From minimum mutual interest to maximal mutual and

From minimum mutual interest to maximal mutual and personal gain effectivly, elegantly and amicably What is negotiation? Sirpa Pietikäinen

What is a negotiation? minimum mutual interest ! it is a dance so learn but unlearn the minuet first then you can learn to hiphop pareto optimum visa losers/winners curse negotiation as a game, hard bargaining, human-interest or integrative approach Sirpa Pietikäinen

What Problems do you face in negotiation? time constraints lack of semiotic, sub cultural, substantial or other understanding inability to learn uncertainty of people, situation, information, outcome ineffective use of resources unsatisfying results; feelings of being robbed, could I have gotten more, non-outcomes, broken human/institutional relations did I perform, was I right Amebic picture of the process Sirpa Pietikäinen

Why do negotiations fail? negotiation games are unidentified (chicken game, salami, you blinked first, vendor machine) new situations/proposals paralyze the process there is no room for common interest the toolkit is empty or poorly equipped How to deal with complexity, uncertainty and people How to master ones own behavior –the only thing you can effectively manipulate in negotiation Sirpa Pietikäinen

If you don’t know other tools you have to rely to the only solution, banging head to the wall That is the way how majority of the wars and disputes grow …and lawyers bank accounts Sirpa Pietikäinen

NEGOTIATIONS how negotiation theories can facilitate real life negotiations what is a negotiation what common problems do you face in negotiations why do negotiations fail what is a good outcome To identify what are the specific features in your negotiation Sirpa Pietikäinen

Negotiation is like juggling You have to bear in mind and handle many issues simultaneously Negotiation with deals Issues, substance People, behaviour, perception, communication Sirpa Pietikäinen

Decision perspectives for negotiators Individual decision-making perspective DECISION ANALYSIS (prescriptive approach) Interactive decision-making perspective GAME THEORY (interactive prescriptive approach) Alternatives and payoffs Allows to compare the benefits of a joint agreement vs. separate/unilateral action Helps to develop BATNA Awareness that payoffs are determined also by actions of the other side(s) (payoffs is a function of all the player´s choices!) The underlying setting, rules of the game (underlying every negotiation structure is a game-like component!) Helps to understand change the process and rules how decisions are made Joint decision-making perspective NEGOTIATION THEORY how cooperation can benefit both sides Sirpa Pietikäinen

Behavioral decision making -- a descriptive approach How do people actually think and behave Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø How do they perceive uncertanties, accumulative evidence, learn and update their perceptions How do their learn and adapt their behaviour What are their hang-ups, biases, internal conflicts How do they talk about their perceptions and choces Do they really act as they say they do Can they articulate reasons for their actions How do tey resolve their internal conflicts or avoid resolving them Do they decompose complex problems, think separately about component parts and then re compose or integrate these separate analyses Or do they think more holistically and intuitively What are thought patterns for people from different cultures, subcultures, gender, experience, etc What is the role of imitation, tradition, locked behaviours etc Sirpa Pietikäinen

Where negotiation theory comes from? semiotics psychology game theory decision theory preventive law school communication theory anthropology sociobiology Political sciences Sirpa Pietikäinen bargaining theory social and human interest approach integrative model diplomatic track facilitation mediation arbitration

Some issues to consider before negotiations The decision to negotiate What to do if negotiations fail With whom to negotiate How many parties Are they monolithic? Subgroupings Are there linkage effects Is the negotiation (game) repetitive How many issues Is agreement required Time constraints, costs How binding is contratct Are the negotiations private or public Groupnorms External help Sirpa Pietikäinen

7 ELEMENTS 1. BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement ); YOURS/THEIRS 2. INTERESTS 3. OPTIONS 4. CRITERIA 5. COMMUNICATION 6. RELATIONSHIP 7. COMMITMENT Sirpa Pietikäinen

BATNA Over Poor or under estimated analyze leads to agreements negotiator would be better off estimate their batna Think of my alternatives to a negotiated agreement Select and improve my batna Identify alternatives open to the other side What will I do if we do not agree Sirpa Pietikäinen

BATNA Sally Concentrate to the tv role Some other opera 1 st or 2 nd role Retire and establish a singer´s school Do home visits Get married with money Write a biograph huge pub being naked Consultant for opera Make a christmas record Sirpa Pietikäinen Lyric´s Hire the second role Postpone the shows Hire doctor for the sick singer Set up a popconsert Alteret the manuscript Hire a headhunter to go globally

Interests personal every negotiator has two kinds of interests: in the substance and in the relationship negotiators are people first open/hidden group/subgroup identify the relevant parties clarify the interests probe for underlying interests Sirpa Pietikäinen

Interests Yours Many Career Publicity VIP Achievement Attention to get Joy of singing Respect TV role Full opera with audience Sirpa Pietikäinen Theirs Money Security, wellknown singer Attendence Reputation Relationship with Sally Time High quality Publicity Salary level now->future Full opera with audience Sally´s voice? Age? Health? Audiences interest to S on same role

