Planning and Preparation
Planning and Preparation
Professor Bruce Fortado
MAN 4441
University of North Florida
(1) When do negotiations begin?
(2) Why is planning important?
(3) What difficulties arise in the preparation process?
(4) What can be done to improve matters?
A time line approach to negotiation
* Planning and Preparation (Set Goals, Seek Allies, Research, Prioritize)
* Entry and Initial Contact (Bargaining Mix)
* Clarification and Justification (Facts, Logic, Media)
* Personal Styles and the Use of Tactics
* Hard Bargaining and Problem Solving
* Closure and Implementation
In many cases people do not realize they are negotiating. They accordingly do not prepare and carry the talks out in an organized fashion. Poor results can be expected (Cohen, 1980). People also love to jump into action with little if any preparation. Planning is boring. This was praised as “a bias for action” by Peters and Waterman (1982) in a book entitled In Search of Excellence. Once again, less than optimal results are likely to follow.
People often all try to talk at once when they are not properly prepared. They frequently get frustrated and simply repeat themselves or raise their voice. These methods seldom produce the desired results. One also will have difficulty countering a well prepared opponent’s points. Since no goals have been set, one may become caught up in making a deal, even a bad deal. People who fail to prepare tend to wait to the last minute. At this point, they feel rushed. Time is often said to be working against them. People also tend to underestimate their own power. This flaw tends to be accentuated when little preparation is done (Cohen, 1980).
Defining Interest, Issues and Goals
Initially, one has to consider what one needs are and what one wishes to accomplish. Wishes, however, are not goals. A goal is a specific target one can realistically achieve. Effective goals are concrete, specific and measurable.
Your team should set mutual goals and priorities before engaging the other side. Otherwise, (1) you cannot signal where you are flexible, much less contemplate complex packages with numerous tradeoffs, (2) you may give up your most valued point too early, and for too little (you need to know what they want and how they will behave), and (3) some surprises, hesitation, confusion and infighting on your team is inevitable, it is a question of its intensity (intraorganizational bargaining), and you do not need any self inflicted wounds. When so many things are going on at once, pressure from the other side, uncertainty, meeting time dragging on, etc., panic can set in on your team. Steps should be taken to alleviate this danger.
You should size up the issues at stake for both sides. How much overlap in interests exists (integrative-distributive)? What is the prior relationship between the parties like (amiable-unfriendly)? The two parties’ goals define the issue to be settled. People generally first state opening positions, and their interests subsequently need to be developed via developing a relationship and skillful communication.
This sounds easy in the abstract, but may not be so easy in practice. There are both tangible issues (the monetary and substantive issues) and intangible issues (the social and psychological factors) in negotiations. The intangible factors heavily influence the course of negotiations. Intangibles cannot be quantified, so they are not subject to cost-benefit analyses. Intangibles, encompassing symbolism, status, and influence, are seldom negotiated directly. Cohen (1980) talks about a man who wants to get more fringe benefits thrown in when he sells his mine than his brother did earlier. Since intangibles are not stated, they are hard to detect and take into consideration. Even the other party may not be fully aware of some of their intangibles. They may have a dull feeling of dissatisfaction, and not be sure why they feel that way. You often must figure these factors out as you proceed, because asking about them directly may not be very illuminating. In some instances, these factors are discounted. For example, the struggle by the underdog may be viewed as not important, time wasting, or trivial by superiors. However, if the importance is recognized, and one can identify the relevant intangibles, you might be able to trade them painlessly for tangibles or vice versa.
One should beware going all out to achieve short term goals, if this harms a long term relationship. This might mean long term goals were not carefully considered when certain short term tactics were undertaken. Strategy is the term used to reflect what one wants to achieve in the long term. Tactics are the means employed in an effort to make progress toward achieving these strategic ends. This means strategy should drive tactics.
If the other side is well organized and unified, but you are not, an adverse result is likely. You will be unable to construct and deliver convincing arguments. You can ask for a recess. Yet, this means you have to play catch up, and the other side will probably be given an ill impression. In recent years, some people have called this having an “emergent plan,” instead of having no plan. Style is important, but all form and no substance will fail.
Relationship Building
Ideally, negotiations should begin long before formal exchanges take place about the issues in question. Attitudinal structuring, for example, primes the ground for later talks. One would certainly review within a team how the other side and especially their chief negotiator acted in prior negotiations, if there have been any. If none of your team has exposure to the other side, you can talk to people who have negotiated with them. On one hand, many people have a relatively consistent pattern of behavior or negotiation style. On the other hand, people learn from past experiences and change over time. One could hardly count on someone repeating a mistake. They may swing in virtually the opposite direction if they felt things did not go well.
