-
Written and recorded by Mac Mackay
Hello. Welcome to you to the Data Law program on negotiating skills. My name is Mack Mukai, This program recording the advanced program and you will probably be aware that there is an introductory course in the same Siri's that looks at the business, all negotiating from process point of view, infancy on de so on so forth. This one is aimed to move on to the next level. It is entire in itself is not expected that you need to look at both. I will be referring to one of two elements from that first program, just from the point of view of context. So if you have seen that bear with us But this one, I hope we'll give you a lot of ideas to home those skills Advanced Practitioner, Do you remember? Of course, that I am not a lawyer. I'm not gonna be occurring. Any aspects of the law per se, Andi, neither will I be making it specific to any particular sector off the law I'm gonna be doing is looking at a number of learning objectives for you. So let's explore what we're going to be doing on this course by then. This program we're going to be talking about selected strategies to open strongly. So strategic approach to negotiations is the forefront off this program. We can't be looking in more detail about conflict management. Conflict management comes up in communication skills, dealing with people in the firm, dealing with clients and so forth. And I will be using a standard evaluation scheme to have a look at how you deal with conflict. We'll be looking at emotional intelligence on quite complex area, but we'll be catching on some of the ideas to see whether or not we can learn something from this concept called emotion intelligence. We're going to be finishing this program with looking at some 30 tricks now, then too enthusiastic about it. We're not going to be trying to cover dirty tricks, important you how to apply them to gain advantage. But in fact, from the point of view of how to defend yourself against them. So that's what we're aiming to do on this program. I hope you'll find that or value. So before we dive into the subject, do you remember with this program, I'm backing the program up with a workbook. You get hold of that I've got it here on my laptop down beside me, and I'll be referring to various pages off it on some elements of it. You can certainly have a look at it online. It says of resource. You can produce hard copy if you wish. You can use your own internal use. Of course, for commercial use has been turning use within your own learning development. Andi. It will include some self assessment elements, so those bits and I refer to those as we go through you might want to get hold of a hard copy, but not necessary from the point of view of just viewing this part of the program. So that's the introduction. That's what we're aiming to dio. Just a a short caveat. Due note, of course, that negotiating skills have two elements to it. One is through the theory behind it to underpin your practice. The other part, of course, being practiced. You will know the moves, Jess, but they will not become a grandmaster just by reading the rules on negotiating skills of the same well look concepts. But it's the practical application of those that absolutely fundamental where to use this tool, where to use. The other tool is part off the craft off negotiations, and I hope to give you some new perspectives on one or two areas off that the best way off learning negotiating skills. And I've discovered this. Working with firms like yours is to help train people scenario based whether this is internal conflict management, whether it's dealing with suppliers. Didn't contractors. I've dealt with both whether it's trying to win a tender, whether it's negotiating a deal, buying, selling, whatever the aspect looking at is what is crucial for you, then this program. I aim to cover those things. But should you feel at some stage that it would be worth running a program in house for the skills element off this part of the negotiating arena, then by all means, get in touch with Days law, delighted to come along and running in house workshop two ways that relate to what you're doing to give skills to yourself and other people within the firm. Let's open this program. We're looking at a definition off negotiations. There's two elements to it. What we've got on screen the 1st 1 is that negotiation is not the art off seeking agreement, so it bears some analysis. Of course, why are we negotiating? Is because there is no agreement, some form or other. There is some element of conflict between what one party wants, what another party wants and so forth. Multiparty negotiations, Working with consortia. There could be many interested parties, so the purpose negotiating is to seek agreement. With that comes the second half, which again bears little bit of analysis. It says the maximum advantage. Awful concern. Now don't misinterpret that to me that the other party is going to get a what they want in order for the agreement to be made any more than you can rightfully expect to get everything that you want in order to get that agreement either. Negotiating therefore, is about ensuring that there is an equitable understanding between the parties involved in order for agreement to be settled if not quite. Obviously there are other mechanisms available to the parties to reach agreement. It could be through mediation, be through a CASS occur. Of course, it could be through the courts maximum doesn't mean that everyone gets everything. What it means is they get as much as they can in order for the agreement to be satisfied, which means that we go into negotiations with a very clear idea about what we want to get on, what we way may be willing to concede, provided that we get something in return and likewise the other parties. This was looked at in some detail, of course, on the fundamental program, but it's worth exploring what's meant here as negotiations. So we're focusing very much on some of the key elements off getting we want in a negotiation, looking at whether we can add value or create value, whether we can gain value and we'll come on to these concepts a little bit later. They'll think, too, of course, it's recognized that maximum advantage means that if the other party feels they're not going to get maximum advantage, then what happens? Conflict and conflict can lead to a number of behaviors that we would rather prefer didn't happen. I might call them dirty tricks if you like. Well, when will it be exploring those towards the end of the program? What we do to defend ourselves against them and deal with them and so on, so forth, so negotiating. Then there's an art of seeking agreement to maximum advantage. It may be that that maximal advantage is the minimal loss. Claim it defendant. You'll have experience in that area. Perhaps quite obviously, one party is trying to minimize their lost or the other one tries to maximise their game. But the maximal advantage is crucial to get that agreement. So it's a concept, I think, very important. Do you remember that there are two halves of negotiating? The science is about the facts and the facts and science, whereas the art of negotiation is about people about reading, people, seeing people, looking them in the eye, getting the agreement. And these two elements have to work closely together. So quite an important opening concept to look at on the introduction to negotiating skills. The fundamental spoke negotiation. We discussed an eight stage process dealing with preparation on opening discussion for tools being used to move things forward here in the purple Figures of sickening, proposing turning a proposal into a package of measures of package of agreements and so forth bargaining in the right way but approaches to closing on getting a final agreement. I just put these up again to remind you if you some while since you saw the last the first program. And if you've not seen that, it's just there to refer to and have the overview as we go through. So, um, okay, fairly straightforward stuff. What we need to look at is creating, of course, the right climate. From a strategic point of view, this is where we're talking about the negotiating strategy. What is the approach you're gonna take? And we're going to talk a little bit about strategic approaches to, uh, negotiating within that your recognize as perhaps a more senior practitioner that your firm will have a strategy for dealing with recruitment, distracted, do with ideas that clients stretching with approaching the market business on so on and so forth? Well, why not the negotiating strategy? Can you imagine going into things without having on approach to the way you do things on? What we have to look at is the approach that we will be taking is it to gain as much as we can grow everyone else to the floor or all that other approaches we've seen appropriate in the context off the brand, your firm and its business. Are we always looking for a bigger piece of the pie. Well, of course we are. So there's two ways of looking at the pie. You either say I can get a bigger piece of the pie because they get less or I could get a bigger piece of the pie because the pie is bigger on that. Aziz. A concept administration. I want to leave with you for a minute, but I will be coming back to this because an important approach to negotiating generally think about having codes of conduct. Think about how you might choose to behave. Think about whether or not your firm's reputation is built upon a particular approach to business generally on whether or not negotiations are part and parcel of that brand on. Of course, it can affect a number of different parameters, which may be quite important to you. I'm not gonna be prescriptive, but it's raising the question for you to say. What is our approach? Is it appropriate? Couldn't be para ified. Is it an individual thing? Is it something we shared? So a couple things to think about that What I really want to talk about is is the preparation off a strong opening on the key word. There, of course, is preparing. Preparing for that. What we have to realize, of course, is that there are different ways off approaching negotiations, generally the right climate for negotiations. Maybe that you have sort of zero sum games, emotionally charged, combative. Approach is we are. Maybe you're thinking, well, we're litigators. We want to win as much as we can. We want to get what is the best we can for our clients, claimant and so forth and defend whatever it might be. That's what our reputation is built upon. The problem with that, maybe in its for you to ask the question off me to decide for you it may be Is that a short term haggling approach? Does it result in, in the longer term, less beneficial opportunities? Four Business relationships on the continuity off business over time is something to think about. Is it appropriate to think about how collectively one ones dealing with by buyers of legal services or selling legal services what one could do to create value by establishment environment on approach off, honesty, transparency, trust? But it may be, it's a sounds good in theory, But in practice, that isn't the way the world works. So looking at those things from a corporate strategic point of view is something Teoh raises a question. It came about to May when I realized my Children rocking of the last apple last orange in the bowl. They're both involved in doing something in the kitchen that was only one orange on the table, and there's around kicking off Andi. I tried to intervene when I realized that my daughter, I was looking at the orange one point of view on my son. I was looking at the orange from a different point of view. I realized that the only way to solve the problem will be to slice the orange in half, half inch. But that didn't satisfy either. What I realized that there were two elements to an orange is that my daughter was looking at appeal because she wanted to add that to the fruit cake she was making. Where is my son? Wanted the juice for a cocktail. He was making okay. It wasn't five at the time. Slice of the origin half would not have been satisfied. Satisfactory. It was a matter of looking at the Orange from a different perspective and seeing where the value could be created in the two demands that led to something that was greater than the sum of its two parts. And that's really what I mean about creating the right climate and Internet. You do use this as a test case on negotiating practice on the skill set of negotiating is that we run a role play based on this, to see how well the negotiators in your firm are looking at, whether they can slice, take a bigger slice themselves or whether they can identify ways off any value on. There are examples in the notes on where people been able to look at ways of adding value and increasing their their take if you like. So preparing a strong opening, we talked on the fundamental program about what to have pair and so on and so forth. But I'd like Teoh raise one or two more points on this program for the senior practitioners to have a think about, you'll see in the notes there on page five, where we suggests that there are a number of different variables and involved in the negotiation of ofttimes prices, performance criteria, payment plans, cash flow of so on and so forth. What about the scope here in the preparation and suggested on this table? What's the starting point? What's the scope you've got in terms of fees, for example, on what's the effect of that? You see the three columns in the table? Okay, that's priced payment conditions. What's the consequences of getting payment less than a month or going to three months? What's the effect of that? The cost of that where you boring money from what Bankrate and so forth? It certainly won't be at the national rates is going to be a commercial rates from banks and so forth. What's the effect of that? You think these things through? You put a value on those things on, then ones able to see the consequences of the decisions that are made in negotiation on the effect on that gives you a much better idea of where you start your negotiations, whether that's a strong opening and to what degree you concede in order to get something else back, and there's other things as well. But you could decide what's on the left hand column. What criteria are on what needs to be adjusted for a particular situation. Now that sounds very good. Looks like we're ready to negotiate. While this is the first gaffe in negotiations, I say is that negotiators? I spent an inordinate amount of time working out there, needs, wants desires and spent no time thinking about the other parties, needs, wants and desires. They will be doing their part. You will be doing your part. But what are you doing to work out their part? Because when you go in to negotiate on, discuss your needs, wants and desires, we've got to look at ways in which we reach a satisfactory, lasting, binding agreement that starts with both parties getting the best they can in order to walk from the table contented. So this is a much more interesting and press more mature look at negotiating, not just from the point of view. How much can we beat them down to the floor? The problem