Negotiations

Negotiations:

Negotiations Dr. H. Kwame Afaglo ©2011

Negotiations:

As a prima facie, negotiations is mostly thought of bargaining, however, bargaining is an aspect of negotiations. Hence, if parties do enter into the process of communicating (either written or oral) with the aim of achieving or protecting their reciprocal interests and come to some level of an agreement to carry out an activity or exchange products(goods or services), it is claimed that negotiations has taken place. Negotiations

Negotiations:

Negotiations Concepts to be noted with negotiations are the following: Parties involved. Interest. Communication. Reciprocity. Agreement. Exchange of product(s). Negotiations occur in everyday of our lives, so it is an inevitable activity in business transactions, international trade, conflict resolutions and international dealings in general.

Negotiations:

Negotiations An intrinsic exploration of the main facet of negotiations will thus improve comprehension of the subject matter. Parties – Proverbially it is said ‘it takes two to tango’. Nonetheless, with negotiations there could be more than two parties. There must be a want, need or wish that a party or different parties have and are holding onto and it is desired by another party or parties.

Negotiations:

Negotiations Simple put, there must be at least two parties involved for negotiations to occur. These groups could be: small or large, legitimate or illegitimate, with followers or without. All the same, these parties represent various lines of reasoning with the fundamental aim of satisfying or protecting their interest.

Negotiations:

Negotiations Interest – Without interest in a product, there will be no negotiations. Consequently, interest is not out of the purview of negotiations. Note, if one of the parties does not have any interest, negotiations tends to depict only one extreme, i.e. a ‘walk through’ which is synonymous to receiving a gift. E.g. It is relatively easier for a multinational corporation to get a parcel of land at ‘virtually no cost’ from the hinterlands of least

Negotiations:

Negotiations developing economies of whose ownership is entrusted in the community leader. Even as of date (2011) some hinterlands have vast non-utilised land and without second thought, they will release it to investors. Case in point, is the release of large parcel of land for establishing Universities in Ghana. However, if both parties have a strong

Negotiations:

Negotiations interest and non-compromising positions, the propensity for negotiations to stall is high. Instances, include the non-compromising nature of Conservationist groups to pollutions by industries. E.g. Green Peace demonstration against Nestlé’s use of genetically modified food for the Asian market sometime in 2002. Again, the 1999 Green Peace ferociously demonstrated

Negotiations:

Negotiations against plutonium fuelled nuclear weapon movement from United kingdom (UK) to Japan. The penultimate and last examples are situations where both parties are not prepared to negotiate and so hold onto their high grounds. In those circumstances, negotiations can not take place. These are cases of extremes, where the conservationist

Negotiations:

Negotiations have the protection of Asians as their interest whiles Nestlé and UK have monetary returns as theirs. It is worth understanding the negotiation grid as table 1 on the next slide and the graph as figure 1 on the subsequent page shows. This fore-knowledge of costing and time involvement, willingness to negotiate and interest positions is worthwhile understanding prior to negotiating.

Negotiations:

Negotiations Propensity of Negotiations grid (Table 1) Interest Willingness Degree of negotiations Time involved Cost involved Party A and Party B no interest. None None None None Part A interested/ Part B not interested Indifference to Average Average (Dependent on persuasion or cajole or use of force etc). Short Minimal Party A and Party B have mutual interests High Detailed (Extrinsic and intrinsic) Exhaustive High

Negotiations:

Negotiations Propensity of Negotiation Curve (figure 1) Degree of Negotiation Interest No Interest Party A Interested Party A interested Party A not Interested for both parties Party B not interested Party B interest Party B not interested.

Negotiations:

Negotiations Partisanship in negotiations is strongly tied to interest positions from the beginning. Groups to be noted are in various forms and interest biased as earlier mentioned; small or large, legitimate or illegitimate, with followers or without, with authority or without.

