Negotiations Skills Facilitation Manual FINAL April 2011 · important opportunity to engage the...

Negotiation Skills Facilitation Manual Presented by The Government of Nepal, Ministry of Health and Population and The Ministerial Leadership Initiative for Global Health (MLI) in partnership with CMPartners, LLC, USA, The Nepal Administrative Staff College (NASC), and the Nepal Country Office of the World Health Organization

© 2010 by CMPartners, LLC. All Rights Reserved. 2

HOW TO USE THIS MANUAL This manual is designed to help you facilitate a Negotiation Skills workshop. The content of the Negotiation Skills Participant Binder is in grey, highlighted font below. Facilitation notes are in black font. The manual is divided into five modules:

1) Introduction and Purposes; 2) Communication Skills; 3) Circle of Value; 4) Preparation; 5) Summary and Going Forward.

Each module begins with a brief description and the approximate length of time the module will take. Within each module, arrow bullets, as shown below, indicate sub-topics or exercises:

Communication Exercise The facilitator notes offered here are meant as a guide only and not intended to be what you must share verbatim in facilitating the workshop. Use your own words and style to be as comfortable as you can as the facilitator. Your role as facilitator of the Negotiation Skills workshop is not to be an expert on negotiation. Rather, your role is to share practical tools, offer a common vocabulary for talking about the process of negotiation, and facilitate inter-group learning. The Appendix at the end of the manual includes other material designed to help build your facilitation skills. The contents of the Negotiation Skills Facilitation Manual are copyrighted to CMPartners, LLC (2010).


BEFORE YOUR WORKSHOP BEGINS Before your workshop begins, ensure you have an appropriate room to conduct the training. The room must be large enough to comfortably seat all participants; tables and chairs are often best set up in clusters of 4-5 oriented toward the front of the room. A presentation table should be at the front of the room. You will want at least two flip chart easels, paper and flip chart pens in the front of the room. If you will use Power Point projection to display slides, then you will need a laptop, PowerPoint slide deck, LCD projector, connection cable and screen. If participants do not know each other and/or you do not know them, it is helpful to provide name tags. Have participants write the name by which they want to be called during the workshop. First names only are sufficient. Encourage them to write clearly in block letters. Ensure there are washrooms near the workshop room for participants to use during breaks. Use the blank space below to write your own personal reminders for “before the workshop:”


1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSES MODULE DESCRIPTION In this module, introduce yourself, the course, and explain why the course is being taught. Ask the participants to introduce themselves. Finally, explain how the course is structured. The Introduction and Purposes module is an important opportunity to engage the participants’ interest and establish personal credibility. LENGTH OF MODULE: Twenty - thirty (20-30) minutes INTRODUCTIONS Introduce yourself and your background. Share a story about negotiation

or a relevant experience to offer your participants a sense of who you are. Introduce the workshop. Be comfortable with your own word choice and

style. Here is an example of what you might say:

“This Negotiation Skills program was developed by the Ministerial Leadership Initiative for Global Health (MLI) and the US-based consulting firm CMPartners in order to help you achieve better results when you communicate and negotiate.”

Ask participants to introduce themselves and their roles at work. In the

interest of time you should keep these statements brief by asking specifically for the participants’: name, title, and a one or two sentence description of what they do in their work. This is an important step in the workshop. When participants get to know others in the workshop, they are likely to feel more comfortable participating in the exercises. An important source of learning is from each other.

If the group you are working with is an intact team where participants know each other well, you may consider asking each person to share one thing about themselves that the rest of the team does not already know.


WORKSHOP PURPOSES Describe the goal of workshop. You may point out to participants that

there is a paragraph in the beginning of their Participant Binder that captures your overall approach to the workshop. Here is the paragraph:

We all negotiate every day in both our personal lives and our business lives. This workshop was designed to help you achieve better results when you negotiate. Specifically, we want you to be strategic. “Strategic negotiation” requires purpose-driven thought and action. It often requires learning new behaviors. Learning builds our capacity to act and improve over time. We hope this workshop helps you in that process.

Emphasize the main points of the paragraph and add your own comments (how this material has helped you, share a personal story, etc.).

Describe three main purposes of workshop

We build negotiation leadership in three ways: 1) Awareness: Leading negotiators are most effective when they are

aware of how they and others think and act in relation to their aims and current circumstances.

Mention to participants that awareness is the first step in improving our skills. We must know how we think about or approach a skill, such as negotiation, before we can change or improve what we actually do in practice. Many people assume negotiation is a game to win. Whether they are cognizant of that assumption or not, assuming negotiation is a game to win may not always yield the best results. We also want to build awareness about the process of negotiation. How you negotiate, that is, the process, impacts results as well. Finally, we want to build awareness about the pervasiveness of negotiation. If we take a broad definition of negotiation as influencing someone to do or not to do something, then we negotiate every day.

2) Framework: To build your skill and thus your ability to act and drive

results, we provide you with a practical framework, a working vocabulary, and problem solving tools.

Building awareness alone is not sufficient for improving skills. To make that awareness useful, we need an analytical tool, or framework, so the awareness is structured and useful. The framework offered in this workshop will help participants organize their thoughts, diagnose how a particular negotiation is going, structure their negotiations and systematically review negotiations for continued learning and improvement.


3) Action Skills: We develop our negotiation skills through practice: communicating, analyzing, brainstorming, role-playing, problem solving, etc.

Share with your participants that in a short period of time, practicing helps to identify the skills we have, helps us improve those skills, and reveals opportunities for improvement. The practical applications in this workshop are meant to help the participants experience new awareness and knowledge. Point out, however, that workshops are only the first step of a journey in negotiation skill development. What each participant chooses to do after the workshop ends will determine whether in fact they improve their results.

Describe the structure of the workshop. This information gives the

participants a bigger picture and context for the skills sets and framework for negotiation that they will be learning.

This Participant Binder is organized around three main content areas:

A) Communication Skills. Mention that this content area pertains to how

we ask questions, listen and make statements.

B) The Circle of Value (Interests, Options and Legitimacy). The Circle of Value is the name of the framework you are providing the participants. It serves as a guide in how we think about negotiation, how we prepare for negotiation, what we say and do at the negotiating table, and how we measure the results we achieve.

C) Preparation. We will discuss the importance of preparation and also how to use the Circle of Value as a framework to help you achieve better results during a negotiation.

The Communication Skills and Circle of Value content areas may be used as separate modules or combined together. As a facilitator you will plan your workshop around the needs of your participants and the time available. You may run the two-hour modules consecutively as one workshop or facilitate Communication Skills and Circle of Value content areas as stand-alone modules. Note: the Preparation module must be preceded by the Circle of Value module to introduce the three core elements, Interests, Options and Legitimacy.