that tends to create I've seen it plenty of times and helping firms negotiate deals, win tender business and so on is that they have something in writing. It goes back for consideration. People get a little bit shaky. Andi worried and it comes back unsigned agreements not made because somebody more senior or what have you so a few things to think about at that level, I hope something I'd like to explore with you is asking the question when in the process of doing business with another entity is the right time to negotiate a deal, It does depend on the sector that you're in my experience of many years of helping firms negotiate contracts with public sector organisations. For example, those situations are sometimes quite different from working private sector. I've worked firms negotiating deals with major banks on looking at what's important on how well they perform on the things that are really important or less important, surface. So different markets, I know behave on function in different ways. But it is interesting to all the cut the process of doing business and decide at which point does want bring in negotiations again. I figured the situation one can't really be prescriptive, but the information that one seeks to guide can be quite interesting, you might say Well, okay with potential buyers, maybe in discussion with a variety of different Bork organizations to get some idea of how to set up a specifications. For example, we function very much in the training world. We can talk with some firms that look, we wanna organize some training in house for our firm. What sorts of things make surfer things easy? Lots of things would be aiming to do so. I have been involved with the firm very recently on helping then define what sort of training they want, how it matches the justices, Regulation authority, competency framework, what they should be looking for, what they should be specified. And that was ahead of the game. What did that mean is that when they were then looking at getting a number of different quotes together, guess who was at the front of the queue when it came to giving out work? So it depends on the market. You're in on what relationship you've got with an entity and whether that's an enduring relationship or whether it's something that comes as a one off. So that could be an important time to think about how you help the potential buyer with information to qualify, what it is they're looking for. There is obviously an occasion when there may be opportunity. Teoh discuss with a particular supply when they put together their request for quotation or something like that. Requests for tender are you the main specify? Are you being compared to other suppliers? Because if you look at the table that I have created for you on page seven, there's a number of different things to think about. In terms of what was specify is seeking to do and what the supplier my proceeded to do in negotiating formats, the three areas that one looks at. What are the needs that must be fulfilled? What would they like to have fulfilled on what given half a chance for their desires? The final icing on the cake, perhaps that will finally clinched the deal on those at different levels. This evening, After you've been watching this program, you may need to say, Well, I I need food. I want to have a home cooked meal. It will be nice to have a Pope John poached egg on toast. Needs wants desires. I need to go out. Relax. I would like to see a film I desire to go and see, and I won't quote film because that'll date the film. They this field immediately. But maybe I want to go and see LA la Land or something like that. All the latest incarnation off a Star Wars program or something like that. So it needs wants desires of different levels. Those levels of fundamental in negotiations are there, therefore, between the two. Any common interests because a specify, Who wants to buy legal services would look a trying to arrange a long term relationship. If you are a supplier off legal services, you probably also want a long term relationship. Is there other things over and above the core element that they're looking for? That may be important, so we often are looking at running training programs for little firms with the same will. Actually, we also need to give them training different levels, so we will help people look a career path documents. What are they defining for their various levels of practitioner? So between the people that want to buy a particular service and the delivers of the service, there may be opportunity to negotiate long before you actually start discussing about buying and selling. Okay, well, that's one level. Well, what about those situations that are post tender on again. It does raise questions, perhaps about ethics and be probity and significance in terms of value for money. Competitive baits may have been received, but before the order is placed, they said, OK, we have decided to short list you three please come along to the beauty pageant. Is that sometimes called do the presentation and so on so forth before we finally sort out the orders being placed naturally enough in this situation, provided all the guidelines are clear, provide executable on understood by all parties involved, then concessions being available to all and so on post attended negotiations begin is fair and justifiable. It may be commonplace in certain industries like construction. We've worked in construction industries on developing solutions to problems and in the notes that give examples about looking at solutions to problems. We work with building firms in a number of areas to look at their negotiating approaches. So looking at negotiations post tender may be appropriate in some circumstances. They may be negotiations once the contract is up and running for the order, placed formally or informally at some stage, depending on the validity and so forth from those benefits there, Obviously within that, because as one gets closer and closer by supplier Aziz, one looks closer at the relationship. There are other things that start to develop. I've worked in advertising agencies working with firms and realized, yes, that they wanted advertising. But they wanted mutual benefits over and above that. The mutual benefits were often about staff training and exposed to other ideas and meeting other people networking and so on and so forth. So there were other negotiations occurring after the deal was done. Yes, we're gonna book the the pages in the technical journals or what have you for the advertising. But then there's other things over above that finally, many of you may be aware off what happens in some markets about the completion of a contract common in construction process plant heavy engineering, those sort of industries. Andi, it is often recognize, is a very important way of securing profit on consultants are around, will make a very handsome living out of helping organization present or pose those claims. Acosta Rossman, for example, found a legal world, of course, many listening to this program very aware of that. Onda, the holding the final payment of courses could be feared by many supply in that situation. Now what happens if you can't really be avoided? What one has to do is to know the rules of game on, then play them better than anybody else. Obviously things about records about what was done, who did it when it was done. Having good order trail is fundamental when it comes to dealing with the beginning of the ambiguities, the arguments over a particular contract as it folds. So there's different worlds, different situations. What we've been talking about here is very much what happens in the UK I have done some work in procurement supply chain management for oil companies in the Middle East. Andi. Things are quite different in different sectors, so one has to be very aware of the culture that's involved on by that, I mean in the way that business is done on. Let's face it, if you go by second hand car off a used car lot a dealership, you can expect to negotiate on price where is going into Tesco's or any other High Street supermarket and try to negotiate over tin of beans. Same country, 200 yards apart. Different supplies, different quantities, different matters, a different culture. Understanding the culture is obviously going to be fundamental to your success. Okay, well, with that in mind, let's now then have a look at the style because that's obviously related to what we've been talking about. The style of negotiating on the second hand car on the style of negotiating your weekly shopping could not be more different. Let us now turn to the important part of negotiations. And that's one of style, one of approach, which comes out of one's strategic intent in a particular negotiation. And there's number of ways in which we can look at that. And that's what I'd like to explore as we turn now to look a personal style when we look at negotiations, there's really a number of things that we can do it different ways of looking at personal style, and I'm going to share with you a number of different ideas. I think when it comes negotiations, it's very difficult to be descriptive of what suits what particular situation on its about, improving one's flexibility to adapt the style to various circumstances. So in this example here we have two dimensions on one end of the scale. We could very well be very active, pushing for agenda, getting things, talked about dealing with issues or indeed just keeping very quiet on waiting to hear what the other party has to say and flexibility. I think it's crucial when it comes to dealing with other parties and that's really what we want to look at so is active passive on in terms of the approach we take. We could be very controversial competing with the other side to take a much as we want or indeed a willingness to be cooperative with the other party because we're both driving towards a similar sort of aim and quite clearly and I said this in the introduction to this session are not being prescriptive about the matter of claimant defender. That might use a quite different style to dealing with negotiating with suppliers and again negotiating with buyers of legal services which may be at a different end off a continuum. So with that in mind, Miss active, passive competitive cooperative, we can see that there are quite a number of different approaches that one could take to dealing with a particular set of circumstances. Let's look what the quadrants created in this particular model here, over in the top right hand side, the very active, combative individual would be on my school, that sort of detail. Let's talk the numbers. Let's try and resolve a particular problem in this particular way. So this analytical, more aggressive approach may be quite appropriate. And that's one way of looking at the approach to a given set of circumstances. It may be that one could still be quite aggressive, but push for your own agenda on wait for your own needs to be satisfied. This sort of flexible, aggressive is not counterintuitive. It all it's able. This is my situation. What have you got to say for May? What can you offer me? Everybody to get what you want? You can be quite flexible, all how that is actually achieved. So it's the flexibility scale we're looking at there. Moving on round the cooperative passive approach says, Well, I'm quite flexible. I'm quite cooperative. Onda With that degree of Flexibility, Inc it is surprising how often we can end up with I would call it options for mutual gain, things that happen that weren't thought about before on this. Flexibility and willingness to cooperate means that I'm open to ideas on ready here for others. And I think the more I learn, the more I No, I don't snow and therefore the more open I can be to other ideas that I headed to new that I haven't thought about because they don't have a capital on bright ideas. Equally, the very analytical characters could be looking at something in a particular way, trying to get a particular outcome on being very focused on getting a particular result. And if you look at the notes on page nine off the hand out, you'll see different descriptors to further explore these different styles. No point, you sitting there listening to me talk about that when you could pick up the various elements of it in more detail at a time that suits you so you can pick those areas that you look at that are most important. Do you remember, of course, that since the beginning of time, I think man has tried very hard to qualify, categorize on make sense of the world on gnome or so than in ancient civilizations who really thought there were four types of people. Caloric, sanguine, melancholic, phlegmatic, represented by these sketches here, Theo. The different sorts of character was supposed to form into four qualified qualified styles that I had to chuckle when I was preparing this. I was discussing with Firm just a few weeks ago on, we were talking about learning styles, how people learn on one of the partners there. She was saying, I absolutely refused to be categorized it a particular type of person in particular, set of circumstances, a particular learning style. On the third time that she mentioned this, I had to strap him to myself and say to her that you have just classified yourself as the sort of person that doesn't get classified so we can't help sometimes to think about ways in which we would develop some sort of style classifications of these very standard, if you like, in ways in which they are presented. Their important because people approach negotiations in different approaches. And when you get to negotiate people time and time again, you get to know their style. Andi. They become predictable. They become a less able to see things another way. They have one way of doing things on the one size fits all. The one way approach really doesn't. The more you negotiate, the more you deal with different entities. The more variety you're going to see, because don't forget negotiation. Science is about the facts on their fairly straightforward. This is the price. This is the time. This is the numbers, whereas the art is about the variety off. Human nature on everyone else is also in those sort of situations. Everybody else is trying to work out the best way of moving forward. Do remember Andi? I have worked quite a lot with the psychometric serve years. I'm qualified by the psychological society to look out ability, testing as well as personality profile testing on There is no hard and fast rules on personality types what most often blue and we'll find this when we look at emotional intelligence, is that effects negotiations is that there's a big difference between scoring are sort of low percent on the trade in a much higher percent on the trait. What that says is the people of different and it's the predictability, guidelines and so forth, rather than anything particular, definitive or clear answers. It's the beauty off. Humanity is the great variety on for May In negotiations, it's being able to adapt different styles. Different approaches toe match what's actually needed for a particular set situation. I'm a situational manager. I change my style to suit the situation. I am