Negotiations:

Negotiations Various groupings and their interest focused can be noted especially in conflicting situations, e.g. that of the Niger Delta region of Nigeria and Shell. The various groupings involved are; Government – Legitimate authority with majority voters. Chieftaincy – Legitimate authority with minimal followers.

Negotiations:

Negotiations Shell – Investor with corporate social responsibility. Civil environmental movement – Legitimate without followers. E.g. Sarowiwa Small Scale oil tapers – Illegitimate with followers. Resistant movements – Illegitimate without followers Resistant movements – Illegitimate with followers.

Negotiations:

Negotiations The Political leadership of states in Europe. Of recent (2010) UK parliamentary elections that observed the Conservatives leading the polls, but did not have enough elected parliamentarians to take the seat of Prime Minister, hence they negotiated with Liberal Democrats (per polls results they were third but for the essence of negotiations). Consequently, we have The Prime Minister as a Conservative (David Cameron) and the Deputy Prime Minister as a Liberal Democrat.

Negotiations:

Negotiations Communications – In other for negotiations to be effective there must be a centric loop discussions (both written and oral) among all interest groups and not some groups. When there is the presence of the following circumstances i.e. complexity of issues, conflicting interests and more than two groups, negotiations can be forwarded by a go-between (intercession team). Discussions must first start with private meetings with each of the identified interest groups as noted on early slides (slide 14 and 15) and the intercession team.

Negotiations:

Negotiations During the communication stage, it is the remit of the intercession team to establish the following as in presentation (Conflict Management at Workplace http://www.wiziq.com/online.../211690-Conflict-Management-at-work-place ) Interest How it occurred? Genesis of phenomenon. (When it started and its developmental stages). Expectations and obligations. Exploring leverage positions. What if circumstances change?

Negotiations:

Negotiations Ideally, intercession teams can effectively start their duty in a non-aggressive environment. However, in practice, an intercession team is invited when relations have soured or at the aggressive state. E.g. The hostile bid by Microsoft and Google to acquire Yahoo in 2008. Also, that of Tesco to acquire Safeway in 2003. In both cases, established regulators smoothly resolved the impasse.

Negotiations:

Negotiations After intercession team have met with all groups separately, the round table communication is the next step and it seeks to explore leverage positions as per scheme in figure 2 (next slide). Advantages of step 1 and 2 communications Communications in negotiations has the following advantages; Amelioration of anxiety – Private meetings between interest groups and intercession teams thus minimises the anxiety and step 2 also assist in reducing aggression among feuding parties.

Negotiations:

Negotiations Opportunity – This stage opens the window of opportunity to mostly subordinate(s) or followers to express their perspective of events or misgivings. Simultaneously, it also serves as platform for senior management or those in authority to listen to the other parties and explain their position in details. Communication serves as a health platform for re-dressal of grievances.

Negotiations:

Negotiations During intercession team meeting with all parties, it is the team’s responsibility to moderate events and they should be the centre of the communication wheel. Simply, this will minimise aggression, intimidation and most essentially, compromise from all parties involved. Further, the spatial arrangement should not

Negotiations:

Negotiations be the ‘We vs. Them’ but the round table format that is interfaced by members of the intercession team serving as buffer and the intercession team leaders in the centre again serving as moderators. The communication loop diagram as figure 2 (next slide) is a combination of spatial and information lines.

Negotiations:

Negotiations Centric Communication Loop (Figure 2) I ntercession team Leaders Party A Party B Buffer Party C Party D Buffer Buffer Buffer

Negotiation:

Negotiation With the centric communication loop as illustrated (figure 2), communications can break down during negotiations, however with the many buffer in place it is relatively easier to be restored based on relationship built (informal and formal) and information collected by the buffer teams and intercession team leaders respectively. Similarly, when negotiations stall, the buffer team play significant roles in restoring it.

