(The THOMSON case or shop steward)
Is he generally difficult or only difficult with you?
It might be you that is the cause of the difficulty and not them.
Their behavior is their business but let their (your) behavior not affect the outcome.
Do not encourage behavior by giving in: concentrate on the disputed issues by concentrating on the merits of the case or by the principle of trading
Realizing that his behavior is not going to influence the outcome does more to change his behavior than confronting the behavior directly.
- The pseudo game of passing the blame and responsibility for the alleged
damage of the strike to the other side
- Employers who agreed with their employees that they had a right to go on strike
but that their strike would not affect the outcome would fare better.
- Letting them know how effective their behavior is by showing how much it upsets
you only reinforces their behavior; ‘If my manner hurts you the remedy is in your
hands - give me what I want and I will stop bullying you’.
For the Purple Negotiator toughness is the resolve to come to a traded outcome..
Combine red and blue; red conditions combined with blue offers.
The three elements of dealing with the difficult negotiator are:
1. Cut the connection between
their behavior and outcome
(their behavior is their
business not ours; our
behavior is our business
unconditionally); and combine
2) and 3) as our behavior
strategy into a ‘package’;
2. Decide on the merits of the
issues; and
3. Negotiate exchangeable
tradables.
Negotiate exchangeable tradables.
Making progress with a Purple style in an Red negotiation
The Purple stylist places an emphasis on what he wants to do rather than justifying what he feels he must do.
Break the negotiations down into smaller parts to measure the risk and style of the other party. Purple stylist breaks up the process into numerous little games of Prisoner's dilemma.
To open with own vulnerabilities like problems with deadlines or cash flow could be dangerous. The determined Red negotiator always exploits the too open Blue negotiator what is seen to be a weakness.
All the activities summarized by ‘SAQSS’ (Statements, Assurance, Questions, Summaries and Signals) are measured risk Blue behaviors. None of them are sudden-death risks.
Negotiations tend to concentrate on issues and the positions people hold on the issues.
Interests – overriding motivator – why somebody wants something
Issues – agenda item – what they want, expressed in positions
Positions – focus of stance on the issue
Example: A wage rate is an issue, £20 an hour is a position. An adequate standard of living is an interest.
Disputes are about positions but their stances are driven by their interests.
Therefore dig to identify the interests of the other side so that the proposals and offers can satisfy both your own, and their interests. Interests can be used to change the positions, and therefore facilitate settlement.
Some interests are irreconcilable (the Irish Troubles) those interests may become an obstacle, not facilitator, to a settlement. In those cases it is best to concentrate on reconciling substantive issues and positions.
Test the style (Red or Blue) of the other party
Reverse deal to test the style
If a fair proposal is made by yourself to another party and it is rejected, turn it around so that they are offered the same deal you asked for. If that too is rejected, out of hand, you are dealing with a Red style play.
Agreement without quibble
If other party agrees to a contingency without a quibble he must be pretty certain of his forecasts (price profit). Similar tests are common with delivery dates and for performance standards (with penalties for failing to meet them).
Conditional proposition or a red demand joined with a blue offer, ‘IF–THEN’
Conditional Purple propositions trump all styles.
In the Art of the Deal Donald Trump says: ‘If you have what the other person wants, you have a deal’. Negotiation is about getting what you want from someone who wants something from you. That’s trading – a purple conditional style.
The Purple stylist understands what the Red player is up to (a Red ploy recognized is a ploy disarmed) and can indulge in some controlled ‘Red’ behavior to send a signal or to test the intentions of the other negotiator.
A printed contract is the written expression of the distrust each partner has of the other.
The over detailed contract says that you do not trust them (especially in Japan). In other contexts, a contract is a useful test of somebody's intentions. If they are willing to sign the contract, then they are willing to be bound by the written obligations and promises they made in the negotiation. If they are unwilling to sign a contract then they are not to be trusted at all. However, if you insist on a contract, you might cause offence by making them think that you do not trust them!
Being Red is a short-time advantage.
Module 8 Rational Bargaining?
We have seen that behavior and willingness to co-operate often determine the outcome of negotiations, but irrational behavior and lack of trust result in non-co-operative play. So is rational bargaining possible at all?
You negotiate because it makes you in some sense better off, because you both expect to gain something over what you have before your bargain.
John Nash’s economic focus
John Nash’s solution to the bargaining problem is about what makes one solution better than all the other potential solution, not about the process of bargaining or human behavior.
Nash is solely interested in the content of the solution, and takes an economical approach.
Nash assumes:
Highly rational bargainers
Equal bargaining skills
Full knowledge of tastes and preferences between bargainers
Utility maximizing behavior
A tradable has a certain numerical utility to the bargainers
Example of a negotiation based on Nash:
The Nash solution in a Negotek® PREP format
With Nash the bargainers would agree to exchange the goods in whatever way that maximized their joint gains in utility (utility product).
Bill
|
Jack
|
Goods received in trade
|
Utility
|
Goods received in trade
|
Utility
|
Gains
|
Loses
|
Gains
|
Loses
|
knife
|
6
|
2
|
book
|
4
|
2
|
pen
|
10
|
2
|
whip
|
2
|
1
|
toy
|
4
|
2
|
ball
|
2
|
1
|
|
|
2
|
bat
|
2
|
|
Total
|
20
|
-8
|
Total
|
10
|
-4
|
Net gains
|
12
|
Net gains
|
6
|
TWO WAYS OF NEGOTIATING A TRADE:
Zero sum/ non-cooperative behavior
Non-zero sum/ cooperative behavior
Share with your friends: |