also a situation negotiator. I will change my style with the situation on in so moving on, Let's have a look at some different types off personality styles. Personality styles shown here are the degree to which one will show a particular emotion or control a particular emotion. The degree to which one will ask questions, or the one degree to which somebody will tell the other person what one wants on these are gnome or no less than the dimensions that one could give to particular personality styles. I was running a negotiating workshop up in Manchester just in the autumn last year on we're running a particular role play on somebody they're quite senior in their firm said to May. I don't know why they employ you, either because you're good or your cheap. I'm not sure which Andi that was quite humorous on day, were trying to do it Teoh. See what my reaction would be on? I feigned that I was losing my rag. I was in front of the people. We were discussing what's going on, and I made a big show of emotion that I felt this was insulting. I felt that she was doing it in front of people in a role play to try and get the one up on may make silly and so on and so forth. And I feigned that I had been annoyed or upset, indeed, even angry by what she had said. And immediately she cascaded and need like house of cards. You all fell down and said, I'm terribly sorry. I didn't mean to do that. That's just my approaching. I can't help but be aggressive. I'm really, really sorry. I'm you know, Onda. We finally got the agreement we want. She did actually concede quite a bit. We got agreement in the role, play on over the coffee. She apologized for upsetting me, and I said, I do apologize for alluding to the fact that I was upset because I wasn't. You didn't, but it just shows that if you are using a particular style, somebody may or may not control their emotions. Or in fact, I was controlling my emotions. Extent I could appear cross when in fact I thought it was going music. So personality styles can be very important effect of a human dynamic, the art of negotiation when one's involved in discussing with other people. So let's have a look at the conference and what these talk about here there are. Those particularly show emotions, and they want to talk a lot, looking for affirmation, that great ideas they like spontaneity that like to be the center of attention, just like routine, get bored or easy. And then those people may be very good negotiations that maybe in some circumstances equally very poor. So there's no right or wrong. The people that will control their emotions will be business like that. Maybe fast talkers that seeking control and they won't like inefficiencies on decisions, and they were driving a particular agenda. They will set the agenda. They'll tell you what they want, but they will have a very measured approach to it. There are all those who are extremely analytical that ask all the questions, not savory much themselves. They measured some systematic in their approach, looking for detail of what's going on on don't like, feel as if they've been taken by surprise. Those that are showing emotions on asking the questions may be very amiable. They may be conforming. They're not rush to maybe easy going, looking to get appreciation. I don't like people that are insensitive them. Or indeed, they like to be sensitive to other people's situations. And they made. It's like impatience. So here we've got two dimensions or personality Onda whole syriza different approaches. Now what's interesting to ask yourself is a seasoned practitioners. Negotiations is, Can you adopt all four styles to suit the circumstance? What is your Chosen is down. What do you prefer to do? And I know from my experience of how I tend to behaving negotiations where I am purchasing a moving house or trying to get organized in one particular way, sometimes in business dealing with negotiating staff suppliers, contractors, consultants that we work with and so forth that I will tend to use a questioning style being very analytical in my approach, not just because I was my first involvement in education was is a undergraduate scientist. It's not just because I am able to do that. I know that I can adapt to other styles if the situation demanded off me. So something there to think about and explore Aziz. One handles emotions and deals with particular situations, which then brings us on to look at something very important of the question. Why adapt a different style? And it may be that we're dealing with different situations between the power somebody has on the degree of influence. There are a lot of people out there in negotiation who rely on the Hartsell. They think that if they keep talking, they think that if they keep arguing, they think if they keep presenting their case as to why it's so good on why the other party would be so wrong not to adopt. It is not always the best for me. I think the best sales people I've ever met look a bit like you, in fact, because I'm well, it assume your blessed with the usual collection of matters. You have tow eyes, two ears but one mouth and you'll use them in the same proportion. I think those people are more influential. I think there are those who believe that resistant compromise will be the way forward. But there are things where you will compromise, and there are things where you will not compromise on. That's part of the negotiating agenda on If you are going into negotiation without any view on compromising, then of course, conflict is likely going into negotiation. Knowing what you want, but not knowing what they want is a fundamental inference in error. And it's what I talked about on the fundamental program. That's very important. OK, if you keep going on and on about how wonderful you are, ill tired very quickly in terms of negotiations, know what your great argument is? It's whether or not I feel that what I'm getting is going to be worth signing up to do that agreement on quite obviously, that one of the problems with influencing generally is that persuasion is not a one off event. It's a process that it will start the various stages. So in business that balance very much between power and influence is fundamental. It is crucial, and we need to work out what the best approach is. Well, with that in mind, let's turn to look at dealing with conflict
00:44:00
-
Written and recorded by Mac Mackay
there has now turned to the very important concept of dealing with conflict. It is a fundamental part off negotiations because the purpose of negotiation is to deal with situations where two parties or more parties, maybe some way apartment on agreement and have to move towards agreements in that movement can cause a few problems. So this is a an interesting approach to evaluating yourself on negotiating conflict on You can have a look in the notes on page 11. This is the Thomas Killman conflict mode instrument they've developed on so many of the human dimensions. There are two continuum that we're looking at. One is the degree to which we will cooperate with the other side or not, the vertical continuum on the screen and the degree to which will push our agenda all not across the middle, going from right to left. What we're inviting you to do is to have a look at those notes on and recognize on page 12 and 13. We're giving you 30 scenarios to look at on two opposing ways of balancing one's particular approach. So for each off the 30 scenarios, one looks okay. Andi, I going to be more A or B or more B or a on. It's the one that most closely matches the way they behave when negotiating in work related situations. Okay, this is not about how you negotiate when your friends about where to go for a meal. It's not about how you negotiate with your significant other half outside of the workplace, it's about workplace activities. The reason for that is I want to focus very much on the business side of things because this model is used in dealing with internal conflict in organizations and doing all sorts of things. But the context here is about negotiation scenarios. You'll see that there are a number of different statements coming up each time on their paired with other statements. Each time you're asked to balance between one and the other, because what we're aiming to do with this is to look at the degrees with which one world, a doctor particular approach will be able to flex that particular approach with changing circumstances. There are no right or wrong answers. The human bottom might be perfectly formed for sitting on the fence, but quite honestly, you could come down left or right off the paid statements. So go through those. Pause the recording. Have a look at that questionnaire. Maybe put a hard copy together something like that. Maybe go through and just note down the responses on another piece of paper. When you look at it online on run through a Wall, those 30 statements that goes over to the second page it is a self assessment. And then, having done that, move onto Page 14 on Circle for each of those 30 pared scenarios situations, whether you would go for A or B in those paired statements sum up the total off each column under the five predominant styles on From there, we can explore what this means for you as an individual looking at your way of dealing with conflict. So pause the program and complete the questionnaire on the scoresheet. Okay, having completed the questionnaire on the scoresheet, let's try and make some sense off the numbers. There are five core styles of handling conflict. Some are better than others on one's aiming to have a, uh, equitable score across all five areas, as suggested on the score sheet. At the bottom of score of six is a midpoint on this scale. Let us first of all, explore what the five core strategies approaches are to managing negotiations on. Then explore the pros and cons of each. But then try and work out what your scores mean in the context of you and negotiations. Because, as we will see that a low score in one area tends to suggest you're like have a higher score in another area on. That may mean that there are opportunities missed by not being able to use a particular style very much or, indeed, over playing. I using a style too much in another area. Okay, well, let's go around and have a look at each off the different styles in a straight well, the 1st 1 to look at on the top right is when one is assertive, pushing your own agenda and also willingly cooperating with another. And that is a collaborative style. So what's collaborating all about? Well, it's working together with others. You agree with them. They agree with you on. That's very, very positive. So negocios negotiation terms. One agrees with what one agrees with the other party. One chooses to disagree the things that won't disagrees with the key thing from a cooperative asserted point of view, the degree to which one is collaborative. It is the opposite Bagnoli to the bottom left hand of the screen to one off. Avoiding it's an attempt to work the other person to reach a satisfactory conclusion that satisfies both sides. So okay, what do we mean by a high score in each of these areas? What we mean by a low score? Well, as illustrated in the notes that accompany each of these styles, you'll see on page 15 off the notes. That high score somewhere between nine and 12 suggests that you may end up by working too hard on things that don't deserve it, for example, or but the collaborative approach may be missing, dismissed, understood as being too easy going. And does it always get the collaboration you see from other parties? And there's more notes on that for each individual to explore in their own time. Conversely, of course, if you scored lower by that, we mean somewhere between no score, maybe three or something like that. Then what's the problem, if you like? By not adopting a collective approach? Well, maybe if you don't adopt a collaborative approach, you're missing opportunities to collaborate. Quite obviously, there may be opportunities to learn mawr about the other side. More other ways to solve problems The your way one size fits all may not always be as productive as you would hope, and it may be that that one's driving a particular bargain doesn't need to be worked, so you'll see run that through a little bit longer because the similar sorts of things applies to the other four areas that there are pros to using it. There's places that you can use it, each style there are. If you overplay those styles, it may have some downside in terms of negotiation, and if you underplay the styles, it may have some again drawback for you. The ideal is an even score across each area on two things. Then one is that one is able to adapt to different style, comfortable with different approaches, and secondly, you spot where each style is best placed. So there we go. That's the collaborative, assertive but non cooperative is. You want to drive your bargain. You want to be competitive trying to outdo mount maneuver to try and win the game on games like, UM, chess or tennis or something like that. There are no drawers. Need to win or lose. It's simple as that. Very assertive, of course, but it is non cooperative Ondas You'll see by looking at the notes a well and good to be a cop competing, pursuing your concerns your clients concerns on one would hope that litigators are indeed able to be quite assertive. But again, it may be that if you are assertive in all negotiations in all situations, then it maybe you're not getting enough help and support. And so for, you know, getting corporation from others again, rather as we've being verbally collaborative that you are driving your gender. But others are not as collaborative as you would like them to be. So pros and cons there. Obviously, it's very important if you want a quick decision if your time is limited. If you are, have that president off the support of the legal argument on your side. A When good moving all around. We could then look at one bang in the middle of this compromising This given Take what I suppose that in the middle is the hub of all negotiations. Well, I think the only rule that I could ever devise on negotiations on that is that everything is open for trade. That can be no gives without something coming back. Everything must be worked on in such a way that we're going to get collaboration with other parties on that we get. If we can't give something, then the rule is everything is conditional. One of the poor things to do. And someone says we want five cent discount okay, without saying if you pay me. But you know, if you put the money in my bank before the end of the week, we will give you that discount and so on, so forth. So it's got to be that given take. So to the point of view of the, uh, updating with conflict and looking at your evaluation here, then we have to be very clear. A so what it means for us as to whether or not it's the appropriate behavior. Compromising gives up mawr than competing, but less than accommodating, which we'll see in the top left in a moment. It addresses issues more directly than avoiding things, but it may not explore in quite the same death on those hi compromising has its downsides, because 1 may be considering far too much on