gen effective negotiation - en

8/8/2019 GEN Effective Negotiation - En

1/9

E F F E C T I VE N E G O T I A T I O N ( S E E KI N G CON S E N S US )

HCTOR COLINDRES, MSH/LMS PROGRAM

NEGOTIATION: A PROCESS CONSTANTLY USED IN DAILY LIFE.

Although you may not be aware of it, we spend a lot of our time dealing with situations where weturn, almost instinctively, to a negotiation and consensus-seeking process. For example, when youwant to pay less for a given product at a store, when you are looking for a promotion at work, whenyou try to pay off your credit card debts, or when your spouse wants to spend the weekend withher family and you want to spend it with yours, you negotiate. According to William Ury, co-founderof Harvard Universitys Program on Negotiation, people spend 50 to 70 percent of their timenegotiating and trying to reach an agreement. In todays world, with so many changes, this

percentage is likely to increase.

The great majority of people tend to negotiate or reach some kind of an agreement, depending onthe possibilities. However, the key issue today is how do we do this? Do we reach agreements thatare truly beneficial to all those concerned? Many times we rely on our intuition. However, ourattitude is crucially important, and is directly linked to our values, principles and paradigms, all ofwhich determine our interests and behavior.

It is widely recognized that reaching consensus is not an easy task. Many professionals tend toavoid discussions and are not particularly interested in listening to others, as this involves investingtime and effort to reach consensus. They generally adopt a position. But what does this mean?From the particular point of view of the position taken, the goal of negotiation is to win. The game

involves taking a position, making a concession only in exceptional cases, distrusting the otherparty, and trying to come out as the victor in any confrontation.

In todays work environment, negotiation is becoming one of the most important skills for

managers. However, this approach and traditional way of doing things is shifting to consensus-seeking. As organizations become less hierarchical, and move towards horizontalization, staffcapacities and competencies increase, and open, circular communication styles are adopted. Seniormanagers are less likely to give orders, and instead are forced to agree on most of their decisionswith dozens of co-workers, users and other organizations over which they have very little or nodirect control. The health sector reform and modernization processes, together with globalization,represent an even greater challenge. We must learn to communicate effectively, and negotiate and

reach agreements with people with different interests and professions, and from differentorganizations, and even cultures.

Thus the need for a different approach: CONSENSUS-SEEKING, where parties respect each other ascolleagues and the goal is not to win but rather to reach an agreement. Decisions are made after

reviewing several options or alternatives in a spirit of mutual respect and trust, avoiding

confrontation.


2/9

In the modern organizational world, the responsibility for the work accomplished lies increasinglywith task force teams. Organizational actions are taken by associations and alliances, wherecoverage and impact are frequently achieved by associations and alliances of all types formed withtarget population groups, other social actors, public and private-sector service providers and NGOs,and representatives from other key sectors involved in the social process of providing health care,including reproductive health programs. Each of these groups and organizations requires acontinuous search for agreement. Therefore, the only alternative we have is to learn to makedecisions jointly, and this is not an easy task.

If addressing issues together with six or seven people is a difficult task, you can imagine whathappens when there are six hundred or six thousand people, as is the case of complex health reformprocesses. How can we communicate effectively in order to reach an agreement and learn to worktogether? This is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century.

NEGOTIATION PRINCIPLES AND PARADIGMS

In his book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen Covey argues that character ethic isbased on the fundamental idea that human behavior is governed by certain principles. Theseprinciples are natural laws of the human dimension that are real, constant and always present, asthe law of universal gravitation in the physical dimension. Therefore, when we adopt an attitude,we do so according to these laws, that is, according to these principles and paradigms with whichwe relate to the world.

Principles are like beacons. They are truths, natural laws of universal application that cannot bebroken. They form part of the human condition, conscience and morality. They exist on their own,and can be easily proven by anyone. Principles are not practices. The more our maps or paradigmsmatch these principles or natural laws, the more accurate and functional they will be.