Describe the process of the workshop

To achieve these purposes, tell the participants that the workshop is structured around a mixture of presentations, exercises, reviews and applications. You will provide exercises to practice and will spend time reviewing those exercises in an effort to see what the participants can learn from having been through the experience. Inform the participants that this is a skills building workshop and the more they put into the practice, the more they will take away from the training.


Ask the participants if they have any questions. Share the ground rules of the workshop

1. No cell phones. Ask participants to turn off or silence their cell phones so they will not be distracted or take away from other participants’ learning.

2. Be on time. Mention that to get through the training in a timely manner

it is important that participants be on time when finishing exercises or returning from breaks.

Confidentiality. Indicate that you as facilitator are creating a safe place for participants to practice new skills. What happens in the training remains confidential and is not shared beyond the training by anyone.


2. COMMUNICATION SKILLS MODULE DESCRIPTION The Communication Skills module introduces participants to the two primary modes of verbal communication, advocacy and inquiry. The module begins with an exercise that highlights the popularity of advocacy for most of us when we negotiate. You will then present participants with guidelines for balancing advocacy and inquiry to improve communication and negotiation effectiveness. You may begin with the following (in your own words): “Communication is obviously an important part of negotiating. In this module, we are going to discuss two primary ways of communicating and the importance of each. To get us started, we’re going to do a short exercise. Listen carefully - it’s very important to follow my instructions exactly.”

LENGTH OF THE MODULE: 2 hours OPENING EXERCISE: A-B SELL Prepare for the exercise Before running this exercise, prepare a flip chart with the special instructions as shown in the dialogue on the right. Ensure that none of the participants sees the instructions on the flip chart as you prepare it. One way to accomplish this is to turn the flip chart stand away from the participants, write the instructions, and then cover the instructions with a blank sheet of flip chart paper. Run the exercise Ask participants to pair up. One person of each pair should raise their hand. They will be the “A’s.” The participants who did not raise their hands will be the “B’s.” Ask the A’s to think of something they will sell to the B’s. You will give the A’s only 60 seconds to try to sell what they thought of to the B’s. Ask if all the A’s have something in mind. Before you begin, give the B’s the special instructions for the exercise that you have already prepared. The A’s can’t hear or see these instructions. Ask the A’s to please close their eyes. Confirm that all the A’s have shut their eyes and then show the B’s their instructions on flip chart. Ask the B’s if they understand their instructions and then conceal the flip chart with instructions.

B’s count the number of statements and the number of questions

that A makes

B’s count the number of statements and the number of questions

that A makes


The A’s may open their eyes. Ask if they are ready to sell their item to B? Remind them they will only have 60 seconds. With your words and energy, try to create a sense of urgency in the process. For example, you might say things like: “You can’t start until I say, ‘Go!’” “This is a timed exercise – you’ve got to get it done in no more than 60 seconds.” When everyone is ready, instruct them to begin selling. Stop the participants after 60 seconds. Debrief the exercise Ask one of the B’s to tell the room what their special instructions were. Then ask generally how many statements were made versus how many questions were asked. Write the results on a flip chart in the format suggested on the right. Typically, you will see many more statements were made than questions. Ask why there is a stronger tendency towards making statements, and lead a discussion about it. Share the content on Advocacy and Inquiry. Present to the participants

the definitions for Advocacy and Inquiry (as shown in blue font, below). A) Communication Skills There are two main kinds of verbal communication.

1. Advocacy or making statements. When we advocate, we give information such as facts, our opinions, conclusions, etc.

2. Inquiry or asking questions. When we inquire, we seek information for the purpose of learning.

In front of your participants, prepare a flip chart with two columns, the first labeled “Purpose of Advocacy” and the second labeled “Purpose of Inquiry.” Ask the room what some possible purposes of advocacy are. Write them on the flip chart. After several responses do the same for inquiry. Your flip chart will look something like this:

Statements/Quests. 5 3

10 2

4 1


Express the following in your own words:

Typically in a negotiation, people tend toward advocacy rather than inquiry. However, it is often more persuasive to ask questions or inquire, to learn about the other party’s point of view. Once you understand their point of view, you can then advocate your point of view more effectively. The strategic negotiator works to balance advocacy and inquiry.

Invite discussion Ask if there are any questions related to advocacy? To Inquiry? Explain that asking questions for the genuine purpose of learning is often difficult. We have to resist the temptation to convince the other person of our position instead of taking the time to deeply understand theirs. Making matters worse, we often think we are listening to the other person when in fact we’re getting ready in our minds to refute their position. This “rehearsal” blocks our ability to hear what they are saying. The challenge is to listen for the purpose of learning and understanding. We don’t need to agree; we do need to understand.

Present the Strategic Guidelines for Skilled Advocacy. The notes here offer additional thoughts to expand your thinking as a facilitator. Share them or other thoughts you have. One strategy for presenting this information is to prepare flip charts BEFORE you present the module. Write the heading “Strategic Guidelines for Skilled Advocacy” on the flip chart. Beneath the heading, write down two bullets. In advance, practice sharing the additional information about each bullet, which is provided below in black font.

Present the Strategic Guidelines for Skilled Advocacy Strategic Guidelines for Skilled Advocacy: Make statements and invite discussion. This point suggests that after you make a statement, ask the person you are speaking to if they understand you by asking, “Does that make sense?” • Communicate clearly and rationally. Articulate your words so that

others can easily hear and comprehend what you are saying. Present your thoughts logically.

• Test their understanding of our words and meaning. Confirm that they “get it” by asking them to repeat or paraphrase back to you what you just said.

• What we say is not always what they hear. The message you send may not be what they understand. The same word can mean different things to different people. For example, if I say “George is capable of doing the job,” I might mean that George has the minimum qualifications but the other person thinks I’m giving George a strong recommendation.


Be sensitive to the impact of words and body language. • How we say things conveys as much as what we say. Tone, eye

contact, and body position are all part of a message when we communicate in person. Communicating is more difficult by phone, and even more difficult by email.

• Don’t assume. Always clarify. Ask questions for the purpose of being clear.

• Avoid inflammatory words. Be thoughtful about the words you use. “Toxic” or offensive words can unnecessarily distract an individual, team or organization from the real issues.

Reduce emotion • Use “and” not “but” to link different or conflicting thoughts. Using the

word “but” in a sentence with two thoughts serves to negate or diminish the first thought. For example, “Your report on project funding was good, but we need much more information.”

