The First Move

A Negotiator's Companion

Alain Lempereur, Aurelien Colson, Michele Pekar

• Publisher: Wiley
• Year: 2010
• Print ISBN: 9780470750087
• eBook ISBN: 9780470662199
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Management
• Index: Business

"Time management is essential for successful negotiations. This book helps you do first things first."
—Jeanne Brett, DeWitt W. Buchanan,Jr. Professor of Dispute Resolution and Organizations, Kellogg School of Management, and Director of the Dispute Resolution Research Center

"This book brings a breakthrough method to lead efficient negotiations."
—Yann Duzert, Professor, Foundation Getulio Vargas, Brazil

"Even if you only implement 5% of this method, your clients will find you more attentive to their needs."
—John Wong, Senior Partner, The Boston Consulting Group, Hong Kong Office

"A one-of-a-kind and most welcome companion for negotiators. It offers a learner-friendly distillation of tested ideas and good practices."
—Pierre Debaty, Head of the Brussels Training Office, European Parliament

"Drawing on their extensive experience in over 50 countries, the authors provide the best of Anglo-Saxon and continental Europe negotiation approaches."
—AJR Groom, University of Kent at Canterbury

"Whether you negotiate abroad or in your home country, this book is a must."
—Tetsushi Okumura, Professor, Nagoya City University, Graduate School of Economics

"Many former enemies started thinking and acting differently after having integrated the principles of this book."
—Howard Wolpe, Special Advisor to the Africa Great Lakes region, former Member of US Congress

"This negotiation method makes a difference for business and government leaders, who want to act more responsibly."
—Theo Panayotou, Professor, Cyprus International Institute for Management & Harvard Kennedy School of Government

CHAPTER ONE

QUESTIONING BEFORE NEGOTIATING

How to Move Beyond an Instinctive Approach

It goes against general wisdom to drive a car without having taken driving lessons; or to cook a sophisticated meal without having opened a cookbook; or to embark on a journey to a faraway land without having consulted a guidebook or someone who has previously travelled there. Yet, nearly everyone negotiates without ever having taken a negotiation course, read a book on the subject, or consulted an expert. Whilst we live in a world where conflicts are frequent, we seek to resolve them without having the slightest idea of how these conflicts arise or subside.

Negotiation is an instinctive practice of the highest order. An individual tends to negotiate ad lib according to what he or she considers the best way, and very often believes to be the only way. Negotiation is a social activity for which instinct exerts the greatest influence, often with disastrous results. Years of observation help to identify, among these instinctive practices, those most damaging. Without making an exhaustive list, we enumerate certain ones that result in unfortunate consequences.

Dictated by habit, these practices are at the root of strains in interpersonal relations, rising transaction costs, an inability to make progress, a loss of dynamism in the negotiation process, wasted resources, project failure, the risk of tarnishing the personal reputation of the negotiators and hindering their future transactions, conflict escalation, the signature of agreements that are difficult to ratify and still more difficult to apply, and generally, an overall loss of time. The list could go on. It is important to recognise that a purely instinctive approach to negotiation risks all these negative repercussions. Each individual must examine his or her instinctive practices, question them, and revise them as necessary.

This is why the critical prerequisite to negotiation is questioning. Self awareness, with some reflections and casting doubt on our practices, permits a better appraisal of our skills, some distance from the subject, as well as a greater chance to evolve. As Descartes wrote in his Discourse on Method, doubting, i.e. questioning, is essentially “to root out from the mind all mistakes that could have slid into it previously”¹ and to lay solid foundations. Here, we find the point of departure for building a personal negotiation method.

It is this constructive doubt that will be examined in Chapter 1. To assist us in identifying the dormant instinctive negotiators within, we present ten instinctive practices that are pitfalls for the unwary. The goal of discussing them is to provide an outline of appropriate negotiation alternatives. Please note that the pitfalls and alternative behaviours are simply presented as sketches here. The latter will be detailed in later chapters.