Options Create options, alternatives to meet yours and theirs interests Find ways to maximize joint gains Look the issue from multiple sides Discover what there is on the table, under the table and outside the table Separate options creation and decision making Sirpa Pietikäinen

Circle chart The four Basic steps in inventing options WHAT IS WRONG WHAT MIGHT BE DONE 2 ANALYSIS Diagnose the problem: Sort symptoms into categories Suggest causes observe what is lacking note barriers to resolving the problem 1 PROBLEM 3 APPROACHES What's wrong? What are possible strategies or prescriptions What are current symptoms? What are some theoretical cures? What are disliked facts contrasted Generate broad ideas about with a preferred situation? what might be done 4 ACTION IDEAS What might be done? What specific steps might be taken to deal with the problem? Sirpa Pietikäinen

Options yours theirs Sirpa Pietikäinen

Agreed (objective) criteria, legitimacy verifiable agree criteria before choosing the outcome from options if possible serves the need for fairness, honesty, objectivity and non-partiality Use external standards as a sword and as a shield Use the fairness of the process to persuade Offer them an attractive way to explain their decision Sirpa Pietikäinen

Criteria yours theirs Sirpa Pietikäinen

Communication rapport biased perception dialogue techniques separate dialogue from desicion making ask acknowlege emotions verbal 5% non-verbal 95% ->outlook, gestures, smells, mood, tonality question my assumptions and identify things to listen for reframe to help them understand -am I ready to listen and talk effectivly? Sirpa Pietikäinen

Open with specified questions, be aware of your own rationale -If I go here I will fail (complex Equivalence) -They don´t want me here (unspecified noun) -People don't like this (mind reading -Going here will make people unhappy (cause-effect) -All this area is dangerous (universal quantifier) CENSORED -You must not go here (modal operator of necessity) CENSORED -Danger (nominalization) Sirpa Pietikäinen -You can't go here either (modal operator) -This is bad (judgment) -This area is worse (comparison) -Pre suppositions -Old tape loops -No go area -Parental injunctions

Communication Your selectivity and pitfalls Sirpa Pietikäinen Their channel

The Perceptual Process Our information is transmitted by perception: “the process of screening, selecting and interpreting stimuli so they have meaning to the individual Stimulus – Attention – Recognition – Translation – -Behaviour Sirpa Pietikäinen

Negotiation as percieved process Our own negotiation position and expectations The assumptions we make about other parties and their actions Perceptions in negotiation situation Interpreting the negotiation outcome Sirpa Pietikäinen

4 major perceptual errors GENERALIZATION Stereotyping; gender, race, subculture Halo effects; smile&honesty vs frowning&dishonesty REINFORCE A PRIOR BELIEF Selective perception; reinforcing Projection; our own expectations Sirpa Pietikäinen

Cognitive Biases in Negotiation Irrational escalation of commitment Mythical fixed-Pie beliefs Anchoring and Adjustment Framing Availability of Information Sirpa Pietikäinen

…cont The Winner`s curse Overconfidence The law of Small Numbers Self serving biases Ignoring of others´ cognitions Reactive devaluation Sirpa Pietikäinen

Reframing Managing misperceptions and cognitive biases in negotiation Sirpa Pietikäinen

Non-verbal communication Gestures and mimicry Habitus Emotions Moods Gender, status, background Cultural differences, within and between (joint memberships!) Presuppositions Sirpa Pietikäinen of one´s status

Stay balanced Manage appearance Be patient Express verbally Sirpa Pietikäinen

Relationship save face ethics and negotiations escalation admit mistakes, ask forgiveness BUT give credit gifts magic Separate peoples issues from subtantive issues Prepare to build a good working relationship Identify your emotions, icon them, steam out and then set aside them Use your person as a tool; lovable icons Sirpa Pietikäinen

The us/them bias Zero-sum thinking Engaging in reactive devaluations Naive realism Misinterpreting conciliatory geatures Simplifying uncertainties by emphasizing worstcase analysis Causing self-fulfilling prophecies Getting trapped into destructive escalatory behaviour and not being able to extricate oneself Negative attribution: dispositional factors(them); situational factors(us) Sirpa Pietikäinen

The Method Separate people from the problem Remember differences in negotiation style Focus on interests, not positions Invent options for mutual gain Insist on using objective criteria (ref the analytical table of contents from “getting to yes”) Sirpa Pietikäinen

TEN POTHOLES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Holding back Being Locked into a Box Prematurely Moving to Action Listening without hearing Starting at different points Showboating Scoring debating points Contrarianism Having a pet preoccupation Aria Singing Sirpa Pietikäinen

Fisher&Ury: Getting to Yes Don´t bargain over positions; Comparison charter Sirpa Pietikäinen