Negotiations:

Negotiations Flinch - Abrupt seizure at any negotiations stage is mostly attributed to flinching. Some flinching could be benign as absent mind, destructive activities (kicking table leg repeatedly, chuckling, etc.) to severe ones as a walk-out. Effective negotiators use flinching as a tool of perceivably attaining high grounds. Nonetheless, with the presence of buffer teams and leverage objective, its impact could be minimal or unnecessary.

Negotiations:

Negotiations Reciprocity – Besides information sharing during stage 1 and stage 2 of the communication process, there is the high propensity of intercession team being aware of whatever each party intends to gain and whatever it wishes to trade. With these information as fore-knowledge based on exploratory attempts of stage 1, the intercession team must work out leverage for

Negotiations:

Negotiations all parties involved and bind them to it with a contract that is time bond. Contents of leverage must be realistic, simple, achievable and time bound. The management acronym SMART, could guide all parties involved. Costing and timing are significant factors to be mindful when negotiating. The longer the period of negotiations the higher the cost involved, the tendency of aggression creeping in and other splitter groups rising is high. So, the intercession team needs to keep an eye on these factors.

Negotiations:

Negotiations Agreement – Before a party can accept a leverage position as recommended by the intercession team, it is worth having enough information of the other parties position and work along comparative advantage. Due to the perceived weakness of comparative advantage and leverage position vis-à-vis leadership change, it is worth, agreement reached be time defined. Else,

Negotiations:

Negotiations over time, change in leadership of one party could off-set the whole negotiation process. An example of comparative advantage and leverage position is per table 2 below; Item X Item Y Item Z Item Xi Item Yi Item Zi Item Xii Item Yii Item Zii Party A 10 0 0 6 4 9 4 6 7 Party B 0 15 0 2 8 9 3 6 8 Party C 0 0 27 2 3 19 3 3 12

Negotiations:

Negotiations The leverage positions of items are Xi, Xii, Yi, Yii , Zi , Zii while if all parties hold-on to their initial positions which are X, Y, and Z respectively. Attaining any of the leverage positions is a plus for all parties involved, since they trade some of their positions as an item in exchange for others that they do not hitherto have. Specifically, either of the leverage positions as Xi, Yi, Zi are as worthwhile as Xii, Yii , and Zii .

Negotiations:

Negotiations Upon parties approval, a signed document is raised to establish an agreed position for a defined period. Exchange of product – Actualising a signed agreement is equally an important aspect of the process of negotiations. At this stage, the formation of an implementing committee becomes undeniable. The implementing committee will ensure exchanges as agreed

Negotiations:

Negotiations under leverage positions are not only signed but also seen to be effected. Business negotiations are concluded with actualisation events as sod-cutting, exchange of products, celebration of first exchange, among others. These types of actualising agreements are as important as the whole negotiation process. Do note, this presentation is not a full proof

Negotiations:

of negotiation methodology, but one that ensures relatively quicker process, at least cost and ensuring all parties achieve a reasonable progressive leverage at its end. Thank you Negotiations

Negotiations:

Negotiations Reference Afaglo, H. K. (2009) Conflict Management at Workplace Available from www.wiziq.com/online.../211690- Conflict - Management -at-work-place [Accessed on 8th April 2011] Green Peace Internation (2002) Greenpeace protests against Nestle’s double standards on genetically engineered food World's largest food producer must change ways Available from http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/nestle-double-standards/ [Accessed on 8 th April 2011] Green Peace (1999) Greenpeace Protest First Stage of Plutonium Shipment to Japan Available from www. greenpeace .org. uk /.../ greenpeace - protest s-first-stage-of-plutonium-shipment-to- japan [Accessed on 8th April 2011] Noble, T. (2007) Improving Negotiation Skills: Rules for Master Negotiators USA. Law Office of Thomas Noble P.C. Ward, S. (2009) 5 Ways To Negotiate More Effectively: Improve Your Negotiation Skills To Improve Your Bottom Line Available from http://www [Accessed on 26 march 2011]