to protect his interests only is a competitor.

A competitor asserts his rights and interests at the cost of theat of the

opponent.

A competitor exerts all means for achieveing hisp purpose even at the cost

of the others interests, rights and benefits.

[Assertive and uncooperative; Is Power oriented; Pursues own concerns at

someone else’s expense using whatever power seems appropriate to ‘win’;

Argues using rank and the threat of economic sanctions]

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

 3) Avoidance

For a majority of people, dispute is a risk to be avoided under any

circumstnces. By avoiding, one loses his claim for value in preference to

maintaining value relationships. Avoiders majorly responds to the interests

and concerns of the other party positively

Avoiders neither pursues his interests nor the interest of the other.

Avoidance does not address issues at all, they are either ignored or

postponed or or the party simply withdraws from conflict.

[Unassertive and uncooperative; Does not address the conflict; the party do

not immediately pursue his own concerns; is kind of a diplomatic ‘side step’

an issue; Postpones issues until a better time; entail Withdrawing from a

threating situation]

4) Accommodating

The disputant sacrifices his interests and concerns in faovur of the other.

[Unassertive and cooperative; the party neglect own concerns to satisfy the

concerns of another; it is a kind of selfless generosity or obeying another

person’s order even when you do not want to; entails yielding to another’s

point of view]

5) Compromiser

This style lies between assertive and cooperative.

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

A compromiser is always interested in finding some sort of solution.

A compromiser values expediency and may accept partial solutions as long

as both sides are atleast minimally satisfied.

It entails splitting the difference, exchanging concessions or seeking middle

ground rather than spending time and effort necessary to to discover

solutions satisfactory to both sides.

In the process of negotiations, he finds himself being a competitor,

collaboartaor, accommodator, or even ann avoider.

He values issues, justice, and even his own ineyterest but he has nno time to

go through the process.

[Moderately assertive and cooperative; The objectives is to find a mutually

acceptable solution; Giving up more than competing but less than

accommodating; Addresses an issue more directly than avoiding but not as

much as collaborating; Could mean splitting the difference; Finding a quick

middle-ground position]

Conclusions

One key to successful conflict negotiation is the ability to realize when your

own natural negotiation style is, and is not, appropriate. Review the styles

described above, and identify the style that most closely describes your

approach to conflict.

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

If you know that you tend to compete for space and dominate conversations,

especially when you are trying to win a point, pay particular attention to the

suggestions in the following section for developing constructive

communication and active listening skills.

If, on the other hand, you find it difficult to state your point clearly and with

sufficient conviction, or you tend to avoid conflict at any cost, work on

improving your ability to clearly state your interests and communicate your

needs to the opposition.

No single approach or style for conflict negotiation will prove successful

under all circumstances. Through careful assessment and preparation,

however, you will be able to adjust your approach and avoid the negative

emotional reactions that often derail communication and almost always

escalate the level of conflict. Preparation - thinking through in advance what

you are trying to accomplish and how you will proceed - will help you acquire

and maintain the self-control you need during difficult negotiation processes.

HAVARD NEGOTIATION STYLES.

It's not in doubt that negotiations take place every day. But in such

negotiations, people adopt the standard strategies that not only leave them

worn out, dissatisfied, or alienated but, in most cases, all three. Due to the

shortfalls of the soft, and hard styles, in their research, the Harvard

Negotiations Project has developed a third style which is neither soft, nor

hard; they christened it “principled negotiation”

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

The standard ways people use comprise; the hard and soft style.

1. Soft negotiation.

In this kind of negotiation, the negotiator wants to avoid conflict and readily

make concessions to reach an agreement.

The disputant of this kind wants an amicable solution but ends up exploited

or hurt.

2. Hard negotiation

The hard negotiator sees any situation as a contest of wills in which the side

which takes the most extreme positions and holds out longer fares better.

The negotiator always wants to win at any cost, but often ends up producing

an equally hard response that exhausts people and resources and harms

relationships.

3. Principled negotiation.

Decide issues on their merits instead of a haggling process focused on what

each side says they will or will not do.

It suggests and looks for mutual gains wherever possible.

Where interests conflict, the style requires that results be based on some

fair and independent standards of the will of either side.

It is hard on the hard on merits, but soft on the people.

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

It employs no tricks or posturing [behaviour intended either to impress or

mislead]

Shows one how to obtain what he needs but still remains decent.

It enables one to be fair while protecting you from those who would take

advantage of your fairness.