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 1: ABSENCE OF A LEARNING CYCLE

This is the first of the instinctive pitfalls and impacts all that follow. A “turn-the-page” attitude in negotiation is very common for the uninitiated. Here, we move on hastily from the negotiation of the previous day to apparently another completely unrelated. This is often the case when the negotiation has been poor or the result unproductive. This is, after all, only human: Nobody enjoys brooding over failure. However, the same behaviour is observed for negotiations that go well and are topped off with success, the common reflection being: “What good is reflecting on what has happened, if all has passed well”? This attitude stems from a false assumption that mastery of negotiation can be achieved solely through ongoing experience. Certainly, experience is invaluable in the path toward progress. However, there is a condition: experience must undergo retrospective analysis in order for it to have value. Otherwise, we risk forgetting the keys to success and tend to repeat mistakes. We may ultimately perform the same way every time, equally badly, like the musician who stumbles upon the same wrong note every time she plays a certain piece.

Top athletes have understood this well. After every performance, they view, critique, and review in slow motion the videotape of the event. Sometimes, even practice sessions are filmed so that athletes can analyse their technique and tactics before the big day. This helps them to obtain two types of information. First, they identify their strong points, which they will build upon in the next competition. Second, they identify the weak points where they have room to improve, and which they will prioritise in training. The same concept of analysing experience is used by fighter pilots who “debrief’ their last mission while planning the next, so as to improve their performance each time. The negotiator ought to be inspired by such excellent habits.

Learning lessons from a single negotiating experience is but one step of an entire process. After each negotiation and in order to improve the next one, why not take the time to reflect on the following questions?

• What have I learnt about negotiation in general?

• What have I learnt about myself as a negotiator?

• What should I continue to do the same and why? (Alternatively: What are my strong points? Which ones can I capitalise on?)

• What should I do differently? Why and how? (Alternatively: Which are my weak points and where do I have room for improvement?)

• What are my personal objectives for improvement in the next negotiation?

It would be worthwhile to record your responses to these questions in a file and to update them after every negotiation, like a ship log. You will thus be better equipped to prepare for the next negotiation, which you will again follow up on with time for reflection, and so on. You will be able to put your successive negotiations into perspective, and the lessons you would have learnt will serve you in future negotiations. Here are some examples of what you can do to enrich this virtuous learning cycle.

• Observe carefully real negotiations to which you are privy. You can benefit a great deal from studying the conduct of others. Maintain an analytical mindset, by examining the situation as both a positive critic - who recognises exemplary practices - and a negative critic - who weeds out the unsatisfactory ones.

• Dissect the negotiations you come across in the media, including real negotiations or interactions in films.

• Read books and articles devoted to negotiation, with a resolve to define and refine your own method.

• Approach professional and personal situations from the angle of negotiation, so as to get better acquainted with the tools presented in this book.

A constant exchange between experience and analysis allows the negotiator to establish a personal approach, by shedding unproductive reflexes and adopting other, more effective methods.

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 2: POSITIONALISM

Positionalism can be summed up by: “Agree to my position”, or “There is only one solution: mine”, or “This is not negotiable”. The instinctive negotiator camps on his position as long as possible, in hopes that the other party will exhaust herself and give in. The end result is very rarely the one that was sought. It is, generally, one of the following, or a combination of several of them:

• The two parties experience rising costs to the point that the negotiation gets stuck.

• The parties allocate increasing resources to defend their position, to the detriment of other projects.

• The relationship between the two parties deteriorates.

• The other party leaves the negotiation table.

• One party concedes and eschews any future dealings with the other; one party concedes, feeling that it has “lost face” - and is determined to make the other pay for it in the long-term.

At best, positionalism transforms negotiation into a hard bargain where each party adopts an extreme position as a point of departure, maintains it for as long as possible, refuses to relent, and only backs down in small steps, minimising each move, as though it posed a threat to its reputation. The efficiency of this approach is virtually nil.

The pitfall of positionalism may be avoided by negotiating on interests,² or, better still, on the underlying motivations of the negotiator. Chapter 2 will treat this idea in greater detail. Let us illustrate the difference between positionalism and negotiation based on motivations through the following story.