• Shift from certainty and blame to curiosity and contribution. People are often confident that their conclusions or opinions are correct. In a disagreement it is easier for me to say, “I am right and you are wrong.” People, however, may draw different conclusions or opinions from the same data or they simply may have drawn their conclusion from or have experienced entirely different data or facts. So it is often more helpful to understand how others draw conclusions or make their opinions rather than to label those conclusions as being either right or wrong. Being more curious about the facts and thought process they used helps to establish a common ground of understanding.

People also tend to find fault in others more easily than themselves. It is helpful to acknowledge a broader system of contributing factors to errors and mistakes. Present the Strategic Guidelines for Skilled Inquiry Strategic Guidelines for Skilled Inquiry: Cultivate curiosity. (See the facilitator notes under “Reduce emotion,” above, for an explanation of curiosity.) • The less we agree, the more we must understand. When we disagree,

we need to try harder to understand each other.

• Demonstrate interest and respect for them, especially when we do not accept their arguments. Value them as people, acknowledging they


may have made their arguments based on a very different set of data or experiences than your own.

• Inquire into the impact of our own actions. We know our own intentions. Our actions, however, may have an impact on others that are not the same as our intentions. We can monitor our intentions, and we should always work to discover the impact of our actions.

Practice strategic listening.

• Listen with the aim of learning. Listen with an open mind so that you may learn something new. Curiosity helps to do this.

• Listen without rehearsing your answer. Try not to think of what you will say in response while you are listening.

• Listen with your ears and your eyes. Look for cues in their body language as well as listening to their words.

Earn the right to inquire

• Paraphrase what you hear so they feel understood. Offer back to them your understanding of what they have said. This shows them you are listening and you understand.

• Demonstrate your trustworthiness. Indicate your purpose for learning or asking questions and explain how you will use/protect the information they share. You must be trusted to manage the information well in order for them to answer your questions.

• Be ready to do what you ask of them. Do not ask something of them if you are not yourself prepared to act in kind.

Present the General Guidelines for Communication Facilitate two-way communication • Lead or explicitly negotiate the process: purposes, products, places,

and parties to involve. Articulate the purpose of your meeting or negotiation. With that purpose in mind, determine what product(s) you want. The product may be a desired action, a promise, a signed contract, an agreement to continue at a later date, etc. Finally, you should discuss who needs to be present and at what location.

• Reframe their positions and attacks as statements of needs and concern. In a negotiation or disagreement, people often state a position or make a demand, thereby creating tension that shuts down communication. You can lessen that tension by using probing questions. For example, what do they hope to achieve? What are their motivations or concerns?

Deal separately with the relationship between the parties and the substance issues – each on their own merits.


• Do not threaten or buy the relationship. Protect the relationship for the long-term. Short-term substantive gains at the cost of the working relationship yield poorer results over the long-term.

• Be soft on the people, firm on the substance. We want to respect the people we are communicating with. Be constructive (not destructive) in your words and actions. The substance, however, is where you should be firm and work to preserve what is most important to you.

• Create communication and relationship strategies for people problems. Watch for signs that the relationship between the parties needs special attention. Create time to develop the relationship - apart from negotiating the substance of the issues. That might sound like: “ Let’s just eat lunch for now and get to know each other better. We can begin to tackle this problem together after we’ve finished eating.”

Rather than react to positions, probe for their underlying needs • Share some of your own needs or motives. Doing this demonstrates

your trust in them as your share important needs and may make it easer for them to confide in you.

• Share your understanding of their needs. You might say, “It sounds like to me that __________ is really important to you. Is that right?”

HOT BUTTONS EXCERCISE

Tell the participants that they are now going to practice asking questions for the purpose of learning. You will run the Hot Buttons Exercise. Explain that in the Hot Buttons exercise, we practice two skills that enable understanding in the face of strong disagreement: adopting a curiosity mindset and using skilled inquiry. Ask your participants to pair up. Ask one to raise their hand. They are the Believer. The other person who did not raise his hand is the Devil’s Advocate. Ask the Believer to select a topic of conversation that evokes strong convictions and feelings for them. Examples might be protecting specific rights for marginalized groups or donor restrictions on program-specific funding. The Believer should share their topic and their opinion with the counterpart, the Devil’s Advocate. As a facilitator, offer an example of a hot topic and then state the opposing view, as the Devil’s Advocate will do in the exercise. The role of the Believer in the exercise is to ask questions and learn about what will be an opposite point of view of what they believe. When the conversation begins, challenge the Believer to simply hear, understand, and communicate back their understanding of the Devil’s Advocate’s opposing view. They should refrain from further explaining or defending their own views or correcting their view.


The Devil’s Advocate is to take the Believer’s chosen topic and strongly argue for the opposite position. The Devil’s Advocate should exaggerate the counter-view as necessary to “trigger” the Believer – that is, to lure him/her into counter-advocacy or defensiveness. The Devil’s Advocate makes short statements, rather than long arguments. This forces the Believer to practice asking questions. The Devil’s Advocate is also observing how the Believer does. Ask the Devil’s Advocate to note and comment in the review if the Believer becomes defensive, argues or neglects to demonstrate understanding. Debriefing the first round of Hot Buttons Ask the Believers how it went? Was it easy? Difficult? Why? Facilitate discussion about how it is difficult to continually ask questions for learning when faced with a viewpoint or opinion you disagree with. We tend to advocate. Ask the Devil’s Advocates if the Believers used leading, rhetorical, or sarcastic questions or statements intended either to support their own opposing view or demonstrate flaws in the Devil Advocate’s argument. Run the second round of Hot Buttons Ask the participants to switch roles for the second round of Hot Buttons. The Believer becomes the Devil’s Advocate, etc. Encourage the new Believer (who will be asking questions for understanding) to clear their mind, be curious and seek to learn about this very different point of view. They can ask questions and paraphrase what they have heard from the Devil’s Advocate. Debrief the second round of Hot Buttons Ask what worked well? Why? What might participants try differently next time? What lessons can participants take away from the exercise? Open the room for questions about inquiry and advocacy Ask if the material makes sense? Ask if they have any questions or concerns about inquiry and advocacy. Close the Communication Skills Module by sharing that it is important to have two questions in your back pocket: “Why?” and “What else?” These questions allow you to dig further and learn more, before you advocate your opinion.