tactics. A compromise which don't need to be done rather than losing sight. Bigger issues, the longer term value the thing needs and months off your particular situation. Client. So forth on it may be your focusing too much on bartering and trade, which may suggest, er, a climate of gamesmanship, for example. Okay, well, that's given take letters moving on around avoiding non assertive, non cooperative. Well, that's doesn't look like a very good behavior in negotiations, but I think it's actually quite powerful. One looks here in this hit in the sands of being in a rather compromising situation. But why battle battles that don't need to be fought? Why are we listening to people's extreme demands? Why not devoid them completely? Why not pretend they weren't there? Will explore that in a bit more detail when we talk about dirty tricks, for example, so it is OK fight the arguments that need to be fought. Avoid those that do not. So there are pros and cons again. Obviously, if you are scoring particularly high on avoiding then it may be that that your input you're not getting your point across. It's not assertive enough. Conversely, if you score particularly low on avoiding, you may be riding roughshod over others in negotiations. You may not get people collaborating with you when you walk to be able to collaborate, you may not get corporations such as you that would like so again. It's a balance reemphasized that, as we go through, finally accommodating what's accommodating well, accommodating, as the name suggests, is all about mentioned before opposite competing were not so worried about our concerns in order to get something taken on that is absolutely fine, provided that again, everything is conditional. It may be appropriate to be cooperative and unassertive on small things, but it may be more appropriate to be assertive, competing on more major things. So it's perfectly reasonable behaviour provided that one's using it appropriately. Five styles, adaptability, two different styles. Different situations is going to need to better outcomes. One of the other areas that have very much to do with dealing with the art of negotiation is something called emotional intelligence. First developed by Daniel Goleman back in the nineties is a way of looking at the the relationship between people in a variety of situations, and I'm using this as a benchmark for negotiations is a way of evaluating one's own style and approach to negotiations, and so falls to those human dynamics. So say it's the science for negotiation. The facts is the art has to do with people. This is really what we're doing. Looking at advanced negotiating techniques and skills. Moshe intelligence is interesting. A number of different the authors have explored it on and have pros have Com's. It's related to the abilities to interact in a particular way. Unlike intelligence quotient like you, it is a great debate over whether or not we are born with emotion, intelligence or no. But it has as its inability set. I think certainly from what I've done in looking at it, it's something that we can learn to do better. So what I'm gonna do is to take you through what it ease emotional intelligence. I will then take you through what it means in terms. Negotiations explore how we can go about assessing what it means in terms of approaches to people, various types of little acronym commotion that looks at how we deal with varying situations, then begin to explore how we assess it. The reason for doing that is that some of the emotion intelligence I've seen that online go check this. They press the button and pace of money and they get an evaluation. But I think it's for helpful to explore a little bit about different ways of assessing it, to decide what's valid, what isn't on so forth. It's that I think is quite interesting. The question, of course, will be well, So what? From a negotiation point of view. If I happen to have a high emotional intelligence, does it mean to say I'll be a better negotiator if I have a right to be low emotion intelligence? Does that mean I'm not intelligent? Doesn't mean I get worse outcomes well again. We'll try and answer that question for you. Let's start with first understanding what emotional intelligence is on its about. One's ability to deal with oneself and deal with others and understand how they are behaving is is behavioral based evaluation, and it looks at a number of different parameters. The 1st 3 have to do with yourself. Aren't you aware yourself off your own emotions. Are you aware and put this in the context of negotiations? Are you aware when something else is winding up, trying deliberately to make you angry or yourself aware? I gave an example where I was running a role play on. Somebody chose to make me angry by questioning my capabilities and so forth, and I was fully aware that that could have made me angry. It was a role play, so I chose not to get riled by it. I think she wanted me to be riled. But I refused to be that I was aware of what was happening and then I could self regulate. I could control that. So in that respect there are two elements of self self awareness and self regulation of one's emotional is obviously going to be important in a negotiating situation. On one of the other dimensions of it is whether one could be driven in a particular way self motivate. So these three are really quite important just to give you that background to emotion, intelligence, something they really know this, and therefore the notes don't go through this in great detail. But that's generally What it's about is images in the notes, but the narrative behind it, it's just there for completion. So I yourself aware of your emotions in negotiations. Can you control them? Can you drive yourself in a particular way and not be held back by some of those emotions Thea other to then have with an external expression? And that is the degree to which one can have good interpersonal skills and social skills, too. Question. To explore options to listen, to have those variety and I've mentioned before two eyes, two ears and one mouth, and using them in the same proportion is to ask the right questions and listen to the answer on. Then the viral component off emotional intelligence is the degree to which we can empathy, empathize with somebody on. I think there's empathy. Sympathy on obviously sympathy is being sorry for somebody. Empathy is being able to understand them where they're coming from. So empathizing with another side in a negotiation may or may not be a value depending on the context in which is why, as I reinforced beginning this program, we aren't specific for any particular avenue of law, so empathy with others knowing how they feel may be very valid when it comes to trying to get the best conclusion in negotiating better outcomes. So this is very important and we can look at this from a number of points of view when it comes to dealing with negotiations. So negotiations very good basis to study how people interact in what the dynamics are, Which is why again, I'm not just doing from advertising point of view, but it's very useful from a practical learning development point of view to watch people negotiated deal in a scenario created for the firm and see how they deal with, um there with each other and so forth. So those are emotion intelligence about and explains a little bit about where they fit within negotiations on I think what we find as faras negotiations are concerned emotion intelligence has to do with value and I mentioned this before. Remember the orange appeal, the juice in negotiations? We have a number of options, emotion, intelligence. People may be able to claim or value for themselves their client because the distribution of value between the parties involved is that ball comes your way unless goes their way it's acclaiming value, distribution of that. You will be important that you can drive a hard bargain, recognize the other people's frailties, Plato that possibly on get a better slice off the cake, but equally emotion. Intelligence People may be able to use other elements of emotion intelligence to look at options to maximize advantage for all concerned, in other words, to make value bigger. Make the cake bigger so that distribution rather than what they get. What I get is less important than they interpretive improvement off value to all concerned and provided I get what I want. I don't mind if they get a little bit more. It costs me nothing, provided that we're able to have a longer term business relationship. But I've had plans for being business 25 years, and I had plans for a large part of that process. Is it's as it's gone forward on. Indeed, my work within the legal sector is very much one of creating value in negotiations. Rather, just what can I get for myself? So this is trying to put emotional intelligence and for context off negotiations, and there are options. Remember those downsides or or the poor approach to influencing the errors in influencing Hartsell, resisting compromise fame to recognize another persons needs and so on so forth. Discuss that while the emotional intelligence can, of course, reverse some of those things, it can have a much better effect. So it's worth exploring how one actually deals with things on looks at it in the context off the value that's been gained. So Daniel, Goleman and so forth since the mid nineties, I was very much involved. But since then, over the last 20 or so years, there has been a lot of debate about the validity off emotional intelligence in negotiations. Is it really an ability, or is it something you're born with? Trade theories balanced against the nature versus nurture if you Is it a real intelligence? Or is it just another way of expressing intelligence in some guys? For another? Some have looked at these from the point of view of the Big Five personality traits that are more valid in ways of looking at how negotiations can actually occur on whether these are of use to distributive value, sharing one to another, or indeed, in creative on expanding the side of cake, make value greater than the sum of component parts. So what are those big five personality traits and what they mean from the point of view negotiations? Well, first of all, there is the openness to experience on. One might argue that the person that goes into negotiation and says, Well, I know what I want, but I am open to better office. I am open to ideas, and if you go in and saying what I want, I want I want this and that's that's or I'm gonna do you come to Celik. I think it's worth £2000. I want £2000 on realize that somebody is actually going to pay more for it because it's an older vehicle, a rather special to them. I've got great memories of that vehicle, something you've got me open and that may they give you opportunity for MAWR options, your otherwise. So being the conscientious. This is to make sure that one is dealing with the preparations. Attention to detail. Get the drawers, don't get this out the way on, then a preference for being planning role in spontaneous behavior. Maybe more important, to take your age groups compared with others, for example, so conscientiousness is very important when it looks at the value being created in purely factual or arithmetic. Terms of financial gain or timing of cash flow and so on so forth will become very important. And therefore one is using these to look at. The value is being attained by the parties concerned. Then, of course, the extroverted site off things. The degree to which one has energy, positive emotions, urgency, assertiveness and maybe dealing with activities towards getting a positive effect, being open to new ideas, being life and sold the party center of attention. Feeling very comfortable in themselves is an important personality trait when recognizes thes and gets a warm towards people a bit like that. But in negotiation terms, jumping up and down and waving your arms around might be quite cute if you're three but isn't quite cute in negotiating terms on just being seen. To be driving a hard bargain is a whopping great ego has gone in the way off getting good results. For example, okay, another way of looking at things from being the friendly, compassionate versus the analytical, detached to be cooperative, Andi building towards others and it's agreeable. Nature can be very powerful within a negotiation because people like people that agree with them. So your water, your concessions that you prepared, do you know what they want? What are you willing to concede? Are you an agreeable person on? Does that then mean that you're gonna be able to get harder, bargain somewhere else? Conversely, if they are agreeable may seem easy going. Does that mean they're gonna be easy going all over the place? Does it mean they're going to suddenly switch? Does it mean that in fact, you're gonna be Hoodwinked in one way because they seem such lovely people to do business with. So again, we need to be very aware of what those options are, And then they always good to do the high five. Or because I'm from Norfolk. I would say this the high six. Let's look at one of the other areas, and that is a something called new neuroticism sensitivity. Nervous as opposed to secure. And here the expect unpleasant emotions not being happy with things need for stability, manifests itself, security and so forth. Experienced negative emotions feel great for anger. A lot of anxiety. So again. It's not helpful if you are suffering in some of those situations, and it's interesting to see others did say, Well, OK, I've got somebody a bit like that, all the on the ropes. Are they really behaving like that, or are they feigning it in order to lull me into a false sense of security? So these these are issues that are really quite important. So good old Woody Allen. I've met a lot of people, but I was in Manhattan and I haven't met. Very many people remember being like him in terms of their stereotype off people in New York. So where is all this? Leave us. Well, what we're looking at here is what type of people are dealing with what type of person? Um, I, um I able to use the varying emotions that I have that others have for particular advantage to either gain more value from a distributive point of view. Who gets what can I gain more than then? Or indeed, can I build value working with others in a consortia for long term gains mentality of gain and so forth? Build value is therefore quite interesting, so we'll have a look, but testing and evaluating your emotion intelligence. Before I do that, I don't want to labour it too much, but recognize that some approaches that you may race off from this point on your sounds interesting. Very much. Let's go Google, yahoo being or whatever your search engine choices are. Firefox. Let me go and explore this. Be aware that if you go to the self reporting sort of what you think you are, how you think you do think that's all well and good but emotion, intelligence and actually a skill set, and it's therefore tested by ability. So I'm tip us up up here to be criticized because I have got the self reporting way of evaluating your emotional intelligence is superficial. But if your guide gives you some ideas to think about Andi, you could look at that