Stephen Covey argues that it is not possible to establish an effective relationship orinterdependence with other people without the strength of character and maturity needed tomaintain such a relationship or interdependence. You cannot be successful with other people if youhave not paid the price for success with yourself. Self-control and self-discipline are the foundationfor an effective relationship with others. The most important ingredient of any relationship is notwhat we say or do but rather what we are. There is no sense in trying to develop effectivenegotiation skills if our words and actions do not come from our internal core, from our owncharacter.

According to Covey, we use six different types of paradigms in our relationships with other people:

1. Win / Win:This is a structure of the mind and heart that is constantly seeking mutual benefit in all humaninteractions. It means that agreements or solutions are mutually beneficial and satisfactory. With awin-win agreement, all parties involved are comfortable with whatever decision is made and arecommitted to the actions to be followed. This is a cooperative rather than a competitive scenario.

The basic paradigm here is that there is a lot for everyone and that the success of one person is notachieved at the expense of or excluding the success of others. It is based on the belief that there is athird alternative. It is not about your success or mine but rather a higher success for both of us.


3/9

2. I win / You lose:As a leadership style, I win / you lose is an authoritative approach. People who use this paradigmtend to use their position, power, achievements, possessions or personality to achieve their goals.

This paradigm is instilled in the majority of people since birth. In a family context, when a child iscompared with another on this basis, love is either granted or withdrawn. The message is: you arenot worthy of love. What is worthy of love is not within him but rather outside, and is evident only

when he is compared with someone else or with an expectation.

Another powerful programming agent is the academic world, where the value of an individual isdetermined by comparing him with others. Everything is determined extrinsically. Sports alsodevelop the basic paradigm that life is a big game, where some lose and others win. Winning isimposing oneself in the sports arena.

However, life is not always a competition. There is no reason for you to live competing with yourspouse, your children, your colleagues, your neighbors or your friends. It would be ridiculous to

ask: Who is winning in your marriage? The most important part of life is an interdependent reality,not an independent reality. Most results we aspire to obtain depend on our cooperating withothers, and the I win / you lose mentality does not lead to this cooperation.

3. I lose / You win:Some people are programmed inversely: I lose / you win. From here on, you can impose whateveryou want on me. I am a loser; I always have been. I am a conciliator; I will do anything to maintainpeace. This paradigm is worse than the I win / you lose paradigm, because those who use it have

no norms, no expectation, no vision. They are generally only interested in pleasing or pacifyingothers. They seek strength in acceptance or popularity. They do not have the courage to expresstheir feelings and convictions, and are easily intimidated by others.

In terms of negotiation, I lose / you win is considered a capitulation: to give in or surrender. I win

/ you lose people love I lose / you win people because they can take advantage of them. Theylove their weaknesses, and exploit them. However, the problem is that I lose / you win people

bury their feelings. And feelings that are never expressed die, they are buried alive and emerge lateron in the worst possible way. These people end up realizing that this affects their self-esteem andultimately the quality of their relationships with others.

Both I win / you lose and I lose / you win are weak positions, based on personal i nsecurities. Inthe short term, the I win / you lose position produces more results because it is frequently basedon the considerable strength and talent of people who have reached the summit. I lose / you win

is a weak, chaotic position from the start.4. I lose / you loseSome people are so focused on an enemy, so obsessed by the behavior of another person, that theyare blinded to everything except their desire to see that person lose, even if this means they bothlose. When two I win / you lose people come together, two determined, stubborn, egoistical

individuals, the result is I lose / you lose. They both lose. They become vindictive and want to winat all costs or make the other pay.


4/9

I lose / you lose is the philosophy of conflict, the philosophy of war. It is also the philosophy ofhighly dependent people who lack internal direction, who are unhappy and believe that everyoneelse should be unhappy. If nobody wins, then maybe being a loser is not so bad.

5. I winAnother common alternative is simply to think I win. This does not necessarily mean thatsomeone else has to lose. I win people are only interested in achieving their goal. When there is no

confrontation or competition, the I win approach is probably the most common approach. An I

win mentality pursues personal goals and allows other to do the same.

Of the five interpersonal relationship paradigms, which one is the most appropriate fornegotiation processes?

6. Win / Win or there is no dealThis is another expression of the win-win paradigm where the parties to a negotiation find asynergic solution with which they all agree.