3. CIRCLE OF VALUE MODULE DESCRIPTION This module presents a framework for negotiation, The Circle of Value. The Circle of Value is made up of three core elements: Interests, Options and Legitimacy. Participants explore how the Circle of Value acts as a guide in creating value in a negotiation. The module closes with practical applications of the Circle of Value. In your own words, express the following: “In a negotiation, each party has objectives, goals, fears, hopes, desires, etc. Collectively they are things that are important to us. We call them “interests.” Each party has its own set of interests; some might be shared, some conflicting, some just different. As we negotiate, we explore possible outcomes that will satisfy those interests in varying degrees. We call those “options.” Different options will satisfy each party’s interests in different ways. One way to evaluate an option is to gauge whether or not it seems “fair.” Ideally, we can use objective criteria or standards that are neutral to each party. We call such measures “legitimacy.” These three elements (interests, options, and legitimacy) form the heart of any negotiation. By exploring interests, generating options, and using legitimacy, we create value in a negotiation. So we call these elements the “Circle of Value.” LENGTH OF THE MODULE: 2 hours CIRCLE OF VALUE Introduce and present the core elements. As you present this module, use

a flip chart and write each element in a circle drawn on the flip chart as you describe it. Feel free to adapt the language to your own words so that you feel comfortable.

B. Circle of Value (Interests, Options and Legitimacy) Positional bargaining, in which each side comes to the table with a list of demands, is likely to be ineffective and costly. It often produces unyielding attitudes and endless haggling. In contrast, problem-solving or interest-based negotiation teaches the parties to focus on their underlying needs and interests. This can lead the parties to find common ground and creative ways to resolve a dispute. 1) Explore INTERESTS, not Positions. Interests are the hopes, fears,

aspirations, concerns, goals, etc. of each party. Share the Orange Story to reinforce the difference between an Interest

and Position. ORANGE STORY: The book “Getting to Yes” tells the story of two children fighting over an orange. The parent comes along, tells the children to stop fighting, takes a knife, and cuts the orange in half. One child peels their half,


tosses out the peel and eats the fruit; the other child peels their orange, tosses out the fruit and uses the peel to bake an orange cake. Tell the participants that the position of each child was “I want the whole orange.” But their interests were different and did not conflict: eating the fruit or baking a cake. Present the second element, Options 2) Develop OPTIONS for joint gain. Positional negotiations limit optimal

solutions because parties rarely explore a broad range of potential solutions, or options. Creative thinking expands the range of possible options and promotes better solutions.

Ask what the parent could have done with the children to produce a better outcome? The parent could have asked what they really wanted, what they needed, to discover their interests. Explain that one solution for the children was to cut the orange in half, but that didn’t meet their needs very well. Another solution would have been for one to take all the fruit, and for the other to take all the peel. And a third solution might have been for them to take the orange, squeeze a glass of orange juice, sell it, and then go buy two more oranges. Introduce ground rules of brainstorming:

1. Everything goes up on flipcharts, 2. Wild ideas are encouraged, 3. No evaluation or judgment on ideas at this stage. Evaluation comes

later. Present the third element, Legitimacy 3) Use Objective Standards to establish LEGITIMACY. Negotiation does

not have to mean giving in, or bowing to the will of another party. Using objective standards, evidence-based arguments, precedents, law, or principles is a means both to persuade the other side that an agreement is fair and to protect your side from being coerced.

To help participants understand the concept of Legitimacy, give an example. In the courts, judges look to past legal precedents to determine how to make a decision on a similar case. The ruling of a previous judge on how to handle a case is a source of Legitimacy because the decision happened previously and may be viewed as an objective benchmark. Ask participants if they can think of examples of legitimacy from their own work. To help reinforce the Circle of Value you could share a simple example for all three elements such as the MOTORCYCLE EXAMPLE: In your own words explain that if you wanted to buy a used motorcycle, you would have certain reasons or needs for doing so. Those reasons are your Interests. Your


interests in buying a used motorcycle might include: need for transportation, transportation that is safe and reliable, easy to park, not too expensive, etc. You can state that a concern (or Interest) of yours is that you do not have the money to buy a motorcycle today. So when you go to the used motorcycle shop, you want to talk to them about a possible solution for you to buy the motorcycle. We call these possible solutions our Options. One option for you to buy a motorcycle when you have insufficient funds today is to lease (or rent) the motorcycle until you have sufficient funds to purchase. Another option is to take out a loan from the motorcycle shop and pay back interest. A third option or possible course of action is to take a job at the motorcycle shop and pay off your motorcycle with the hours/time you work. All of those are options. Finally, we want to know what a fair price is for the motorcycle. We want to be able to look outside of the negotiation and point to a benchmark or standard that tells us we are paying the going market rate. This is called Legitimacy. One source of legitimacy might be another used motorcycle shop selling the same used motorcycle with similar mileage. A website may also show comparative prices for motorcycles - another objective standard. In your words, share the summary offered below, referring back to the flip

chart with the Circle of Value. Together, these core elements form the “circle of value” – where value in negotiation is created. When we are “in the circle,” we are exploring possible outcomes with the other party. We are discussing our or the other party's needs, values, constraints, hopes, concerns – in other words, interests. With a good understanding of everyone’s interests, it becomes possible to generate a large number of possible solutions, or options, to satisfy those interests. Then, looking to external sources of legitimacy such as past precedents at the MoHP, documented evidence, or other common practices and procedures in the health sector, we decide which options might be reasonable to say “yes” to. These three elements form the Circle of Value, pictured below.

When we are in the Circle of Value, our inquiry skills become very important. Present the Strategic Inquiry Guidelines. Select a few inquiry examples

for each element to share with your participants. Refer them to that section of the Participant Binder if they want to look at additional sample questions.


Strategic Inquiry Guidelines:

Inquiry into INTERESTS • What are you trying to accomplish in these negotiations? • What are your key motivations in these negotiations? • What are you concerned about?

• Do you feel we “must” do a deal here? • I would prefer to work something out jointly. Would you? • What interests would be better met if we don’t agree?

Inquiry into OPTIONS

• What would be wrong with…? • What other ideas might we brainstorm on this problem? • If we work together, how might we make this better for both of

us? • Do you have the authority to make a decision on this? • Do others need to be here to get this done? • What would be your reaction to a possible offer like…? • If I were able to offer you “x,” could you say “yes” today?

Inquiry into LEGITIMACY

• Why do you think we ought to do that? • What benchmarks do you see in our field of work that make this

appropriate? • If you were I, how would you justify that to others?


4. PREPARATION MODULE DESCRIPTION The Preparation Module presents a systematic approach to preparation for a negotiation using the Circle of Value framework. The facilitator leads participants through a structured preparation of the two-sided Grant Mini Case. The module intends to help participants understand the Circle of Value, to show the value of systematic preparation, and to model good preparation. LENGTH OF MODULE: 1.5 Hours The Guidelines for the Strategic Preparation module are a little different

than the two preceding modules on Communication Skills and The Circle of Value. The best way to re-enforce the framework and present the Preparation module is to practice actually preparing for a negotiation. You will do this by facilitating a structured preparation of the two-sided Grant Mini Case. Before the Grant case, however, refer to the section on Preparation in the Participant Binder so the participants know there is a step by step process for strategic preparation outlined for them.

