Conflict resolution and principled negotiation

of 27 /27
CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION GLEON Fellowship Program August 2013 Workshop

Embed Size (px)

description

Conflict resolution and principled negotiation. GLEON Fellowship Program August 2013 Workshop. Based on Getting to Yes by Fisher, Ury , and Patton of the Harvard Negotiation Project. Today’s talk and tomorrow’s discussion. Introduce traditional bargaining: positional negotiation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Conflict resolution and principled negotiation

Conflict resolution

Conflict resolution and principled negotiation

GLEON Fellowship ProgramAugust 2013 Workshop

Based on Getting to Yes by Fisher, Ury, and Pattonof the Harvard Negotiation Project

Todays talk and tomorrows discussionIntroduce traditional bargaining: positional negotiationOutline an alternative strategy: principled negotiationExample-based

Tuesday: academic case studiesWe negotiate every dayWith a friend about where to go to dinnerWith a supervisor about a deadlineWith your landlord about the terms of your lease

The Problem

Positional negotiationPositional bargaining involves successively taking- and then giving up- positions

Shopkeeper example

The Problem

Positional negotiation

Soft: Make concessions on position to preserve relationship

Hard: Insist on position at the cost of the relationship

When was the last time you engaged in hard bargaining and/or soft bargaining?Hard bargainingMay produce unwise outcomesInefficientEndangers ongoing relationshipsIneffective for multiple party disputesRisk of losing face or getting locked into stated position

Soft bargaining More efficient Vulnerable to hard bargainers

The major problem in many negotiations is that people assume positions as either hard or soft bargainers

The Problem

Positional negotiationThe MethodPrincipled negotiationFisher, Ury, and Patton suggest it is possible to be soft on the people and hard on the problem

People: Separate the people from the problemInterests: Focus on interests, not positionsOptions: Invent multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to doCriteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standardSeparate the people from the problemRecognize that emotions and egos can become entangled with the problem in negotiations. These can adversely affect your ability to see the other party's position clearly.

Union exampleClarify perceptionsPay attention to core concernsRecognize and legitimize emotionsCommunicate clearly Listen first to understand, then speak to be understoodSeparate the people from the problemMany emotional responses are driven by core concerns

Autonomy: the desire to make your own choices and control your own fateAppreciation: the desire to be recognized and valuedAffiliation: the desire to belong as an accepted member of some peer groupRole: the desire to have a meaningful purposeStatus: the desire to feel fairly seen and acknowledged

Ignoring these concerns can generate strong negative emotionsFocus on interests, not positionsExplore the true interests underlying the positions of each side, rather than a focus on the superficial positions with which parties come to the table. The initial positions presented may obscure what the parties really want.

Tenant-landlady exampleAsk questions to explore interestsTalk about your own interests

Invent options for mutual gainParties set aside time together to generate alternative candidate solutions. The idea is that parties contribute together creatively to generate possibilities for mutual gain (a win-win agreement).

This step involves:BrainstormingBroadening optionsLooking for mutual gainMaking their decision easy

Obstacles to inventing optionsPremature judgmentCreativity can be difficult when under scrutiny and immediate judgmentThe fear that inventing options may reveal information that may jeopardize your bargaining position may limit creativity

Obstacles to inventing optionsSearching for the single answerPeople often try to create solutions that narrow the gap between positions, rather than broadening options availableIll pay $200$250 is the best deal I can offer

Options need not lie on a single dimensionRacing to the single answer may cut short a wiser decision making process selected from a large number of options

Obstacles to inventing optionsThe assumption of a fixed pieMany of us often assume a fixed sum game, assuming very limited potential outcomesOrange example

Obstacles to inventing optionsSolving their problem is their problemEach side is most concerned with their own immediate interestsThere is often a psychological reluctance to legitimize the other sides interests because of the risk of weakening ones own positionFailure to detach from your own position will narrow your ability to come up with solutions that satisfy both parties

Prescriptions to the obstaclesSeparate the act of inventing options from the act of judging themBroaden options on the table rather than looking for a single answerLook through the eyes of different expertsChange the scope of the agreementSearch for mutual gainsDovetailing differing interestsInvent ways of making the other sides decision easyIraqi farmer example

Photo credit: ReutersUsing objective criteriaUse an objective criteria for evaluating the candidate solutions. Options should be consistent with Fair standards or proceduresPrecedentMarket valueIndependent third partyOne cuts, the other choosesCake exampleLaw of the Sea exampleKnowing your alternatives to negotiatingIf there is a large power imbalance, you may feel destined to be on the losing end of the dealYou may be pressured into accepting an outcome that is not beneficial to youYou may be too committed to reaching an agreementE.g., you have invested a lot of time negotiating a deal

Know your best alternative to negotiated agreement (BATNA)Knowing your alternativesThe reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiatingSelling the house exampleKnowing you BATNA will allow you to weigh potential outcomes against your alternatives

Knowing your alternativesSharing your BATNA with the other side may strengthen your bargaining power Knowing the other sides BATNA will allow you to have realistic expectations for the negotiationGenerating a BATNAInvent a list of actions you may take if no agreement is reachedImprove the promising ideas and convert them into practical alternativesSelect the alternative that seems best

Job offer in Chicago exampleKnowing your alternativesCautionsConsidering the aggregate of alternativesSalary raise exampleBATNAs may be more favorable than any negotiated outcomeThe MethodPrincipled negotiationBe soft on the people and hard on the problem

People: Separate the people from the problemInterests: Focus on interests, not positionsOptions: Invent multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to doCriteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standardKnow your BATNABased on Getting to Yes by Fisher, Ury, and Pattonof the Harvard Negotiation Project

Image credit: Sacha Chua http://sachachua.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/book-getting-to-yes.png