and say, OK, well, I now know the limits because Americans give me a bit of a guy, too, as it's a skill set. Then maybe other people are better place to report on what they observe in terms of how you behave in negotiations. And that's certainly the feedback I would give if I was watching you negotiate with a colleague on a role player. Fictitious particular set of circumstances. Well, that's all well and good. But who are you asking to give you? That feedback? And 3 60 feet back within the legal sector and others is very, very powerful, like a ball for this, working in police forces and so forth. But who you asking? Who? You asking for? Feedback? I've asked my P A in the past to give me a feedback of my strengths and weaknesses, and she refused to do it. That's I was out of the office. She typed it up, left on all night, sealed it out, refused to be in the office when I opened it. So who were you asking to report on your particular abilities? And then, finally, as it's a an ability test, then you need to the right sort of constructs. If you go racing off trying to find out in a lot more detail about emotion, intelligence, then just make sure that you've got a really good test being put together. Okay, well, it's moving on on. Look at the use of emotion intelligence in the workplace, and it's I think it's relatively new is a concept since 1995 Daniel Goldman, and it's certainly being used in a variety of ways. I think that you're is out as to the value of it. It has its place, particularly, I think, in negotiations and in different ways on particularly when it comes to performance of people. And that's really what the crucial aspects of emotion intelligence are about, which is why I've included here for negotiating skills. Are we going to use emotional intelligence for career development? Well, I think if you're technically competent law or any other particular area, then of course you're gonna add value to your organization. And we can ask the question. Does emotional intelligence help in that career? Development on in some situations? If your requirements to give you on your technical competence and deal with people's on the softer skills, then certainly it will have a place. I think we can look at it from the point of view of management development because you're technically competent as a manager, you aren't managing you just in charge, which isn't quite the same thing. I think developing managers developing the skill sets developing good negotiating skills internally as well as externally, of course, is going to have value to the organization and to the development of individuals within that organization. On then, finally, what about team effectiveness? We've talked about managing conflict. We talked about a number ways of getting on with people. Being able to negotiate successfully on that, too, requires elements off emotion, intelligence, tow have its place. But at the end of the day, all of those are about performance management, and that's really what we're looking at. So there is something that's called the multi factor emotional intelligence scale because it does, except that there are different facets to it on the use off it, emotion, intelligence in advance negotiating skills, I think is really worth exploring. The multi factor emotional intelligence scale suggests that their arm or than one type of emotional intelligence suggests there's more than just having it or not. Having it is the degree to which one is able to use it. And that, indeed is the same as any ability. So multiple monte factor intelligence, emotion intelligence gets us to pursue a number questions when it comes to using them in advance negotiation situations. The first step that we might have is how good is one at identifying or proceeding emotions? Can you recognize how you feel, how others feel? And if that's the case, what is the likely reaction to the next stage of your negotiation? Is it help? Is it a hindrance? Do you know where it's going? Being able to receive how others are affected by your approach? Negotiations is important because being able to do that may give you an advantage. So, having perceived the emotions, can you use those emotions? Can you deal with reaction All the emotions of the other side going to be an impediment to them? Listening to your reasoned argument? Are their emotions going to start moving against you? Can you use their emotions to get a particular angle on? Your negotiation will be important. So having thought about that perception and the use of emotions, what about the understanding off those complex emotions on the chains of events? Will that enable you to get a little bit further? Will those emotions allow you to add value? We'll get in the way of achieving those sorts of things on understanding emotions is important when it comes to reaching a satisfactory conclusion. Is there going to be opportunity on this occasion for more concessions? How will those be achieved and then finally managing those emotions? Not only in yourself? Are you able to persist? Are you able to carry on the discussion? Are you able to deal with conflicts, Managing your own emotions? Are you able to achieve better outcomes for yourself? Affirm your client on use those in the appropriate way. Now on the screen here, I've got some illustrations of cartoons. They are supposed to represent a variety of emotions on just a bit from Can you identify orbit their cartoons, Not my cartoons. Mind what the emotions are? Well, look at the first rose off them. Stop the, uh, the recording for a moment and just jot down what you think all the varying emotions that are going on. Well, if you've ever brought up any teenagers or other Children, for that matter, you may have a better chance of recognizing some of these emotions. So the first ranch, so he's bored, enthusiastic, happy one day, sad somebody on the second row of angry, crestfallen, sulking or confused on bond. I've certainly found in my Children they could be all eight off them in any one moment. But that's not Take that to lightheartedly. I think there's opportunity to explore what's going on in emotion, incursions and negotiations. Well, I've talked quite enough about emotion, intelligence. What I'd like to do now is to get you to assess your intelligence, keep control of your emotions, could come and take the test that you'll find on Page 30. What I've done there is to give you 12 statements to consider, and then to consider the extent to which you agree or otherwise with each of the statements, no right or wrong answers your perception of your ability to deal with those particular situations. When you've completed that, I'll then direct you to the place in the workbook where you'll find the results. So pause it, pause the recording. Take the test on them will move on. Okay, well, having taken the test on page 30 I'd like to invite you to turn to page 47 of the workbook, and there you'll find a table to go through the way in which you scored that particular test. Some are all those 12 responses, and you'll see the maximum you can score is 48 on in the paragraph. Follow the table. You'll find a short narrative giving you an outline of what your schools mean Now, clearly, you're gonna have a look at each of those is the way you fall. But do remember the value of having such a exploration with people that know you is that they can give you a little bit of feedback on your perception off. Your ability to deal with those things is only knows you well, maybe would help on. It may change position that you are within that particular area. I hope you found that useful because I find in negotiating skills. One thing very important is to not only understand yourself clearly, but also to understand the other side. And that is why I'd like to now move on to talk about the perception that you have compared with the perception that somebody else has off the same thing
00:40:00
-
Written and recorded by Mac Mackay
turning to that all important matter of perception. What I find with negotiations is that it's easy to see your point of view, but not so easy to see somebody else's point of view. Looking at the same thing, you'll get a different perception. So there's plenty of these sort of images around. When you look at this, do you see a silhouette of two ladies talking or do you see three White Falls is in a row? Well, it is very important in all negotiating situation to be able to see things not only from your point of view from somebody else's. So what I've created is a situation between the land Lady Andi attendant now in this situation, her perception of what she's like as a land lady compared to his perception off what she's like as an end lady might be different. And indeed, how she used him as a tenant might be quite different to his view off himself as attended. So when you look at these images here, you think, well, one person on one side, her perception is that she's a very sweet on quite lovely person. But on the other point of view, his perception might be something quite different on uh, Well, what I'd like you to do is have a look at the information in the workbook on Take the View. Now, if you happen to be a tenant in an apartment, then I'll invite you to look at Page 32. If you happen to have a property that you're renting out to somebody else, then you can play the part of the land lady or indeed, the landlord, whichever case that may be on. But each of those situations trying to find what you think the other person's view is on that particular issue. There's 10 issues there, and you see what influences one side. Can you identify what influences the other? Because what we've got is a land lady has a separate one bedroom apartment annex, sometimes called Granny flat to her main residence, as suggested in the illustration on screen, the 10 has been there for six months. It's the first time that she has rented the place. 10 have moved to the air when starting your job. Shipped Supervisor working to local industrial estates. Andi hey was the first person to rent a flat. Quite obviously, she didn't engage somebody. A zoo property lawyer to help with tenancy agreement She just didn't formally advertising with postcard in the in the post office window on. She's ended up in a particular situation because now, a year further down the line of six months down the line, she now wants to make some changes. So whichever page you're looking at page 31 or 32 what inferences each other on the rent? Can you work out from one point of view what the other person's part of you might be one person view on the cost of living, what the other person's view now, when it looks at the wear and tear on the property, there will be different perceptions of that particular problem. I'm sure as a younger person that you'll have a particular view on older people, and vice versa attendance timekeeping the neighborhood, the music, the red copayments, their interactions with each other and, indeed, with visitors. So have a look and see whether you can identify on quite clearly when you've completed one sheet, then turn to the other. So if you completely page 31 try to understand the tenants perception. Look at page 32. Put it alongside and see whether or not you can see things from the other person's point. You. Contrariwise, if you filled in page, I should be looking at Page 32 fill that in, then use Page 31. So we've got those two sides coming together. And have you been able to see things from different points of view? Well, let it be useful to have a conversation with you about those things. But I think the information is there to see whether or not you're quite good from one person point of view to see the other person's point of view on the same particular issue. Remember, this is so important in negotiations. It's not that you would concede is not that degree. But if you can see where the other side is coming from, you can see what's in it for. Then it opens up the options for negotiating approaches. It opened up the opportunity, different strategies. It opens up the opportunity for options for mutual gain. What you may or may not concede on what you will will not drive for to get a particular agreement on quite clearly if you were advising the landlady's might be quite hard on suggesting that she should have a number of things sent out. Get the rental agreement sorted out, getting payments sorted out, get the rules of engagement, sorted out. Play quite a hard line. But when we turn from there to think about the landlady's options, well, what are her options? Because when you have a look at the next page further on Page 33 happy, I think I'll just check. Make sure I'm on the right page with you. If we look down Page 33 there's a number of different options, a whole across a whole variety of issues. I don't no particular order, but mathematically, what are the approaches that you would advise that she took? What options has this lady got? Given her circumstance situation? Of course. If you are Lang lady or then Lord, you'll have a particularly strong view. Conversely, if you are a tenant in a rented property, then again, you will have a particular view on each of these. There's quite a lot going on, of course, on page 33 so I won't be describing on this particular program along the options, but pause the recording. Have a look at Page 33 see if you were advising the Land Lady or you were the only what options have you got. Think about the modes of conflict, what seems to be more or less appropriate in all those situations and have a look through having had a look through everything on Page 33 let's run through very quickly because there's quite a lot of information there. The options that the land maybe has on this is taken from my experience of being a tenant with the Land lady on trying to agree a particular outcome. I have to say I wasn't renting from me. Show five other picture that we saw a few months ago. So what approach on cleaning? Well, I think there's a collaboration there. A certain found its attendant. I couldn't clean floor if I didn't have a mop to clean it with, didn't feel it my place to buy mops and so on mops and buckets. So providing the right sort of things for the tenant to use appropriate accommodate the fact that people gonna live there and therefore cook if they smells, are particular strong and extractor fan extractor hood. Maybe some things that would help their decoration. But there's uninterested thought. His perception is that it needs a particular maintenance. Her perception is that he was hard on the place well, again, not understanding how compensation defective building particular bathrooms, extractor fans linked the lights or very important and so forth. And I'm sure you like May of state in hotels with extractor fans no longer working on the that particular bathroom is looking a little bit suspect. So what's the compromise decorations? Come back to that point in a moment deposit? I don't think. Is it much compromise there? If you should lay down what the requirements are explained that duration of the lease Well, I found when I was renting a few years ago, before where I live now became available, rented with family Children in schools. We became quite helpful to the landlord because we