C. Preparation Strategic preparation increases our ability to create optimal outcomes – both for ourselves and others. Step 1: Identify the parties

• All stake-holding organizations • All stake-holding individuals within those organizations • Other independent stakeholders who may be impacted

Step 2: Use the Circle of Value framework to organize your thoughts and to direct your research before the negotiation. Step 2a: Identify and prioritize your own issues and interests; then do the same for them.

• Short term interests (e.g., what do we need done today?) • Mid-term interests (e.g., having the new team assembled by next

quarter) • Long term interests (e.g., strategic vision, sustainable operations) • Key issues – ours & others’ – identify tensions & prioritize key

issues


Interests: Identify individual/organizational aims, needs, desires, aspirations, concerns.

Ours Theirs Others’

Step 2b: Consider OPTIONS

• Brainstorm possible ideas and solutions by issue and/or interests • Brainstorm “good for both” ideas and solutions • Brainstorm “good for us/them” options that might be traded • Anticipate options they or a third party might propose

Possible Options:

Behind every option is a set of interests. To the extent that the parties care about different things, or value the same things differently, both sides may gain through trade. Try to match what one party considers low-value (or cost) with what the other side considers valuable, and vice versa.


Step 3: Legitimacy Legitimacy or wisdom as supported or measured by objective criteria, benchmarks, evidence, principles, laws, regulations, standards, practices, traditions, third parties, etc., help us determine what an acceptable outcome is. Strategic Guidelines for Achieving Legitimacy:

• Identify relevant benchmarks, precedents, researched evidence, objective criteria, fair or established practices

• Consider fairness and relevance from our perspective, theirs, and that of a neutral third party

• Consider steps to gain and share data before or at the table. • Legitimacy can be used to persuade or defend

Legitimacy: Identify objective standards, benchmarks, “fairness” arguments by issue, interests, and/or options.

Step 4: Agreement Agreement is what we and/or the other party will or will not do. Strategic Agreement Guidelines:

• Agree early on process, late on substance • Create a sequence: for example, delegate roles, invent options,

evaluate, refine, then seek agreement • Verify that parties know what they are agreeing to, how they will

keep their agreements, and how implementation can be verified Step 5. Consider Walk-away Alternatives, especially your BATNA Alternatives are unilateral actions or decisions that either party can take WITHOUT agreement from the other party. Sometimes there are many alternatives; sometimes just a few. There is always a best one. We call that a BATNA: Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.


Strategic BATNA Guidelines: • Develop our Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) • Assess its probability and attractiveness given our interests • Consider ways to improve our BATNA • Estimate their BATNA • Assess if it is operational and attractive given their interests • Consider ways to weaken their BATNA

Alternatives

Ours? Circle our BATNA Ways to strengthen our BATNA

Theirs? Circle their BATNA Ways to test/worsen their BATNA

Facilitate preparation of the Grant Mini-Case The two-sided Grant Mini-Case provides a fact pattern for groups of participants to systematically prepare together for a negotiation using the Circle of Value and core elements: Interests, Options, and Legitimacy. Provide half the participants each side of the Grant Mini-Case. Allow time for them to read. In plenary, ask who the parties are. Write them down on a flip chart. Ask again if there is anyone else we should all be thinking about as we prepare for this negotiation. Emphasize that the reason we identify parties is that behind each party is a set of interests, and the more we explore interests, the better we can generate options. Break the participants into their respective roles and allow them to prepare together using the Circle of Value Preparation Sheet provided with the materials. Spend some time with each group and facilitate progress through the Circle of Value Preparation Sheet with the following list of questions, per each element.

1 What are our interests, what do we care about? What are their interests?


Note: If someone shares a position (e.g. “we want more money”), be sure to ask “why do we want that?” For example, “why do we want more money, for what purpose, what would we use the money for?” Use inquiry to dig down to the underlying interests. After listing both sides’ interests, consider asking what the highest priority interests are. What interests are common to both parties? Which are conflicting? Which are simply different?

2 What are some ways to satisfy the interests of the parties? How might we capitalize on the common interests and reconcile any interests that might conflict?

Lead each group into an option-generation discussion where their ideas of possible solutions, courses of action, etc., are shared but not evaluated. This is a brainstorm. It is always a challenge to not move into evaluation too quickly. Participants should capture all ideas for their record.

3 Given the list of ideas generated, where do we look outside of the negotiation to determine whether our solutions seem fair? What are sources of Legitimacy?

Ask participants what standards, norms or precedents could help determine what the parties should do in this case. Ask what standards will be most persuasive to them. Summarize the module by emphasizing the importance of preparation,

even when (or especially when) time is limited. Share your own thoughts about preparation. For example:

Whenever possible, include other people in preparation; With limited time, select the elements that are most critical to prepare; Develop your own worksheet for preparation; Remember to consider the other party and how they will be preparing;

anticipate their interests, options, and legitimacy.


5. SUMMARY AND GOING FORWARD MODULE DESCRIPTION The Summary and Going Forward Module provides a brief overview of the materials presented – Communications Skills (Inquiry and Advocacy), the Circle of Value (Interests, Options, Legitimacy) and Preparation. The facilitator then engages a discussion with participants about what they will do after the training experience to bring the learning into their work. LENGTH OF MODULE: 30 Minutes Summarize the interest-based negotiation frame work Summary The goal in strategic negotiations is not to “make a deal.” It is to make wise decisions. Effective and efficient communication, with a balance of advocacy and inquiry, creates the opportunity for the parties to advance their interests. By staying in the Circle of Value until we have adequately explored each others’ interests, generated many options, and achieved a sense of legitimacy, in all these ways, we maximize the opportunity to make wise decisions. Disciplined preparation increases the likelihood for success – for both parties. Facilitate the Going Forward discussion Ask participants to brainstorm in small groups some ideas of what they can do after the workshop to re-enforce the training and bring the skills into their field of work. Have the small groups share their ideas for going forward. Below is a representative list of what has helped others apply the skills and knowledge. • Select a specific tool or concept and determine when you will practice; • Start in a lower risk environment (e.g. at a bazaar) and build up; • Create a checklist or card of things to remember; • Reread the Negotiation Skills Participant Binder; • Read Getting to YES; • Create a short list of questions you will ask yourself after every negotiating

session for review; • Make a conscious effort to practice the following:

• Listen • Ask good questions • Identify and question assumptions • Dig under positions to find interests • Ask “why?” and “what else?” • Prepare before a negotiation and review after the negotiation.