There is no deal means that if no mutually beneficial solution is found, the parties agree to

disagree. No expectation or contract is created. It is better to recognize that values and goals aregoing in opposite directions from the start, rather than later on, when expectations can lead to thefrustration of the parties involved.

A person with a mentality of this nature can say, in all honesty: I want to win, and I want you to

win. I do not intend to have it my way if that bothers you. On the other hand, I dont think you willfeel satisfied if you have it your way and I give in. We should work toward a win-win agreement,but if we are unsuccessful, let us agree that there will be no deal. That will be better than a decision

with which neither of us agrees. Maybe next time we can reach an agreement. This attitudeprovides an incredible amount of emotional freedom.

NEGOTIATION AND CONSENSUS SEEKING BASED ON PRINCIPLES

Whether the object of the negotiation is a law, a contract, a family dispute or working conditions,people tend to negotiate by assuming positions. Each party to the negotiation adopts a position, anddefends it, making concessions to reach an agreement. A classic example is trying to beat downprices at the market.

An effective negotiation approach must meet the following three criteria:

The negotiation must lead to an intelligent agreement, one that takes into account thelegitimate interests of the parties involved, and resolves conflicts of interest in a fair anddurable manner.The negotiation must be efficient it should reach a good agreement in a reasonable periodof time.The negotiation must improve -or at least not damage- the relationship between the parties.


5/9

Whatever the negotiation approach, the lack of preparation is probably the biggest disadvantage.This is true both in the case of an ongoing negotiation or one that is about to begin, and whateverexperience we may have is not important. Preparation is critical to effective negotiation; however,negotiators tend to ignore this fact. Why do negotiators fail to prepare?

Many people assume that if they only talk, they risk less. As we know we cannot be forced to reachan agreement, we see little danger in saying: Lets see what the other party has to say. Others

believe that preparing to negotiate takes up too much time. Of course it does take time, butpreparing will probably save you a lot of time in the end. The main cause of failed negotiations isfrequently directly related to the lack of preparation. Many times, preparation is limited toenumerating desires, demands and potential concessions. Assuming positions in preparation fornegotiation is preparing for a bad negotiation.

Discussing positions does not produce intelligent agreements.When parties negotiate positions,they tend to shut themselves up. The more you defend a given position, the more you commit to it,and the less likely you are to reach an agreement that will reconcile the original interests of allparties. Focusing your attention on positions leaves little time to identify the underlying concerns of

the other parties.Discussing positions is inefficient. When negotiating based on positions, the aim is to improve theprobability of finding a favorable solution by starting to negotiate with an extreme position, andstubbornly defending it, while hiding the true position from the other party and making smallconcessions just to continue the negotiation. When original positions are extreme and concessionssmall, reaching an agreement will take more time and effort.

Discussing positions jeopardizes interpersonal relationships. Negotiating based on positionsbecomes a confrontation, and the task of jointly implementing an acceptable solution becomes abattle. Frequently, there is anger and resentment when one of the parties realizes that he or she isgiving in to the other. The negotiation becomes tense, and can seriously affect or break the

relationship between the parties.

Being nice is not the solution either. Many people try to avoid confrontation, treating the otherparty as a friend rather than an adversary. In soft negotiations, the norm is to make concessions,trust the other party, adopt a friendly attitude and give in to avoid negotiation. This kind ofnegotiator is vulnerable to stronger negotiators who will more than likely dominate the situation.

Is there an alternative?The alternative is to use an approach specifically designed to produceintelligent, effective agreements. This principle-based negotiation technique can be reduced to fourbasic factors, and is known as the PICO technique:

People: Separate the people from the problem.

Interests: Look for the interests hidden behind the positions.Criteria: Agree on objective criteria to test if an agreement has been reached.Options: Look for alternative solutions.

People: Separate the people from the problem

When actors perceive themselves as adversaries in a face-to-face confrontation, it is difficult toseparate their personal relationship from the substantial part of the problem. In this context,anything a person says about the problem will appear to be directed toward the other person in a


6/9

personal manner, and that is how that person will perceive it. Each of the parties tends to adopt adefensive position, react and overlook the legitimate interests of the other party.