Principled negotiation results in wise agreements. A wise agreement is one

that:

a) Meets legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible

b) Resolves conflicting interests fairly

c) Is durable

d) Takes community interests into account

Difference between the styles

SOFT HARD PRINCIPLED

 Participants are  Participant as  Decide issues on

friends. adversaries. their merits.

 Goal is  The goal is  2. Look for

agreement victory. mutual gains.

 Make  Demand  3. Where

concessions to concessions as a interests conflict,

maintain condition of use fair

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

 relationship. relationship. standards to

 Be soft on the  Be hard on the obtain a result.

people and the problem and the  4. Can be used

problem. people. whether there is

 Trust others.  Distrust others. one issue or

 Change your  Dig in to your several.

position easily. position.  5. Two parties or

 Make offers.  Make threats. 8. many.

 Disclose your Mislead as to  6. Useful in

bottom line. your bottom line. prescribed or

 Accept one-sided  Demand one- impromptu

losses to reach sided gains as negotiations

agreement. the price of

 The single agreement.

answer: the one  The single

they will accept. answer: the one

 Insist on you will accept.

agreement.  Insist on your

 Try to avoid a position.

contest of wills.  Try to win a

 Yield to pressure. contest of wills.

 Apply pressure.

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

The Harvard Negotiations project dissects the problems of standard

negotiation styles and prescribes the methods of how to overcome them

under four basic points.

I. PROBLEM

1) POSITIONAL BARGAINING

Most negotiations depend on taking and then giving up a sequence of

positions [examples are typical haggling between a customer and seller of

secondhand clothes over the price of an item].

Taking positions tells the other side what you want.

Provides an uncertain and pressurised situation and can eventually produce

terms of an acceptable agreement.

Positional bargaining often fails to meet the basic criteria of producing a wise

agreement reached efficiently and amicably.

Positional bargaining is undesirous for the following reasons:

a) Arguing over positions produces unwise agreements

 negotiators lock themselves into positions which they must defend

against attacks

 the more you defend a position, the harder it is to change it. The

more you try to convince the other side of the impossibility of

changing your position, the more difficult it becomes to do so

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

  positions involve ego and saving face. In positional bargaining,

one's ego becomes identified with his position. He then develops a

new interest which is to save face in order to reconcile future

actions with past positions

 As a result of face-saving, there is always an unlikelihood less likely

that an agreement will wisely reconcile original interests

b) Arguing over positions is inefficient

 This process takes a lot of time.

 Creates incentives that stall settlement. How?

 One must start with an extreme position and stubbornly hold to it.

starting with extreme position and stubbornly holding to it deceiving

the other party as to your true view

 Make only small concessions as necessary to keep negotiations going.

 Require many decisions by each side about what to offer and reject

c) Arguing over positions endangers an ongoing relationship

 strains and sometimes shatters relationships

 long time commercial enterprise partners may part company,

neighbours may stop speaking to each other. Positional bargaining

is especially tragic in divorce/child custody situations

 Bitter feelings generated by one such encounter may last a life

time.

d) Does not work where there are many parties

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

  Because of the many people at the bargaining table it becomes

difficult to develop a common position.

 But where a position is developed, it becomes even more difficult

change it.

 It is even worse where parties would want to alter a position, where

the additional parties are higher authority, or absent from the table

but whose approval is required.

e) Being nice is no answer

 In soft negotiations, make offers and concessions, be friendly, and

yield as necessary to avoid conflict (e.g. WWII)

 Between friends and family, it tends to be efficient as it produces

results quickly

 But it does not ensure a wise agreement.

The concept of principled negotiation is based on four basic points:

I. Separate the people from the problem:

The relationship (the “people”) is separate from any substantive conflict (the

“problem”) you have. Disentangling the relationship from the problem

reduces the possibility of miscommunication and emotions negatively

affecting the negotiation.

IF You want to establish good working relationships in negotiation. Deal with

relationship issues, if they exist, separately from substantive issues.

Dealing With the People’s Problem

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

  Negotiators are people first, i.e. they have specific interests

 The different types of interests are

 Substance

 Relationship

 Relationship tends to become entangled with problems

 Positive bargaining puts relationships and substance in conflict

 A negotiator wants to reach an agreement that:

a) Satisfies his/her substantive interests; and

b) Preserves/fosters valued relationships.

c) Most negotiations take place in the context of an ongoing

relationship.

 In some cases the ongoing relationship may be more important than

the outcome of any particular negotiation (e.g. family).