Close your session with some time for the group to share their experience and bring a natural closure to their time together. Perhaps ask participants to state one thing that they will do differently or one idea that had a special impact on them. Encourage them to remember this is a process of improvement over time. As adults, if we do not implement change in the first two weeks after learning new behavior, we are likely to stay with our old behavior. So encourage them to support each other and try new ideas while they are still fresh. Good luck!

Appendix 1) Quick Reference: The Circle of Value 2) Negotiations Preparation Checklist 3) The Grant Mini Case 4) Process Training Facilitation Tips 5) Article on Facilitating Negotiation Skills 6) Suggested Further Reading 7) About MoHP, MLI, CMPartners, NASC, and WHO 8) About the Negotiating Health Development Leadership Training


Appendix 1


Appendix 2


Appendix 3 (two-sided confidential instructions) THE GRANT MINI CASE CONFIDENTIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE BANDURAN DEPUTY MINISTER OF HEALTH You are the Deputy Minister of Health in the country of Bandura. You have been Deputy Minister of Health for almost a year. The Minister of Health asked you to meet and negotiate with a representative from the Global Health Network (GHN), a large multi-national NGO based in the United States. GHN is considering providing up to $1,000,000 for an AIDS education project in Bandura. GHN serves as a channel and overseer for medium and large-scale health-related donations from bilateral and multilateral donors. Bandura Bandura is a small Southeast Asian country located in the Pacific Ocean. Its population is 7.5 million with an annual growth rate of 2.9%. After an economic boom in the 1960s due to high coffee and cocoa prices, the economic and political situation in Bandura deteriorated in the 1980s. The public sector was rattled by scandals of mismanagement and corruption. Bandura is among the poorest countries in the world. Bandura's health indicators are also among the worst in Asia. Life expectancy is low, due largely to infant mortality and poor maternal health. Proposed Project The Minister's initial contacts with GHN indicated that they are considering providing up to $1,000,000 for an AIDS education program in Bandura. GHN was very clear that this money was only being considered for AIDS education, and not for a broader program for AIDS prevention or prevention of sexually transmitted diseases generally. This money is needed right now. The National Health Action Plan has targeted some funds for health education and communication programs, but very little will go to AIDS education. AIDS is a growing problem in Bandura (the incidence of AIDS-related deaths has tripled in the last year). Money for education would be very welcome, as the current level of funding will not be sufficient to launch an effective education campaign for any disease. The Minister has decided it will no longer accept money, especially grants, targeted for specific projects. The Ministry of Health is attempting to serve the entire Banduran population with a comprehensive National Health Plan. The donor practice of funding only certain projects or geographic regions makes it impossible for the government to successfully implement a comprehensive and effective health plan. You believe that the spread of other sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis and gonorrhea is far more rapid than that of AIDS and presents a far greater threat to the Banduran youth population at this time. You would like


donors such as GHN to realize that when they put such restrictive conditions on the use of their funds, it is often to the detriment of the larger population. You hope to use this negotiation to set a precedent for other government-donor interactions encouraging donors to work with the Ministry of Health as it sets priorities and secures resources to implement the National Health Plan. The Minister has additional concerns about the proposed GHN program. First, there may be significant "hidden" costs associated with the administration and implementation of the grant. While the initial grant may be "free," it often costs the recipient countries considerable money in administering and providing the accounting for the projects. GHN was vague about the conditions of the grant, but they may impose accounting requirements that necessitate retraining Ministry personnel, installing new systems, or reallocating scarce human resources -- all significant costs to the Ministry. A final and important consideration regarding the proposed GHN project involves the oversight of the program. The Minister's initial conversation was not very specific, but it appears that GHN wants to oversee the complete implementation, rather than having the Ministry of Health in charge of things like disbursement and accounting. This is totally unacceptable. If we allow parallel donor-driven administration and oversight, morale in the Ministry will suffer. Agreeing to GHN oversight would also slow our efforts to improve the management, planning and oversight capacity of the Ministry. This is a top priority for the new Minister, who believes we must establish a reputation as a competent and serious Ministry in order to gain legitimacy and clout in the budgetary and aid negotiation processes. It is important for the Ministry of Health to set a good precedent with this case. You believe that the Ministry currently has capable people and an adequate accounting system, though you recognize that additional staff training, equipment, and system support would be useful to bring the Ministry's capacity up to the standards the most stringent donors apply. The Upcoming Negotiation You do not fully understand the strategic interests of the GHN. Their efforts to date have largely been in Africa, not Asia. This may be an isolated program but it seems more likely they are trying to establish themselves in Asia. Although the money is desperately needed, you should not accept any agreement if you cannot explain to the Minister how it is consistent with the Ministry priorities and the Minister's new policies regarding aid coordination


THE GRANT MINI CASE CONFIDENTIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GLOBAL HEALTH NETWORK (GHN) You are a Program Director with the Global Health Network (GHN), an international NGO based in the United States. Your boss, the GHN Director of AIDS Programs, asked you to negotiate the terms of a $1,000,000 grant GHN would like to make in Bandura for an AIDS education project. You are scheduled to meet with the Banduran Deputy Minister of Health tomorrow. Global Health Network (GHN) GHN serves as a channel for medium and large-scale health-related donations from bilateral and multilateral donors. It also has its own grant programs financed through voluntary contributions from the public. Bandura Bandura is a small Southeast Asian country located in the Pacific Ocean. Its population is 7.5 million with an annual population growth rate of 2.9%. After an economic boom in the 1960s due to high coffee and cocoa prices, the economic and political situation in Bandura deteriorated markedly in the 1980s. The public sector was rattled by scandals of mismanagement and corruption. Bandura is among the poorest countries in the world. Bandura's health indicators are also among the worst in Asia. The budget for health is inadequate to deal with the enormous problems the population faces. Proposed Project The National Health Plan does not currently earmark any significant money for AIDS education. This surprises you, as AIDS has been a growing problem in recent years. This year the incidence of AIDS-related deaths among young people was three times that of last year. While the problem has not yet reached epidemic proportions, you believe there is a real opportunity now to contain and deal with AIDS before it becomes so. You believe this issue should be of national concern and that the government should devote more attention and more resources to it. Both you and GHN have developed a high degree of expertise in AIDS prevention efforts over the past several years. You know from experience that education is essential to the prevention and containment of the disease, and for that reason, GHN targeted its grant in the education area. You expect that the Bandurans will welcome the opportunity to receive a well-funded program like this, which the GHN can implement quickly. A big challenge you will face is oversight. You are concerned that the Ministry may not have procedures in place to comply with the stringent reporting standards GHN requires. You have heard from other donors that accounting and data collection has had many gaps due to lack of accounting procedures,


inadequately trained staff, and lack of recognition by responsible staff of the importance of expenditure data collection. The organization is very hesitant to contribute to a "donor basket" rather than finance a specific project. This is also why it is important that GHN manage the technical and financial aspects of the project. GHN is specifying AIDS education in part because you and your boss believe it needs attention and resources, but also because the specificity of the project allows for easier tracking of funds, minimizes the opportunity for fraud, and permits GHN to identify and take credit for specific impact in the health sector. You have had so many problems with accounting and fraud in the past that you now believe the only way to ensure the money is well managed is for GHN to supervise it itself. The Upcoming Negotiation The negotiation may be difficult. Your boss told you that in a preliminary meeting with the Minister to discuss the project, the Minister expressed concerns about the potential terms of agreement. If it is not possible to negotiate a package that is acceptable, the $1,000,000 will return to GHN's pool of funds. There is no guarantee that the money will return to Bandura in another program -- or even that it will return to Asia at all. For you personally, there is no guarantee that you will receive an upcoming promotion if there is no Bandura program.