Field research has uncovered several priming processes. Planting a seed refers to a person building a problem awareness slowly over time, long before bringing up possible solutions. If one needs to modernize the plant, the workers have to agree on the dilapidated state of the equipment and the lack of current resources before they would consider pay or work rule concessions. In order to plant seeds, one must be patient, have ongoing informal contact, and be able to identify the leaders on the other side. One might call planting false rumors to scare people “planting weeds.” In a different vein, a manager who is far sighted might choose to plant flowers. This refers to striving to get your best subordinates promoted into key positions in the company. Doing this is the opposite of what many short sighted managers do. A short sighted manager tries to hold his/her best employees in place to help produce good year end results. When one plants flowers, down the road, when important issues come up, these former subordinates are quite likely to remember and support the mentor who aided their careers.
Allies may be obvious in some settings. It is not uncommon, though, to have allies vary by the particular issues that under discussion. Some people shift alliances over time as a result of enticements or experiences. Many people have complex feelings and agendas, so they must be drawn out and their interests repeatedly attended to. Their interests and priorities need to be developed as fully as possible. This may take place via a formal office lobby visit, or at lunch, in the hall, over drinks, or some other informal venue.
People often gloss over this process and get surprised later. Why? It is time consuming. It is also not the type of activity you immediately get rewarded for.
Why would people say one thing in private, and say or do quite another thing in a public meeting? Why would someone, for instance, say they would vote one way, and then vote another way? Moreover, what can you do to reduce these sorts of problems?
* Some people fear confrontation, so they privately say “yes” to everyone.
* Some people put little stock in casual inquiries, and simply reply with little thought.
* Some people may be swayed by the last person they talked to.
* Some people see how powerful people feel, and then adjust their actions accordingly.
* Some people will shift according to the best offer they get.
* Some people have hidden agendas. The more selfish or questionable, the less they will say.
One could make formal inquiries during an office visit, so it is not seen as a casual matter. One of my mentors would go over points repeatedly, smile, shake hands repeatedly, and pat them on the back. All of these activities make it harder for the person in question to back out or claim he/she did not understand. Announcing to allies in the hall or at lunch that X is with us also makes it harder for him/her to switch positions. Finding some common ground, or making explicit trades (mutual benefit) should also help to cement support. Simply checking periodically on a person’s support can also make it hard for him/her to back out.
Protocols
Agendas can be introduced at the beginning of meetings. Those who introduce a written outline or program tend to have an initiative. The others will be fighting uphill. Agendas generally carry weight because (1) they have thought behind them, (2) they are printed and this carries some weight (legitimacy via the printed word), and (3) they tend to funnel others’ attention to this set of items or pieces of information. There are several different types of agendas: namely, one could propose a program for implementation; several possible programs which are meant to be debated; or a set of questions/issues to explore and discuss. These options progressively allow greater input (assert less control).
Case example = Two faculty members had complaints about a graduate curriculum. An administrator took the two to lunch to discuss their concerns. The administrator scratched out a potential compromise on the back of a brown paper bag. After he returned to the office, the compromised was typed into a formal agenda for a meeting of the faculty concerned. The agenda was introduced, and over the course of the meeting, it became apparent that only adjustments to this plan were being considered. It was somewhat ironic that the old program was not taken as the starting point, the brown bag compromise was. The faculty who did not share the concerns of the two who had been taken to lunch were given far less influence over the process.
The parties must decide where they will negotiate. One could try to obtain a home field advantage. Alternatively, one could look for a neutral site. For example, when lawyers are considering a meeting to try and settle a law suit, they could have it in one side’s office, or they could hold it in a neutral place. One must also weigh the benefits of a formal environment, like a meeting room, versus an informal environment like a restaurant. People may be more relaxed in an informal environment, and a relationship might be built. It also could be a noisy environment, and one might have to be concerned about people over hearing what was said.
The time frame also needs to be considered. When will we meet? How long will we meet for? Will there be scheduled breaks, or will people ask for caucus time on an ad hoc basis?
Who will record what takes place? Will both sides have someone taking notes? Sometimes neither side takes notes. Can an advantage be gained by being the one who drafts the agreement? Are tentative agreements normally “word smithed” (revised) to some degree? This would lessen the danger of the person who drafted the agreement using the initiative to gain an advantage.