agreed. But rather than have the six month for coin hey wanted we wanted longer. So you find the house we're looking for. We agreed a slightly longer period to save in the cost of re advertising and indeed having the place empty. So we guarantee a particular duration, then that was better from his point of view, because 12 months at a given price is a lot better than nine months at a price with three months of no rental tool. So the duration of lease is something that could be negotiating compromised. Darden. Use work. You can't really define that until you know what the garden maze. What's the low land lady or tenant wanting? Use their garden for being Elena or Billy? No. Mates is none of her business. It's simply none of his business about Ignore that one inspection of property. I think that's important if you're a property owner, but there needs to be a little bit of a compromise there. How that could be done. Joint tenancy with partner again, depending on the who the individual is. I think it's quite different from sub letting that slowed down maintenance. There may be a compromise there. I'll come back to that relation decoration noise. Well, I think that may be competitive about that stable. Aziz limits to noise, particularly between hours off se 11 p.m. And seven. I am just delivering close proximity seems a reasonable thing from most points of view, and I'm sure if you're a property sister and boundary disputes, of course, of one of the most extraordinary frustrations of most living places terms, conditions, cancellations collaborate on that parking world get depends on the space but may be setting parking spaces very clearly with pets rental payments, rate reviews subletting. I think you define the rules, and that's it. So be very competitive on that on time. Keeping daily arrival departure Well, if she understands he is on shift pattern and therefore may be coming going. But he will accept the arriving late slamming car doors or crunching up drives and so forth front doors. Maybe something to think about. The reason I picked up on the the decoration on the maintenance I rented some while ago with mates. My quite a large house broke up some flats, two or three occupants to reach flats on Daza collection as a group of us then lady passed on. Sadly on, the son took over and he wanted to release the capital property before he did. Anyone rates up to pay for maintenance probably haven't been maintained. Particularly rents were very modest. On it was a pal of mine lived next door. Hey suggested that between us we would develop skills to maintain the property redecorated to a standard appropriate to his building inspector, which we agreed to do on the basis that for the next help him in a not so. It was about six months that he kept the rents of the former level on. Then when it was redecorated, raise the rents as tenants. We all thought last great good idea on that. Prompted me, Teoh, get off the sofa and start finding my first property to buy. This is when I lived in London. Hey, got the value not just from the fact that the place was decorated to a standard appropriate. Not just that he got the opportunity to raise the rents, but the property value far outweighed anything he was going to be losing as it were by not raising the rents in a shorter term. So quit pro quo. It helped us. It helped him. We looked from his point of view on that it wasn't me who came up. The idea is I have to say that if you learned from somebody else that there's other ways of looking at exactly the same problem, so I hope that's useful. The next part has to do with remembering the negotiating process, the approach that we take as a bit of a reminder on what I want to finish on having gone through that part of it is to explore how we deal with 30 tricks. Do you remember when I spoke about that? He drinks right at the very beginning that this is about how to defend yourself against them, not how to employ them. So what? All those tricks that are being used in the negotiation will try to derail. Well, it is interesting when one looks at these, because most of the tricks that I'll be talking about over 20 off, um, mostly there to gain advantage by compromising the process of negotiations in or to get a stronger handle on the content. So in that respect, what we have to do is to re negotiate the rules off conduct on much of what we've been talking about throughout the fundamental and the advanced program are related to Harvard principles. These are a group of principle negotiations set out rules of conduct, if you will, from Harvard Business school, and that's really what I've been following on this, these two programs. So when we negotiate the rules, the first thing we must do is to recognize the tech. So one of the great advantages going through these 20 or so of them is that you recognize them because so often we see some of these things happen and think, Oh, well, never mind or put under Put it down to experience or I won't negotiate with him again. Recognizing the tactic means, But we can then raised the issue explicitly. And, as I said a moment. This isn't about calling anybody names or relating a particular trick to a person. Attributes of behavior is not a personality type. It's just the way that somebody chooses to behave. So we need to raise the issue explicitly on, then to say, Well, is this an appropriate way off conducting our discussions between being based on hard principles, etcetera? On what comes from that, of course, is three reciprocal test. You see most of these dirty tricks there. Okay, if they use less than full disclosure, they use particular bending off the truths or near it might be so called untruth Maybe it's alright. They do that, but it's certainly not a lot of you. So it doesn't past The Americans call it reciprocity, but we just call it a reciprocal test because most often do not. It's not acceptable for both sides to use these. Once that is raised as a beautiful issue, then it is brought down. So these tricks are important to understand. Report no on. It's designed sometimes to create conflict, to get a handle on emotions, to force you into a particular approach to upset on make you behave in a way that you otherwise wouldn't. So it's about negotiating out of conflict. We know the moves, but we need to know how to use them on the practice and tactics are inherent here. It's not just enough to be able to read about them. It's about practice again and using them in the appropriate fashion. So some of the words and phrases that I'm alluding to sounds very well when you listen to them, but there's no substitute for practice in terms of negotiating conflict. I think the first thing we need to understand is separate people from the problem. You see, if you think somebody's lying and you call them. That's just going to be inflammatory. Andi clearly will upset some people. They feel they've been rumbled. So how do we do that? Well, clearly, first thing we need to do is to say that they would like to take a moment if I may, to adjourn for a mile so I can check the source of the information just giving me or something like that. Are you calling me a liar? No, I wouldn't expect you would call me a liar. I wouldn't. I want to call your lower, but I do think we both would want to make sure that the information we're giving has been substantiated in some guy's. Rather. In other words, you're alluding to the reciprocal nature off the situation. And it's about problems, not about people of give you a little guide on that in a moment, because what we need to do is to focus on the interests, not the positions. We often say. The words we use is, what's your position on this? What we need is what your interests on this you see, Len Lady talent, the positions they have changed, their always on and always attended. But the interests of the landlady's interests of the tenant alluding to exercise we had a short while ago is clearly going to be important. Focus on the interests. Then it's more important, not the claimant. It's not the defendant, because those positions no changes the interest of those sides, which is so important when we've done that. Well, then we'll have more options to explore options for the gain on both sides. It's beautiful, it's mutual. The mu tal ity of gain is so important because that's, after all, what negotiations are all about Onda. We could then decide what it is that's going to be substantive. Eso that it is objective and you know what they're getting. It's in black and white. It's defined in some way on the objective criteria is the final agreement on not the emotional factors that come into play. So these are fairly generic and your singers we go through each of the dirty tricks and I look at them, we'll be coming back to these core approaches to dealing with the conflict that occurs from somebody one party using a dirty trick. I think it's worth recognizing to define what we're negotiating is about. This is drawing on something we spoke about. Fundamental levels effectively were negotiating a better outcome than we would from not negotiating it also. Why see if we can have a conversation to improve on mutual situations on before we start, we need to know the limits. We talked about this on the fundamental program live. It is described as a Batman and, as you see here is the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. In other words, if your negotiation breaks off, what is the fallback position on having that fallback position is absolutely fundamental to know before you go in to a discussion. Now batter is not a French mineral water Batmunkha do relates to the minutes on each side. You'll remember from the fundamental program. If you looked at that rather coming straight into this more advance program that offended will have a range of options, they may chosen Point might be zero. I wanted to go away, but they may discuss up to a certain point where their limit may be agreed. Their limit might be just putting a figure on it. 1000 don't get hung up on the absolute numbers It's the fact that there's a range of options on claimant point of view, then the claimants minimum. If they don't get more than 750 then they'll have to go to some other device to get some sort of conclusion. Arbitration, mediation, exceptional courts. Even then, the claimant may have their chosen point the top into the scale, uh, much higher. So these two batters thes two limits are very, very important because in discussion it will be discovered. They overlap. Therefore, there is an opportunity to negotiate a better outcome that by not negotiating a tool in this situation, it may be that the the claimant could get Maurin then than the defendant pay less than their maximum. Therefore, there is a better alternative by negotiating. But if it breaks off, then knowing the limit the back now as it is so important, that means, therefore, that you are now equipped to negotiate on the bases off a particular endpoint and see whether you can get a resolution is better than that particular endpoint on. Then you could decide whether the tricks being employed would force you to break off negotiations or indeed deal with the dirty trick and then come back in to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Okay, well, let's have a look then, at some of these dirty tricks, because when you're dealing with a very skilled buyers off legal services, for example, we all presenting our professional services may come up with that. We have to recognize that these four areas are absolutely fundamental women negotiating this girl buyers that we use thes full. I put him up again. Just a reminder, as we go into look at the various areas, recognize them, raised the issue explicitly about personalizing it isn't inappropriately to behave on doesn't pass a reciprocal test. Einstein is credited with saying, You have to learn rules the game, and then you have to play them better than anybody else. So that's fair enough. What are the rules of engagement and then play them better than you are faced with? So let us explore what we mean by some of these dirty tricks. First of all, hands up who, uh, listening into this program thinks there's such things is difficult. People. Well, put your hand down because there is no such things difficult people in negotiation. But there are such things as difficult behaviours mentioned it on the fundamental program, but reiterating here as a reminder on for those who haven't seen the program is to remember in a negotiation it is not your job to reform character. Leave that to the psychiatrist what it is about occupations like terrorists. When we were developing ourselves in our personalities and our young formative years, pretty school, even we would work out core values about ourselves on the way in which the world worked. Getting some ideas from people in the more senior position. Parental position, carers, nursery nurses What have you? Those core values are deep inside us, and outside of that is a layer rather like the layers of an onion that have a set of attitudes and beliefs. Beliefs of ourselves, beliefs about other people, beliefs about negotiating with different bodies in state agent banks, sisters, accountants. You know those beliefs are there, and what happens on the outer layer of the onion is that we have a set of behaviors. Now, if you as a negotiated come up against somebody who exhibits these behaviours, which is, after all, what 30 trips about then we have the potential for some dissidents or conflict between the core values on what we think is acceptable. Boom. There is that problem. So your behaviors when they come up against somebody else's behaviors, it's not to go to the deeper level and trying to resolve the core values somebody holds. But just to decide whether or no those behaviors are congruent with appropriate way of behaving. And this is why setting up a negotiating policy for the firm we talked about that right beginning setting a particular code of conduct is so important to make sure the brand, your firm and your personal brand is protected by principled negotiations. Okay, well, let's turn them to look at the key dirty tricks, and I've tried to bring them into some reasonable structure to understand where they come from. I think there are those who will be out to deceive on the degree to which we wanted to see if somebody calls very on deception is something to be very much wear off. Remember what I said before? If somebody is deceiving, you don't call him a liar because that's personalizing the problem. So we look at a whole variety of different issues under that heading There are those that will put some pressure on you. So called psychological warfare keep you waiting in reception, not turn up to the meeting, not respond to your emails. You can only talk to the secretary. All of those things, a psychological warfare will come back to how we could deal with those. And then the last group is to use a set of approaches to put unreasonable pressure on you. Maybe time scales or something like that. Teoh put pressure on you to respond in a particular way. So we'll take each of these three on D. C. Whether we got some ideas on how we can deal with them. Let's turn to the first on look at deliberate deception.