Appendix 4 Facilitation Tips Collected from the NHD Process Training Program:

• Practice each module • Prepare in front of a mirror • Ask for agreements on ground rules • Be a role model for ground rules (e.g., start on time) • Pre-write basic instructional flip charts • Be engaging with the participants; move about the room, but not too

much • Make exact use of time for each presentation • Make eye contact • Think about a contingency plan • Block letters on flip chart • Precise, clear, easy to understand • Use good body language • Be enthused • Test for understanding with participants • Change tone of voice • Be aware of your pacing • Don’t answer your own questions


Appendix 5 Article on Facilitating Negotiation Skills Introduction: In this article you will find what we hope is a practical combination of philosophical guidance and practical advice about your role as a facilitator of negotiation workshops. We have tried to include things that we wish we had known when we walked in the first day, those experiences (good and bad) that we thought might help others cultivate or avoid the same, and some over-arching theory about the purpose of the facilitating approach that you probably saw as a participant. Professionalism: Dress appropriately for your audience. More than the clothes that you wear - looking like you have spent some time preparing yourself and for the working group session is critical. Be sensitive to your body language and verbal fluency. Speak in complete sentences and avoid distracting gestures while others are speaking. Pay attention to your spelling when recording or, alternatively, acknowledge immediately that you have trouble with spelling and welcome any help along the way. When someone compliments you, say thank you. The Night Before your workshop: The day/night before, spend some preparation time in the room in which you will be teaching. The arrangement of the room will have an impact on the dynamics of the working group and your interactions with them. Ideally, some type of seminar arrangement where everyone can sit around a table or a group of tables works best. Decide where you are going to put the flip charts and be sure that everyone can see them. Put up your flip charts for the next day (but blank to make things look spontaneous) and post a "proposed" or "working" agenda for the first session. Make sure you have:

• markers, tape, flip charts, pens & paper • your agenda and teaching notes • syllabus for the day • hand-outs

Sitting or standing: as "facilitators" of learning, you want to avoid the feeling that you are lecturing the group. For logistical reasons, however, it is often easier to facilitate when you are standing and a few feet back from the group. Some of this will depend upon the configuration of your room and seating. I would recommend mixing it up - and sitting with the group on the first day so that there is a feeling of group decision-making rather than rules being imposed.


Thoughts on Facilitating Discussion About Negotiation: The Goal: Help Participants/Students Reflect. Your primary goal as a facilitator is to help the participants reflect on what they have learned. A facilitator is not responsible for "teaching" the participants about negotiation. He or she is only responsible for helping the participants learn from each other. Ideally, you would like the participant/students to master the three goals of the workshop: develop awareness, apply a framework, and practice skills. The facilitator's role is to help participants clarify their thinking about what they learned, not about what you learned, or what you thought they were supposed to learn. Two Kinds of Questions: Open-ended and Focused. The facilitator's main job is to ask questions. By asking questions, and then providing a moment or two for the participants to reflect back on their negotiations, you help focus the participants' thinking along productive lines. Almost any reflective thought is productive (remember, the first goal is awareness, and any reflection at all works toward that goal), so there is a broad range of questions you can ask. Essentially, there are two kinds of questions you can ask: (a) open-ended questions; and (b) focused questions. Below we consider each.

Open-ended Questions. Examples of open-ended questions are "What did you learn from the negotiation," "What worked well in your negotiation,” and "What surprised you during the negotiation?" These are open-ended because they do not focus on a particular topic and can be used with any simulation. Almost any honest response that discusses something the participant learned is a good answer to the first question. The following is an illustrative range of responses:

"Well, I learned that it seemed easy when I was thinking about what to say, but it was much harder to actually say something when the other person was sitting there." "I learned that it works well to think of lots of options before choosing one." "I learned that sometimes you have to say things that aren't totally true." "I learned that I don't like doing role plays." "I think I already knew this, but it's good to listen to the other side for awhile before you say anything because sometimes you find out things you didn't know." "I learned that it was really hard to play the role of my father."

Focused Questions. Examples of focused questions are "Did anyone try to see the problem from the other person's point of view?" and "Did anyone try to think of new options for solving the problem?" These questions are focused because they direct


the participant’s attention to a specific skill or area of concern. The following is an illustrative range of responses to the question about the other person's point of view:

"I tried to see it from their point of view, but it still didn't help me settle the case." "As we talked, I started to see that I wasn't the only one who was right. They were sort of right also." "If I'm right, why do I have to see it from the other person's point of view?" "Sometimes when you try to understand the other side, they think you're giving in." "I think when I listened to them, they started listening to me. We both want respect, right?"

Start Discussion with Open-Ended Questions. Although you'll receive more specific information about the kinds of questions to ask for each simulation, as a general rule, it is best to start the discussion with open-ended questions. Each participant will come back with different thoughts about the simulation, and open-ended questions allow each person to say what is on his or her mind. If a student, for example, has learned something about listening, the question "What did you learn?" will allow the student to participate in the discussion. If, instead, you ask "Who thought of creative options?", the participant will be closed off from the discussion and might become frustrated. Open-ended questions allow each person to talk about what interested him or her most. Further along in the discussion, you may want to ask more focused questions. Follow-Up Questions. Sometimes, after a participant has answered a question, you'll want to ask one or more follow-up questions. Follow-up questions help the participant clarify his or her own thinking. They also help you and the class find out more about what the participant is saying. Most follow-up questions are just variations on the questions "Why?", "Tell me more.", and "What do other people in the class think?". Below are some examples of statements by participants and follow-up questions that might be useful: Participant: "The other side did a good job of listening to me." Facilitator: "What was it that let you know they were listening?" or "Say

more about what was good about it?" Participant: "I thought I got a good agreement, but now that I hear everyone else's I don't think mine was very good." Facilitator: "Why do you think that?" Participant: "I think I was talking too much during my negotiation." Facilitator: [to the person the participant negotiated with]: "Would you agree with that?"