The shrub in Madagascar One day the Malagasy government receives a visit from the representative of a Swiss multinational pharmaceutical company. The envoy explains that his company is preparing to start industrial production of a new medicine, made from a rare shrub that grows only in Madagascar. The Swiss company proposes to invest and create jobs on condition that it is granted exclusive rights to the land where the shrub grows. To the Malagasy government, this seems to be a great opportunity, as the shrub was previously of no use. As discussions begin, an American multinational cosmetics company also requests a meeting with the Malagasy government. This company is preparing to launch a new line of cosmetic products based on ... the same shrub. The American company makes a similar offer with the same condition: rights to 100% of the said land. In a dilemma as to whom to grant exclusivity, unwilling to offend either, the Malagasy government proposes that the two representatives meet to negotiate a settlement. But in a fervent spirit of positionalism, the two companies continue to demand full use of 100% of the available land. To overcome the problem, the two parties come up with the idea of a bidding system. At this point, the negotiation falls into a rut. It is only at this moment that positions give way to motivations. When the question on the specific use of the shrub arises, it is discovered that production of both the medicines and cosmetics require active molecules, but that these are different for each. The positions of the two parties clashed (“We want all the shrubs”), but the true motivation in this affair was the use of particular substances, which were fortunately found on two distinct parts of the shrub: the leaves for one, the roots for the other. The positional reflex posed an obstacle to identifying the true motivations at hand: obtaining the substances. By contrast, more acute consciousness of motivations permitted both companies to find a solution in order to launch their respective products, and the Malagasies have the benefit of receiving double of what was initially proposed.

INSTINCTIVE PITFALL # 3: THE COMPETITIVE APPROACH

The competitive approach is often coupled with positionalism. “My position must prevail and in order to make it so, I must dominate the other”. In this scenario, there is an a priori mistrust of the “other”. In fact, this approach considers all transactions as a zero-sum game. Inspired by military thinking, it views all negotiations as conflicts where there is one winner and one loser. The “other” is the enemy and all must be done to win. Because “business is business”, all tactics are justifiable. Any form of cooperation is denounced as weakness or even treason!

If our description seems to be a bit strong, it is important to note that many instinctive negotiators favour this approach. Far from promoting a path toward partnerships, this conception of negotiation plants the seeds for a poisonous climate, multiple blockages, tensions and conflicts. Value creation is severely reduced or even nonexistent. If any agreements get signed, they occur under enormous pressure, leaving the parties feeling that they have given up too much and must try to get it back the next time.

The pitfall of the competitive approach may be avoided by privileging an approach that is predominantly cooperative.³ Chapters 3-6 illustrate this point. Establishing confidence, taking into account the other’s motivations and not just one’s own, favouring listening over speaking, exchanging information in a balanced way, making long-lasting commitments and keeping oneself in check are all keys to a predominantly cooperative approach.

Why is our approach “predominantly cooperative” instead of just simply “cooperative”? If negotiation is instinctively conceived through a competitive perspective - there is one winner and one loser - negotiation has also experienced a velvet revolution by our colleagues at Harvard, Fisher and Ury, who advocated a “cooperative approach”. Fisher and Ury encouraged a transformation of the battle of the wills into a more balanced approach that seeks a peaceful relationship among the parties, and resorts to rational methods to reach solutions bas...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• CHAPTER ONE - QUESTIONING BEFORE NEGOTIATING
• CHAPTER TWO - PREPARING NEGOTIATIONS BEFORE PERFORMING
• CHAPTER THREE - DOING THE ESSENTIAL BEFORE THE OBVIOUS
• CHAPTER FOUR - OPTIMISING JOINT VALUE BEFORE DIVIDING IT
• CHAPTER FIVE - LISTENING BEFORE SPEAKING
• CHAPTER SIX - ACKNOWLEDGING EMOTIONS BEFORE PROBLEM-SOLVING
• CHAPTER SEVEN - DEEPENING THE METHOD BEFORE FACING COMPLEXITY
• CHAPTER EIGHT - FORMALISING THE AGREEMENT BEFORE CONCLUDING
• CONCLUSION
• BIBLIOGRAPHY
• TO GO FURTHER
• ABOUT THE AUTHORS
• REFERENCES
• INDEX