00:26:00
-
Written and recorded by Mac Mackay
let us explore a number of different areas to do with deliberate deception on this is quite interesting area on quite a number of different headings here. It's very important that we respond in the appropriate fashion. As I said before, calling somebody lie isn't really going to help. Even if you feel you're being aggrieved, let's have a look Then at a number of these, when somebody says anal good faith, well, you remember that negotiations are independent off good faith on one side, another, they are indeed independent. Trust it not suggesting again that anybody else is untrustworthy because that personalizes the problem. But there are a lot of untrustworthy people about. So let us make the agreement independent trust so that there could be no doubt on either side because the reciprocal nature we want to be able to make sure that we are able to reach a particular conclusion in a particular way. People will come at you with information that you find difficult to believe and has touched on before. Then it's perfect breeze more for you to ask from German to research to find out the information that you've just been given isn't true. Or indeed, whether or not they can substantiate it on, of course, is a tricky ploy to deal. Deal with where somebody's coming up with something. What do we do with this? Well, I think it comes back first and foremost to make sure that I research is thorough. We understand the other party. We understand their perception of various issues we're getting to validate the perception they have and explain exactly where they're coming from. Andi, ask somebody, quite reasonably, to substantiate the evidence that they are bringing forth the bear, not from any point of view, other than the fact that the nature of that would be entirely reciprocal. I think one of the dangers many, uh less seasoned practitioner will have is to believe they are talking with somebody who can take a decision on behalf off the other party. Unfortunate. What can happen that there you are busy talking to the business about Thedc revision of legal services or something like that? And they said that sounds fine to me. Let me take that to my boss. Well, what do we do? First foremost? That's one of the first things we must do is to check that who were talking to weaken, define their limits and authority. What is their ability to reach a conclusion on If you get into confirm that they could sign the contract and then later on, suggest that needs to be taken to the boss before signature, then refer back to that first established precedent that you had before that they did have some authority? If nonetheless, they persisted, saying, Well, this must be ratified by my boss, for example. Then you must be prepared to say, Well, that's absolutely fine. I will agree with this, provided your boss, but also agrees by Thursday, whatever times getting without amendment than I to consign. If, however, he or she should come back with some amendments, then I must be given equal opportunity to review my situation on decide whether or not those amendments are something I would agree to. In other words, it's not holding you to an agreement without making explicitly clear they are creating a situation which they want to have the room for maneuver, but suggest that you don't doesn't pass the test of reciprocal nature. So something to be aware off to make sure you set it up outset, manage the process and then deal with. We discussed this fundamental program. Some corn adjourned. Close would agree what we've agreed. And if we come back things changed. Then that's equitable on both sides. Equal. Do you visit tensions? Well, this is an interesting one. It's very different to be prescriptive here. But essentially what we're saying that something said, Oh, I'll make sure this happens. That happens on Do you think? Hang on a minute. What if they don't do those things on? As suggested in the note that you'll find there is opportunity to get people to explore what other options you might have dubious intentions has covered on Page 38 is a narrative there about trusting a client to behave in a particular way, and you set up a contingent agreement that if they don't behave in that way, then there's a kicking set of circumstances because they're going to insist they do it. You just get him to agree their 100% certain have a look at the narrative. Maybe a few clues less than full disclosure Now, this is not about whether they would disclose everything. It's not about the deception, fax. It's perfectly appropriate not to disclose. One is present, uh, details of one situation. But why would you not disclose fully disclose one's thinking? What do you do if you are someone if she or he is prepared to offer that they don't give a direct answer? Well, here what we need to do is to make sure that we've got the narrative explored that we can. I agree that we won't. I want to do this on a reciprocal nature that one would lead one other to mislead or misinterpret all attempts somebody to behave in a particular way because it doesn't pass a test of reciprocal nature. Of course, otherwise, if people aren't being straightforward, then you may have to go to a responsible for the party, which may not help either party to get the reservation they need. Whether that's arbitration or mediation will indeed even the court so Aziz a matter of coming up with appropriate phrase useful there when it comes to negotiation decoys. This, I think, is a very difficult one on comes down to be able to manage the discussions in such a way. Essentially, what they're doing is to say they are interested in something in you negation on that and then they dropped their interest. What they're doing, in fact, is to leave you left with an offer on the table and you don't get anything back in return. So the exchange on its it is Sonics tactic. How do we deal with that? With quickly? Thorough preparation will be so important to do that and to make sure that things are related. If they change, you then have the opportunity to say, Well, I can't stand. You've taken away something I thought that was important to you. You say it is no longer important. I'd like to revise my situation. The packaging we re spoke about on the fundamental program on the basic nature off bargaining will be equally important when they're saying one thing and then changing their mind. Remember the mantra. This is all about process. In order to get control of contents or something, we need to be very well aware off. Okay, so you got most thing sorted in negotiations going very well on. Then they'll say, Ah, yes, but you're just about to reach some sort of agreement on. Then they'll say, Oh, you are going to include this and you are going to include that. How tempting. Having spent a long time negotiating getting self tired, they want the last two or 3% or whatever it might be anything. Yes, Okay, now that is just nibbling, nibbling, living. In other words, what they're trying to do is in order to make it a conditional clothes, that you give them something significant. Don't get caught by that. Be aware off the trading principle. If they do this, then they do that. So if they can cover this, if they can pay for that, then they can get this. So you end up with that mutual useful agreement. Most important, of course, is to recognize the tactic because without recognition you can't do anything about it. So we explicit. I thought we had an agreement. You're now asking for something that seems quite significant, but you haven't mentioned is before. Surely it's in my interest to put all of our needs and constant eyes demands clear so that we can negotiate accordingly. Rather have that next layer next layer being taken between us related to that a little bit is cherry picking and effectively, what happens your maybe negotiating Teoh getting agreement, legal services with a client or something. And they said, Oh, yeah, but But the competition will do this. The competition will do that. What they're really doing. In this case, it's say, Well, OK, the best deal from Firm A is this. The best from Firm B is that you are firm. See saw. I want the best of both A and B. Clearly, your offer is not matched against the entirety of a or the entirety of B. What they've done is to try and cherry paper better options. How do we do this? Well, draw the other side's attention to principal trading concession making and explain the Northern Deal. You need to do with a whole picture that need to gain something in return in order to get this from a and that from firm B, for example, then there's gotta be something. It comes back to you in order to balance that. It may be challenging task of bringing the buyers expectations back down to Earth on get a better deal in that way. Uh, similar to cherry picking, of course, is the usual issue about supply and demand on make sure there that you are very, very clear about what is really available. How different are you from your competitors? What are they doing? Comes down to preparation and so forth, knowing what your limits are, knowing what other people's limits are and making sure that your enquiries could be backed up. Don't take their word for it. What the competition is doing. It's a matter of you finding out a bit more about what the market is like. Everyone else provides. This is standing well, yeah, okay, sometimes very difficult. But it's certainly worth exploring whether or not you're going to be deceived in this way. So that's deliberate deception moving on promptly. Let's explore the next area, which has to do besides psychological warfare. And what this is about is to put you in a very difficult situation. I've had this when I've been negotiating internally between one division of my firm. When I was in industry Onda, another in a different place. The stressful situation demanding I was flying on a Sunday night to the head office is in Leo for nine o'clock meeting on. Of course, I have to get up very early to get Dr To Heathrow, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera will fly overnight on Sunday, breaking up my weekend and then saying, Well, the meeting has been postponed until two o'clock at the very last minute. They knew that I had a flight back at a particular time. So stressful situations. Well, what do we do with that? Well, I think you need to recognize and what they are. Know what your Batman is build in contingencies to do with that, dealing with telephone interruptions and so on and so forth. Make sure that the behavior is acceptable. Make sure that these things are sorted out well, before hand on deal with some of those stressful situations where it happened to me, in example, gave the second time they thought that I had a flight back Monday evening. But I explained I was gonna take some vacation, so I was quite flexible on that was in Russia, Deepak, stay through the the Monday night when we got a particular agreement on internal transfer of chronic supply. Whatever the negotiation deal Waas on, they realized I was gonna be fazed by being put under stressful situations. Some people will have the personal attack, so you are rather two year aren't you to negotiate with somebody is senior may. Well, what do we do with this? Goes back to the rules of the game. Recognize that somebody is making it personal? That wondered why somebody felt it appropriate to bring up my age. I wouldn't think it appropriate that I brought up your ages. You've bean very senior, much older and so forth. That would be wrong with me to suggest that somebody older is out of touch. Let's take the personal attacks out of the equation because you, if you listening, do develop your own reputation. Negotiation based on the merits off the negotiations, not on the personalities involved. And you'll have lots of body language, bits and pieces to do with that Personal attacks. Recognize the raised. The issue is legitimate. Is it desirable? Doesn't pass reciprocal nature, as the saying goes back to a role generic approach with these things but number that's worth exploring. I think the common thing. You see this with buying second hand cars, you look at a car on the on the four course, it's it's therefore £5000 you say to the chap, Well, my budgets any 4.5. So can we agree on four and a half? Because what's he doing? He's flinching. Why? He's given a body language signal. So you mean to say, Well, okay, maybe that's a bit low. Maybe I better off for a bit more. So let's let's call it for 7 50 He's just flinched. How do you react to that? Well, I think it's an important thing to recognize it and say, Well, I've just offered you 10% reduction. Why are you surprised that I went out for a 10% reduction and then see what he says? Because all you've done is watching flinch. And then you've upped your offer. So the flinch is some to see. Question why they do it. What are their expectations? You have recognized it. You've seen that you are surprised by their reaction. Was this something? It's a bit of a tell in poker. If you will know why that was there. I noticed You look surprised. What were you expecting? The notes in the workbook will give you some narrative to explore in the head. Okay, Now I love this one. The good guy. Bad guy, It's a really old cop story, isn't it? If somebody think what I would do this but my my other half weren't for your negotiating around the table and somebody seems to be very friendly and somebody driving a very hard bargain said, What's going on here? Well, we've all seen it, um, raised the issue explicitly and say, OK, good cop, bad cop. What's all that doing there? Um so raised the issue. Say, reminds me if I get a flash in my mind on good guy bad guy, So you get that flashing your mind. What's going on here? Good cop, bad cop. You'll see the image in the notes on question it. Why would you want to use that ploy? Should I bring in a colleague who's going to be the good guy or the bad guy so forth? So is it reciprocal on recognizing for two days and make it look a city? Is it it is. Difficulty, of course, is when somebody says, I