Participant: "How do you know where to start the negotiation? I never know what to say at the beginning." Facilitator: [to the whole class] "Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

How do you know where to start?" Participant: "Our negotiation didn't go that well. We weren't really communicating." Facilitator: "What would you do differently if you were going to try it again?" A facilitator who is good at asking follow-up questions usually has two other important qualities: he or she is a good listener, and he or she is naturally curious. If you listen carefully to what a participant says and are curious to learn more about what happened in the negotiation and why, you will find that follow-up questions come easily. Just Be Yourself. When all is said and done, the main rule to follow in facilitating is to just be yourself. You aren't expected to know the answers to all the questions that people might ask. In fact, you don't even really need to know the answer to any questions. If someone asks a question you don't feel comfortable answering, you can say you don't know the answer, or you can ask the question to the class ("Good question. Does anyone have some ideas about that?") Being yourself also means accepting the fact that not everything will go according to your plan. For example, you might ask a question that nobody wants to answer. Or you might forget to tell people when to come back from their negotiation. Or you might try to answer a question and realize half way through that what you're saying is definitely wrong. Or you might blank out on what you're supposed to do next. But this kind of thing happens to everybody who facilitates, even people who have been doing it for years. You'll be much more relaxed and confident if you remember that it's okay for things to go differently from how you planned, and it's okay to make mistakes.


Appendix 6 Suggested Further Readings in Negotiation, Communication and Conflict Management Argyris, Chris, Knowledge for Action. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1993 Bazerman, Max H. and Neale, Margaret A., Negotiating Rationally. New York: Free Press, 1992 Brown, Scott, How to Negotiate with Kids… even when you think you shouldn’t. New York, Viking Penguin, 2003 Covey, Stephen R., The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, New York: Free Press, 1989, 2004 Faure, Guy Oliver and Jeffrey Z. Rubin, Culture and Negotiation. California, Sage Publications, Inc., 1993 Fisher, Roger and Alan Sharp. Getting It Done: How to Lead When You’re Not in Charge. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1998 Fisher, Roger, Ury, William L. and Patton, Bruce. Getting to Yes. New York: Penguin Books, 1991 Gelfland, Michele J. and Brett, Jeanne M., eds., The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004 Lax, David A. and James K. Sebenius. 3D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals. Harvard Business School Press, 2006 Stone, Douglas, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen. Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most. New York: Viking, 1999 Ury, William L. Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People. New York: Bantam Books, 1991


Appendix 7 About the Ministry of Health and Population (MoHP) Ministry of Health and Population plays a leading role in improving the health of the people including mental, physical and social well being, for overall national development with the increased participation of the private sector and non-government institutions in the implementation of programmes. The Ministry is also responsible to make necessary arrangements and formulate policies for effective delivery of curative services, disease prevention, health promotion activities and establishment of a primary health care system. These activities will be maintained at an international standard under the policies declared on health by Government of Nepal, ultimately improving the overall condition of health services. About Ministerial Leadership Initiative (MLI) The Ministerial Leadership Initiative (MLI), a four-year program of Realizing Rights, is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. MLI seeks to strengthen the leadership capacity of ministries of health in Ethiopia, Mali, Nepal, Senegal, and Sierra Leone to advance policy in three interrelated areas: health financing for equity, donor harmonization in health, and reproductive health. Key to MLI’s approach is the belief that stronger political leadership will improve health systems and ensure respect for the right to the highest attainable standard of health, particularly for the most vulnerable populations. About CMPartners CMPartners, LLC advances organizational and individual capacity to negotiate and manage conflict and critical relationships. They work with clients, acting as an advisor and building capacity in negotiations, conflict management, communication, and leadership skills and the management of strategic external and internal relationships. CMPartners professionals bring to their clients pragmatic methods, tools and skill sets developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project, affiliated organizations, and in our many decades of combined experience in training, consulting, advisory and executive coaching practice. About Nepal Administrative Staff College (NASC) The Nepal Administrative Staff College (NASC) was established in September 1982 under the Nepal Administrative Staff College Act, 1982. The specific objectives of the College are to identify measures of enhancing the managerial capability; to develop and provide necessary training for the employees of the Government of Nepal and public enterprises; and undertake problem-oriented research, consulting and information services. The College has excellent physical facilities and a pool of highly professional staff experienced in the training, research and consulting.


About the World Health Organization (WHO) The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations System, with its headquarters situated in Geneva, Switzerland. WHO has six Regional Offices. The South East Asia Regional Office, located in New Delhi, India, covers eleven countries including Nepal. The objective of WHO is the attainment by all people of the highest possible level of health. WHO provides technical support to address the country’s priority health issues within the purview of WHO core functions which relate to engaging and partnerships, shaping the research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating policy options, catalyzing change and assessing health needs. Appendix 8 About Negotiating Health Development Leadership Training (NHD LT) The Negotiating Health Development Leadership Training presents leading theory, tools and techniques in the fields of negotiation, conflict management and communication, emphasizing the practical application of the intellectual technology to the participants’ everyday professional lives at Nepal’s Ministry of Health and Population. The content of the workshop parallels the content of a World Health Organization publication Negotiating Health Development: A Guide for Practitioners, co-authored by workshop facilitator Elizabeth McClintock.1 The 89-page booklet was written to be useful for practitioners seeking to influence the process of health development. The authors present tools, frameworks, processes, and questions geared towards common challenges when dealing with health related issues in developing countries. The approach is based on the training of officials from over 40 developing countries. The NHD LT utilizes a methodology and approach that is highly interactive and which asks participants to push themselves beyond their comfort zones. The program includes brief learning modules on theory or new tools followed by immediate application of the learning in exercises, role-play simulations and table-group or open-room discussion and debriefs. The Leadership Training introduces participants to a core theory of negotiation presented by Roger Fisher and William Ury in their book Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (Second Edition published by Penguin Books, New York, 1991). General learning objectives of NHD training included building participants’ awareness, skills and confidence in negotiation strategies, methods and techniques. 1 Drager, N., McClintock, E., Moffitt M. Negotiating Health Development: A Guide for Practitioners. Geneva, Switzerland: Conflict Management Group and World Health Organization, 2000, 89p. The guide is available in English and Nepali.

Negotiations Skills Facilitation Manual FINAL April 2011 · important opportunity to engage the...

Documents

Transcript of Negotiations Skills Facilitation Manual FINAL April 2011 · important opportunity to engage the...