 We tend to treat the people and the problem as one in the same.

 Egos become involved in substantive positions.

 People often draw unfounded inferences from comments on

substance.

 Deals with people problems directly; don’t try to solve them with

substantive concessions.

 Base the relationship on:

a) Accurate perceptions,

b) Clear communication

c) Appropriate emotions

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

 d) A forward-looking outlook

 Separate the relationship from the substance; deal directly with the

people problem

Types Of People’s Problems

a) Perception

 Both parties may agree as to the facts but disagree on the preferred

outcome.

 We need to be able to see the situation as the other side sees it.

 Understanding their point of view is not the same as agreeing with it.

 You may, however modify your own views as a result

 Don’t

i. Blame; even if blaming is justified, it is usually

counterproductive.

ii. Don’t deduce their intentions from your fears. Tendency to put

the worst interpretation on what the other side says or does.

iii. Don’t treat as unimportant those concerns of the other side that

you perceive as not standing in the way of an agreement.

 Do

i. Discuss each other’s perceptions.

ii. Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their

preconceptions.

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

 iii. Involve the other side in the process of reaching an outcome.

Agreement is much easier if both sides feel ownership of the

ideas/solutions.

iv. Involve the other side(s) early.

v. Allow all parties to save-face. A potentially acceptable solution may

be rejected if a party is forced to lose face in the process.

vi. Face-saving reflects a person’s need to reconcile the stand he or

she takes in a negotiation or an agreement with their principles and

their past words and deeds.

How to deal with perception

 Put yourself in others shoes

 Don’t deduce their intentions from your fears

 Don’t blame them for your problem

 Discuss each others’ perceptions

 Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with perceptions

 Make other party participate in the process.

 Proposals and values should be consistent

b) Emotions

Emotions often run high from the start, and may create an impasse.

It is incumbent one Recognize his emotions and those of the other

side.

How to deal with emotions

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

To effectively manage emotions, a negotiator may need to:

 Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate.

Endeavour to Recognize the emotions of the other side and yours too.

 Continue listening when the other side is venting or letting off steam.

 Interact and engage the other side in a social setting with away from

the bargaining table (e.g. dinner).

 offer an apology if appropriate and is warranted.

Dealing with emotions otherwise may escalate the conflict and as

such one should take caition , and not do the following:

 Don’t treat negotiators who represent organizations, or other people as

mouthpieces, or stooges without emotions.

 Try not react to emotional outbursts.

 Do not stop people from venting, expressing their emotions or dismiss

their emotions.

c) Communication

Potential problems:

 Negotiators may not be talking to one another but to other parties.

Playing to the gallery.

 Negotiators are not really listening to the other side. Thinking about

their next argument.

 The other side misinterprets the communication (e.g. language - the

word “average”).

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

It is important to note good communication would require:

 Active listening. It must be clear to the other side that you have been

listening. Positive paraphrasing, rephrasing, summarizing employing

extender are examples of how to demonstrate active listening.

 Employ good body language

 Think before you speak. Weigh and carefully evaluate before you say

anything or respond

 Avoid blame game. Do not blame other side for the problem; name-

call; or raise your voice.

II. Focus on interests, not positions:

Interests are the underlying needs, desires, concerns, wants, values, or fears.

Interests motivate people, but often individuals will state a position. Many

countries have a position that “we will not negotiate with terrorists.” This is a

position, but the underlying interests probably relate to concerns and fears

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

about personal security. In conflict, individuals and groups often state only

one position, and it will be difficult to negotiate compromises on positions.

Behind positions are multiple interests, and focusing on interests allows

negotiators more room to generate acceptable solutions.

III. Invent options for mutual gain:

This requires creativity and the commitment to brainstorm options that will

be acceptable to both parties. In brainstorming, negotiators need to separate

the stage of evaluating options from the stage of generating options.

Both parties need to broaden the number of possible options and not search

for just one option. Both parties also need to think about options that will

satisfy the interests of the other side.

IV. Insist on using objective or mutually acceptable criteria:

Often it is possible to identify several relevant standards or criteria by which

parties can evaluate the fairness or acceptability of a negotiated agreement.

Negotiators can brainstorm criteria or standards in the same way as they

brainstorm options

V. What If They Are More Powerful

Fisher and Ury also invented the concept of the BATNA. This is a term that

refers to the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement.

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

An alternative is different from an option – it refers to a possible course of

action if you do not reach a negotiated agreement.