PROBLEM SOLUTION Positional bargaining: Which game should you play? Change the game. Negotiate on merits HARD PRINCIPLED Participants are friends Participants are adversaries Participants are problem solvers The goal is argreement The goal is victory The goal is a wise outcome reached efficiently and amicably Make concessions to cultivate the relationship Demand concessions as Separate the people a condition of the from the problem relationship Be soft on the people and the problem Be hard on the problem Be soft on the peopleand the people hard on the problem Trust others Distrust others SOFT Sirpa Pietikäinen Proceed independent of trust

Change your position easily Dig in to your positions Focus on interests, not positions Make offers Make threats Explore interests Disclose your bottom line Mislead as to your bottom line Avoid having a bottom line Accept one-sided loses to Demand one-sided gains reach agreement as the price of agreement Invent options for mutual gains Search for the single answer: the one they will answer: the one you will accept Develop multiple options to choose from: decide later Insist on agreement Insist on your position Insist on using objective criteria Try to avoid a contest of will Try to win a contest of will Try to reach a result based on standards independent of will Yield to pressure Apply pressure Reason and be open to reasons; yield to principle not pressure Sirpa Pietikäinen

Communication Verbal and non verbal Sirpa Pietikäinen

DIALOGUE Dialogue and decision making do not mix Focus on common interests, not divisive ones Keep dialogue and decision making compartmentalized Sirpa Pietikäinen

Strategy Clarify assumptions that lead to subculture distortions Bring forth your own assumptions before speculating on those of others Use specific cases to raise general issues When appropriate, express the emotions that accompany strongly held values Focus on conflicts between value systems, not people Be sure trust exists before addressing transference distortions Minimize the level of mistrust before pursuing Sirpa Pietikäinen practical objectives

DEBATE VRS DIALOGUE Assuming that there is a right answer and you have it Combative: participants attempt to prove the other side wrong Sirpa Pietikäinen Assuming that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can craft a solution Collaborative: participants work together toward common understanding

cont About winning Listening to find flaws and make counterarguments Defending assumptions as truth Critiquing the other side’s position Sirpa Pietikäinen About exploring common ground Listening to understand, find meaning and agreement Revealing assumptions for reevaluation Re-examining all positions

cont Defending one’s own views against those of others Searching for flaws and weaknesses in other positions Seeking a conclusion or vote that ratifies your position Sirpa Pietikäinen Admitting that others’ thinking can improve on one’s own Searching for strengths and value in others’ positions Discovering new options, not seeking closure

Problems in verbal communication Withdrawal Sirpa Pietikäinen

Communication as a negotiation tool Too much information Explanations of conditions General reasons Reframing the situation Sirpa Pietikäinen

…cont Polarized language Verbal immediacy Language intensity Lexical diversity High-power language Sirpa Pietikäinen style

How to speak Listen Ask Reassert Sirpa Pietikäinen

Dialogue technics My opinion Express assumptions Give credit and confess Emphatetic listening Reciprocity Equality Give space Focus on mutual interests Sirpa Pietikäinen

…cont Use metaphores or cases to describe generalities and abstractions Focus on valuesystems not in the conflicts between the people Express your feelings specially when important values are delt Express emphaty Set your assumptions open to judgement Identify the sources for mistrust and misunderstanding Minimize mistrust before moving to concreate issues Sirpa Pietikäinen

. . cont The dialogue has to happen before decission making The interaction transforms to relationship Dialogue and decissionmaking do not match Sirpa Pietikäinen

Relationship save face ethics and negotiations escalation admit mistakes, ask forgiveness BUT give credit gifts magic Separate peoples issues from substantive issues Prepare to build a good working relationship Identify your emotions, icon them, steam out and then set aside them Use your person as a tool; lovable icons Sirpa Pietikäinen

Relationship Your soft spots and interests Sirpa Pietikäinen Their expectations for the future

Commitment why would I do what I promised? agreed wordings implementation mechanisms positive and negative sanctions legal instruments follow-up Incentives Identify the issues to be included in the agreement Plan the steps to agreement Sirpa Pietikäinen

Commitment What you need Sirpa Pietikäinen What they need

Negotiation is -a learning process Effective art of negotiation is double juggling To do that you have to 1. unlearn the unilateral perspective 2. learn together to solve the problem Sirpa Pietikäinen

Do cases effectivly! We can teach you the methods But You learn the practice only by exercising Sirpa Pietikäinen

The purpose is to develop oneself as a negotiator Sirpa Pietikäinen Learn how to structure a negotiation –a practitioners toolkit To understand the problems you face To make decisions confidently in complexity To be able to justify your decisions convincingly and solidly to yourself and to others To conduct negotiations satisfyengly

Memory checklist Learning, unlearning and relearning Rapport Pacing and leading Vicious circles: actions to person Preparations 7 -elements Negotiations note book Role reversal rehearse Sirpa Pietikäinen