agree. My client won't and that's a different situation would come to that I think are important to recognize under the heading of threats that they are not legitimate, a difference between the threatened warning is fairly straightforward. If you threaten somebody, then you must follow that through with a particular behavior if you like. Whereas if you warn somebody that there will be a certain circumstance, it is down to them whether or not something is invoked now, the subtle difference there is sometimes a little bit difficult to say it. It sounds a bit semantic, but to say if you should bring in another interest that I haven't yet explored with you when I'm approaching agreements, then as a consequence of that I will have to re negotiate for my sight all those things that you wanted on we have thus far grade. And it was that's a warning because if they do that, but then this leads to a set of circumstances on leaving them. But have you they don't want that. That is farm or legitimate farm or legitimate. To warn people as a consequence of the action or inaction leads to a set of circumstances. Well, that, therefore, is down to them. It is their choice, the threat, of course, in regards you too carried out, so recognize it on make sure that people understand that you are going to be responding to threats, but you are going to treat people amicably and so forth. There's a couple bits of narrative in the notes again to help with that one. Finally, the dirty tricks, including positional pressure tactics, taking a particular styles, taking her response that makes life very difficult for you. The most common these, of course, it's going themselves in position. There's undue pressure being forced upon them, one of which is a refusal to negotiate. See you in court. What do you do? Well, this is a difficult thing, particularly with some of these positional pressure tactics on. What we need to do is to give people an opportunity to back down without losing face. So recognized the tactic, setting you up to a big concession at the outset to get the discussions going, setting preconditions for negotiations, another variant and so forth. So OK before making any concession, Then why would they negotiate with you? Do they have a problem of your position, your situation, your authority, your age, your qualification or whatever it might be? One other options Have you got if not to negotiate with you, then third party, maybe by mediation. Maybe we do. But in writing run personal maybe, sir, private individuals to assist or something like that. Maybe it's to help support insist on the principles off mu tal ity here, the rules of engagement on Would you like to set some preconditions before negotiation with that? Help both parties to have the dialogue. But I do know that somebody used a rather difficult deploy a while ago refusing to negotiate, and I was told what they did in return the other party whilst to set their fax machines to automatic to fax every fax machine in the building with simple instruction. Please could get this message to Mr Smith because before the reason they're not responding on it didn't take long before somebody caused a bit of a rumpus on the phone. Started to ring. So a difficult one by all, means very difficult to do. What about the principles that need to apply? What's the best way forward for both sides on get people to come to that situation. But do not, under any circumstances, offer something before you get into the table. The extreme demands is a classic one. They go high, you go low. I think that's a very difficult one to deal with it. So it's a common one. We do get to see it from time to time on Rather van. If they you know, you see a house on the market or something like that and they put in a very low bid or something like that, you put in very high bid. Whatever the demands are, it seems, killed her. I think the best thing to do in that situation is being justified. How do you think I could accept that selling a car for £5000? They offer four. Why do you think I was going to give a trader percent discount just because you turned up? That did seem a bit extreme to me. What do you think I'm going to accept? How do you think I can accept 20% less than market value with Glass's guide, Parker's guy or whatever it might be? How am I gonna fill the void between what your offering? What I'm after? How did you calculate that figure? Where did it come from? So forth? Why do you think that's convey, not arguing that it is not going to accept your asking them. How did they calculate it? Why should you accept it? How do you think you can handle 26 discount? So those extreme demands can be dealt with a number of different ways the escalating demands and suddenly different, I think what happens here? Every concession. They won't They want more back so forth and may reopen issues you thought Agreed. Thistles tries decreases the overall concessions that you they have a psychological effect to get a quick green. Probably change the mind games, recognize it, call it to their attention. Asked for a break to see if you wish to move any further, insist on the principles test the reciprocal, reciprocal nature off. This isn't acceptable that you also come up your own Do get even partial agreement in writing before negotiating all the remaining items. Ah, lock in tactic requires us to explore different ways of dealing with this on what I like to get you think about it is a golden fire escape. How can they back down and look good in the good old Hollywood musicals picked with the grand entrance? By coming down the stairs onto the stage? Well, they need to come down. Why? Because people like to be making this majestic entrance, So give them a golden fire escape. Fire escapes tend to be down the back of buildings. They back down without losing face and it's golden. They look good. So when somebody comes in, but it's this or nothing, don't engage your horns. Pretended, inheriting. Say to them that before either of us. UAL then took a particular decision that would compromise our options for mutual gain. What you'd like to explore is other avenues, maybe take a break, maybe deal with that. And he emphasizes that bacon back down. The hard headed partner is a bit like the good cop bad cop, I'd agree, but my other party, my wife wouldn't agree or whatever whatever. If you recognize it and you are unable to discuss it with the other party than life may make it very difficult, which means that they, if they can't negotiate to get a better solution with the other partner, then they risk derailing the whole situation so they may not get the agreement. They want anything that you do have agreed, get it in writing. I think the deadlines is a difficult. One must have it done this week. I must exchange contracts this week and so forth. Well, okay for time passes, do you call their bluff waiting the right time, high cost and high octane game as well. Most delaying tactics are thrown out there to get you to force a particular conclusion. Well, negotiate about the tactic, making explicit questions of validity off it. Find a fading opportunity yourself or something like that and so forth. The objective conditions that could be placed to establish the deadlines may be valid, but make sure that there's some understanding on if there are no valid reason for deadlines begin to unpick it. The calculated delay is similar, but having a a delay that's designed Teoh get you to respond. They stop responding. You give him another concession to help respond. Don't fall into that trap on, uh, make sure that they're not being used to derail the process overall. Again, it's about negotiating on the process. Take it or leave it. Our 22nd in the list is it's this or nothing. Don't forget the negotiating approach off involving a golden fire escape. Don't accept that you've heard it looks other way ways of doing it. What other options have you got on the table? Look for options for mutual gain on find some other solution. That golden fire escape, I hope, is useful message for for you. I often hear it's company policy. Well, that's fine. But in this situation are may ask. Well, who wrote it? Can we have a conversation with them? Because that policy is getting the way of a mutually satisfying agreement. Company's policies were written on somebody else may have to be in touch to do that. So I may politely ask you originally formulated a policy price or whatever the situation might be on. They may not have thought about the options for that. I couldn't move on that because it's company policy. Well, if we were able to change the policy, would you be able to move on? The answer is obviously yes. And if they would well, in what? What way would be beneficial to you to look for an amendment to company policy in this circumstance, on so forth on At the end of the day, what we're aiming to do here is to make sure that we don't become victims. So over 20 different approaches that I hope you find useful. Page 46 of the notes has a whole variety of top 10 deuce and doubts to help explore some particular options. So there's the positional pressure tactics to put a predictor, make you feel uncomfortable, like to finish off with something I call negotiation gaffes. And in my experience off being a buyer, being seller of working in tendering, working in international environments, there are a number of different areas that do cause a little bit of a problem. So just to run through a few of these, which I hope you'll find useful on, makes him notes along the way. I think the first thing is that we go into negotiation, assuming that people are going to be a fair, we are, Well, don't fall into that trap because there are some pretty miserable people out there that just because you are fair, there's assume that other people are gonna behave likewise. Do make your negotiations independent defenders independent trust and make sure that they are robust and take people out the equation. People do not say what they mean, uh, neuro linguistic programming, listening to communication tools. People do not say what they mean. So you need to make sure that you're investigating properly, researching properly, preparing properly, challenging in the appropriate fashion, not personalizing the question, but to just make sure there's charity on both sides that make that way are in the habit of giving too much away. People will think that if they gave something away, then they're going to get something back. Unless you're running a charity and you are giving something away, don't for into that that trap of giving too much away make everything conditional. If somebody does this, then you'll do that another. Would you make sure that they are clear about what they're going to get on the fundamental rule of negotiations? Everything is conditional. And when you are only acquiring into to ask somebody for a concession, ask somebody for what you want. Ask somebody to change their position, change their view of things, change their options, maybe something that is worth exploring, and I find the negotiations. People never agree to that. But unless you ask, you don't know, don't ask, you'll never know that. Therefore, it comes down to preparations so forth to make sure you're ready with that. Don't forget that Every negotiator is happy to think that what's in it for me? So what is in it for them is the other side of the coin. We talked a lot about this with the land lady, the tenant concept. What is in it for them? Find out what's in it for them. Test your assumptions. Ask the questions. Get the qualification of find out what's going on. We tend, particularly in the UK here not to haggle. We tend not to do that, but unless you're a regular visitor to options or car boot sales or wherever it might be, the ability to haggle is actually quite interesting. I don't think it works in Tesco's or other supermarkets, of course, but I do think it works in a lot of other environments for high value items, furniture, stores and so on. So forth. What are they looking to do? They're looking to cover The cost is the minimum looking at a profit, then assumes you take costs plus a reasonable profit. You get a different haggling position, so I think that is worth doing. And then finally, don't forget the mantra that failure Prepare is preparing to fail. I think that's really the biggest Gaff that I've ever seen has been going on. They know exactly what they want their needs, wants, desires that clients needs, wants desires. But the left hand side of the page, the other side is empty. Right hand. One side is Google. They're things they walked to the other side. He's empty, sort of fall into those gaps. And then finally, just to summarize this program, it's been an absolute joy to run through this and remind myself a whole variety, different areas in the program. Overall, we've looked different strategies that you can employ to open in a strong fashion. We've looked at dealing with conflict. We've looked at it from the point of your own options. You've got five different options in five different five ways of handling conflict. Over playing some means you underplay the others and having some flexibility is crucial. We've looked at emotional intelligence, and whether or not that's gonna be a value to you in gaining concessions and getting a better deal. That's for something to explore. Onda. We looked at some of the defences against well over 20 dirty tricks. So that's it from May. Don't forget that the option off having a in house program is going to be one of the more successful ways off taking some scenarios on practicing some of these in a situation where you can get some feedback on the skills, the facts, the detail is the science of negotiations with skills that you have as a negotiator is the art. Like most art, it needs practice on a little bit help along the way. So thank you very much indeed. For that, I've thoroughly enjoyed talking to you on If we can help, please get in touch with Data Law and afford to see you in person rather than just on a recording film. So thanks very much now. Bye bye.
00:23:00