The BATNA functions as a bottom line and helps you determine whether or

not negotiation is your best option.

In order to make a BATNA useful, negotiators need to carefully analyse the

costs and benefits of the BATNA, and to evaluate costs and benefits of the

negotiated agreement against those of the BATNA. If individuals or groups

think they can accomplish their bottom line using other methods (like a

strike, violence, legal options) they will resort to those methods and not use

a cooperative model of negotiation.

This model of negotiation has some limitation. First, this is a culturally

specific model of negotiation. Second, this model does not deal with power

issues or power imbalance.

VI. What If They Won’t Play (Use Negotiation Jujitsu)

If they continue to use positional bargaining, you can resort to a second

strategy, negotiation jujitsu, which focuses on what they may do. It counters

the basic moves of positional bargaining in ways that direct their attention to

the merits.

How negotiation jujitsu works.

a) Don’t attack their position, look behind it.

 Neither accept nor reject their position.

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

  Look for ways to improve it.

 Assume every position they take is a genuine attempt to address

the basic concerns of each side.

 Ask them how they think it addresses the problems at hand.

b) Don’t defend your ideas, invite criticism and advice.

 Instead of asking them to accept or reject an idea, ask them

what’s wrong with it.

 Examine their negative judgments to find out their underlying

interests and to improve your ideas from their point of view.

 Rework your ideas in light of what you learn from them.

c) Recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem.

 Don’t defend yourself when attacked.

 Listen to what they are saying and when they have finished, you

recast their attack on you as an attack on the problem

d) Ask questions and pause.

 Those engaged in negotiation jujitsu use two tools:

 They use questions instead of statements, which allows the

other side to get their points across and lets you understand

them.

 Silence. If they make an unreasonable proposal or an attack you

regard as unjustified, the best thing is not to say anything.

Silence creates an uncomfortable situation especially if they

have doubts about the merits of what they just said

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

 e) What If They Use Dirty Tricks? (Taming the Hard Bargainer)

 Tricky bargaining tactics are in effect one-sided proposals about

negotiating procedure, about the negotiating game that the

parties are going to play. To counter them, you will want to

engage in principled negotiation about the negotiating process.

 How do you negotiate about the rules of the game? There are

three steps in negotiating the rules of the negotiating game:

 Recognize the tactic – Learn to spot particular ploys that

make you feel uncomfortable or indicate deception.

 Raise the issue explicitly – Discussing the tactic not

only makes it less effective, it also may cause the other

side to worry about alienating you. Simply raising a

question about a tactic may be enough to get them to stop

using it.

 Question the tactic’s legitimacy and desirability –

bringing it up gives you the opportunity to negotiate about

the rules of the game. This negotiation focuses on the

procedure (or how the two sides will negotiate) instead of

the substance of the negotiation.

 Some Common Tricky Tactics

 Phony facts – knowingly making false statements

 Ambiguous authority – the other side may allow you to

believe they have full authority to compromise when they don’t.

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

 After they have pressed you as hard as they can and you have

worked out a firm agreement, they announce that they must

take it to someone else for approval. To counter, insist on

reciprocity. “All right. We will treat it as a joint draft to which

neither side is committed. You check with your boss and I’ll

sleep on it and see if I come up with any changes I want to

suggest tomorrow.”

 Stressful situations – Be aware that the setting might have

been deliberately manipulated to make you want to conclude

the negotiations promptly or to yield points in order to do so.

 Personal attacks – use of both verbal and non-verbal

communication to make you feel uncomfortable.

 The good-guy/bad-guy routine

 Threats

 Heard-hearted partner – the other side justifies not yielding

to your request by saying that he personally would have no

objection but his hard-hearted partner will not let him. Recognize

the tactic.

 A calculated delay – frequently one side will try to postpone

coming to a decision until a time they think favorable to them

and disadvantageous to you.

 “Take it or leave it.” – As an alternative to explicitly

recognizing the “Take it or leave it” tactic, consider ignoring it at

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola

 first. Keep talking as if you didn’t hear it, or change the subject,

perhaps by introducing other solutions. If you do bring up the

tactic specifically, let them know what they have to lose if no

agreement is reached and look for a face-saving way to get

them out of the situation.

 Don’t be a victim – Whatever you do, be prepared to fight dirty

bargaining tactics. You can be just as firm as they can, even firmer. It

is easier to defend principle than an illegitimate tactic. Don’t be a

victim.

NEGOTIATIONS Gordon Ogola