As two shipwrecked people in the same lifeboat fighting over limited provisions, the actors mayinitially see themselves as adversaries. Maybe each of them sees the other as an obstacle. However,in order to survive, they both must separate the problems from the people. It is critical that they

identify their common needs, for example, water and food. They will want to go further and addressthose needs together. If they are able to share their efforts to solve a common problem, thecastaways will reconcile conflictive interests and progress together toward achieving their goals.

The same thing happens with two negotiators. As difficult as your personal relationship can be, youcan reach a friendly understanding that articulates your interests if you accept the task as a sharedproblem and address it together.

To help the other party modify his or her orientation from a face-to-face attitude to a side-by-side attitude, it is important to discuss the issue explicitly. Look, we are both doctors, publicservants... Or you can start acting as if the negotiation were a joint process, and try to determine if

the other party intends to do the same by observing his or her reaction.

It is useful to sit down at the same side of the table and look at the contract, the map, the pieces ofpaper or anything else that explains the problem. Even if the relationship between the parties isshaky, they can try to structure the negotiation as if it were a shared activity with different interestsand concerns, and with an emotional commitment.

Remember you are dealing with human beings rather than an abstract representative of the otherparty. Humans have feelings, values, principles, different backgrounds, paradigms and points ofview. Failing to treat others as human beings can produce disastrous results when trying to reachan agreement. At all points of the process you must ask yourselves are we focusing on the humanproblem?

Each negotiator has two interests: the problem itself, and the interpersonal relationship. Eachnegotiator is looking for an agreement to resolve the problem and maintain his or her image andthe future relationship.

It is important to deal directly with human problems rather than trying to solve them by makingconcessions to negotiation issues. If feelings are exalted, try to find ways for each person to let go ofthe tension. When there are misunderstandings, communication must be improved.

There are three main communication issues you must deal with. The first one is the lack ofconnection between the parties; they are not actually addressing each other, or at least not in acomprehensible manner. The parties have given up on each other and are talking only to impress

their audience. The second issue is not listening. Frequently, one of the parties is so concernedabout what he will say next, that he forgets to listen to the other party. The third communicationissues are misunderstandings. You must, in all cases, be sure to speak clearly in order to beunderstood; talk about yourself and not about the other party. Talk with a well-defined purpose inmind, and use psychological techniques to separate facts from reactions and interpretations.


7/9

Interests: Focus on interests rather than positions.

What do people really want? All parties have interests. The main problem in any negotiation lieswith the conflicts of interests, the conflicts between the needs, desires, concerns and fears of theparties. Interests motivate people, they are the engine behind all the commotion created by theparties positions. You decide to assume a given position, based on your interests. A position is

simply a way of satisfying your needs. It is a means to an end.

For a negotiation to be successful, it is not enough to discuss or fight over a position. An agreementshould satisfy the interests of both parties. Many people prepare for a negotiation by focusing onpositions rather than interests. They imagine their first demand, what they should ask for, and,sometimes, the minimum that is acceptable. This kind of approach leaves no room for creativity asit fails to explore the real interests underlying the positions. It focuses on a single option, and failsto develop other mutually-beneficial options that could lead to both parties ending the negotiationwith better results.

Behind all opposing positions there are shared, compatible interests, as well as conflicting interests.To identify the interests, you should ask yourself: Why? What for? Why do I want the report by thefifteenth? Why do I want to be paid in cash? These questions will make you think about the needsthat concern you most; they reveal the interests that underlie your demands or requests.

To distinguish between a position and an interest, you should determine if there is more than oneway to satisfy the request. If there is only one way (e.g. when you say: I want the RH Program to

provide me with a vehicle.), it is a position. If, on the contrary, there are several ways to respond tothe request (e.g. I would like some kind of transportation to conduct supervisory visits, or I would

like to be promoted at work.), it is an interest. There can be more than one interest, so it is always

useful to continue asking Why? and What for?

People frequently expect everyone to see the world in the same way. However, if you intend to

propose an acceptable option, you need to understand the other partys interests. Once thenegotiation is underway, you can find out what the other partys interests are by asking the samequestions you asked yourself, that is, Why? What for? A complementary technique is to examineeach position adopted by the other party and ask: Why did he take that position? What is hisconcern? What is he thinking?

