Getting ready to implement the strategy: the planning process Assumption: (?? ) * Single planning process can be followed for both a distributive and an integrative process. * Concentrate on distributive and integrative processes and the differences between them. * Both sides are individual negotiator. 1. Defining the issues. This step itself usually begins with an analysis of what is to be discussed in the negotiation. a. An analysis of all the possible issues that need to be decided. b. Previous experience in similar negotiations. c.
Research conducted to gather information. d. Consultation with experts in that industry (real estate agents, mortgage lenders, attorneys, accountants, or friends who have bought a house recently), 2. Assembling the issues and Defining the bargaining mix. The combination of lists from each side in the negotiation determines the bargaining mix. After assembling issues on an agenda, the negotiator next must prioritize them. Prioritization includes two steps: a. Determine which issues are most important and which are less important. . Determine whether the issues are linked together or separate. 3. Defining Interests. After defining the issues, the negotiator must proceed to define the underlying interests and needs. a. Substantive, that is, directly related to the focal issues under negotiation. b. Process-based, that is, related to how the negotiators behave as they negotiate. c. Relationship-based, that is, tied to the current or desired future relationship between the parties. Interest may also be based on the intangibles of negotiation 4. Knowing limits
A resistance point is the place where you decide that you should absolutely stop the negotiation rather than continue, because any settlement beyond this point is not minimally acceptable. Setting resistance points as a part of planning is critical. Most of us have been involved in buying situations in which the item we wanted wasn’t available, but we allowed ourselves to be talked into a more expensive model. 5. Knowing alternatives Alternatives are other agreements negotiators could achieve and still meet their needs.
Alternatives are very important in both distributive and integrative processes because they define whether the current outcome in better than another possibility. 6. Setting Targets and asking prices. After negotiators have defined the issues, assembled a tentative agenda, and consulted others as appropriate and necessary, the next step is to define two other key points: the specific target point where one realistically expects to achieve a settlement and the asking price, representing the best deal one can hope to achieve.
Clarify the target points to be achieved and the opening points-where we will begin the discussion. 7. Assessing constituents and the social context of the negotiation A negotiator bargaining on behalf of others(a company, union, department, club, family) must consult with them so that their concerns and priorities are included in the mix. A negotiator who is representing a constituency in accountable to that constituency and must include their wish is in proposals. Understand my constituents and what they expect of me. 8. Analyzing the other party.
Understand the other party in the negotiation – their goals, issues, strategies, interests, limits, alternatives, targets, openings, and authority. a. The other party’s resources, issues, and bargaining mix : The more information one can gather about the other through initial research the better. b. The other party’s interests and needs. In addition to learning about the party’s major issues and resource, one also needs to get information about his or her current interests and needs. c. The other party’s walkaway point and alternatives. d. The other party’s targets and openings
After negotiations have obtained information about the other side’s issues, bargaining mix, and interests, they also need to understand his or her goals. e. The other party’s constituents, social structure, and authority. The negotiator needs to know how the other party’s organization makes decisions to support or ratify an agreement. f. The other party’s reputation and negotiation style. How the other party’s predecessors have negotiated with you in the past. How the other party has negotiated with you in the past, either in the same or in different contexts.
How the other party has negotiated with others in the past. g. The other party’s strategy and tactics. 9. Presenting issues to the other party Plan the process by which I will present and “sell” my ideas to the other party (and perhaps to my own constituency). a. What facts support my point of view? How can I validate this information as credible? b. Whom may I consult or talk with to help me elaborate or clarify the facts? What records, files, or data sources exist that support my arguments? Can I enlist experts to support my argument? c.
Have these issues been negotiated before by others under similar circumstances? Can I consult those negotiators to determine what major arguments they used, which ones where successful, and which were not? d. What is the other party’s point of view likely to be? What are her or his interests? What arguments is she or he likely to make? How can I respond to those arguments and seek more creative positions that go further in addressing both sides’ issues and interests? e. How can I develop and present the facts so they are most convincing?
What visual aids, pictures, charts, graphs, expert testimony, and the like can be helpful or make the best case? 10. What protocol needs to be followed in this negotiation? Define the important points of protocol in the process – agenda, who will be at the table or observing the negotiation, where and when we will negotiate, and so on. When negotiators are able to consider and evaluate each of these factors, they will know what they want and will have a clear sense of direction on how to proceed. This sense of direction, and the confidence derived from it, is a very important factor in affecting negotiating outcomes.