Before starting a consensus-seeking process, you may want to consider holding a meeting todiscuss interests. You can also seek the advice of people of the same profession or industry as theother party, or consult with people in your own organization who do similar work. Reading anyinformation available on the other party can also be useful.

You must understand that each party will have multiple interests. You will perceive different

interests and common interests at the same time. A common mistake is to assume that both partieshave the same interests. It will be hard for you to exercise some degree of influence if you fail torecognize the different interests involved. Remember that the most powerful interests are thehuman needs for economic well-being, security, sense of belonging, recognition and control overones own life.

Distinguishing between positions and interests is critical to creating consensus and reachingagreements that benefit all parties.


8/9

Criteria: Agree on objective criteria.

Regardless of how well you understand the other partys interests, you will almost always have to

face the reality of conflicting interests. When this happens, and before you discuss the options, you

should agree on the criteria these options must meet.

There is generally more than one objective criterion on which to base an agreement. If before youstart generating options, you reach an agreement as to the requirements these options should meet,the discussion will have a common objective basis. As a minimum, the criteria should be legitimate,practical and applicable to both parties. Some examples of criteria include: scientific judgment,professional standards, market value, etc.

Suppose you are discussing with a group of doctors what antiretroviral drugs to use. Beforedeciding on the specific brand or formula of the drugs, you should agree on the requirements theyshould meet. For example, that they be produced by a recognized laboratory, that their cost iswithin the limits of your budget, etc.

In the case of requesting transportation to carry out supervisory visits, as mentioned above,requirements could include that the vehicle be comfortable, safe, and affordable.

After identifying the objective criteria, do not give in to pressure, only to the principle, that is, doesthis alternative meet the criteria established? Does it satisfy both parties needs?

Options: Look for alternative solutions.

Negotiation is not about hiding differences or persuading others that they want the same thing youdo. It has to do with recognizing the way in which these differences can help you arrive at asituation that is better than the one you would have without a deal.

The interests of the parties seeking consensus are the cornerstone of a potential agreement. Theoptions are possible solutions, the ways in which the building blocks fit together so that negotiatorsare satisfied.

The most successful negotiation processes are those that explore a number of options. Remember asingle problem is likely to have many positive solutions. This is why the process should focus oncreativity and reaching agreements that are beneficial for all parties. The first concrete solutionproposed by one of the parties, and the first both parties are willing to accept, is not necessarily thebest solution. The more options you generate, the more likely you are to find one that willeffectively reconcile diverging interests. The ability to generate creative options is one of the mostimportant skills of an effective negotiator.

Four obstacles can stop you from generating an abundance of options:

Issuing a premature judgment: Nothing is more damaging than a judgment that is thrown at anew idea. A premature judgment limits the imagination.

Seeking a single response: Negotiations based on positions consider a single option and thenegotiating process becomes a tug-of-war based on this option.


9/9

Assuming the cake has a predetermined number of pieces: When negotiating, parties focus onlyon what is on the table and think in terms of either for you or for me.

Thinking that resolving the other partys problem is his/her business: A selfish concern withlittle vision will lead the negotiator to develop unilateral solutions that are not conducive to aneffective negotiation. To generate creative options you need to:

1) Separate the act of generating options from the act of judging them;

2) Expand the options on the table;

3) Seek mutual gains; and

4) Participate in resolving the other partys problems.

The time has now come to develop/strengthen and practice our effective negotiating skills. To do so, we

invite you to review and use the following tools available from our Managers who Lead Toolkit:

1. Preparing for a successful negotiation (page 256).2. Selecting a strategy to reach a negotiated agreement (page 258).3. Negotiating to achieve intended results (page 259).

REFERENCES:

1. The 7 Habits of Highly-Effective People, Stephen R. Covey.2. Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Roger Fisher & William Ury.3.

Getting ready to Negotiate, Roger Fisher & Danny Ertel.

4. Managers who Lead, MSH Publication.

gen effective negotiation - en

Documents