Negotiating

… a core topic in Leadership Skills and Atlas109
and study materials for Week 15 of Atlas206 Internship Reading

win-win2Topic description

This topic introduces students to negotiation theory and how it can be applied in public management.

Note: In addition to elaborating a core topic in Leadership Skills and Atlas109, the concepts below constitute study materials for Week 15 of Atlas206 Internship Reading. The Atlas quiz can be found at Quiz 15 – Negotiating and Handling Complexity. All 15 quizzes for Atlas206 Internship Reading are available at Concept Quizzes for Atlas206 Internship Reading.

Topic learning outcome

Upon completion of this topic students should be familiar with the basic principles and concepts of negotiation theory, and be able to apply these to situations that arise in public management.

Core concepts associated with this topic

In addition to the core concepts of Competitive Bargaining vs. Cooperative Problem Solving; Fisher and Ury’s Four Principles of Negotiation; Negotiation; Win-Win, Win-Lose, and Lose-Lose Situations; and ZOPA – Zone of Possible Agreement, the table below includes 8 effective practices, four of which are the Fisher and Ury principles.

 8 EFFECTIVE PRACTICES IN NEGOTIATION
Action-Forcing Mechanisms

Advice for Women Negotiators

Dealing with Difficult People

Determine your BATNA and Reservation Value

Focus on interests not positions

Insist on using objective criteria upon which to base agreement

Invent options for mutual gain

Separate the people from the problem

Recommended 2 hours of study for Week 15 of Atlas206 Internship Reading

Concept pages from Negotiating and Handling Complexity

Leigh Thompson, Videos – Negotiating Tactics 101, Kellog School of Management, Northwestern University, at http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news_articles/2014/08012014-negotiation-tactics-101.aspx, accessed 25 December 2015.

Bob Behn (2015), On why all public officials need to accept (if only grudgingly) that There is No Silver Bullet, Bob Behn’s Public Management Report, Vol. 13, No. 2, October 2015, at http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/thebehnreport/All%20Issues/BehnReport%202015-10%20Oct.pdf, accessed 31 December 2015.

Richard Straub (2015), Why Managers Haven’t Embraced Complexity, Harvard Business Review, 6 May 2015, at https://hbr.org/2013/05/why-managers-havent-embraced-c, accessed 31 December 2015.

John Kay, Obliquity: How Complex Goals Are Best Achieved Indirectly, TEDx Talk, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BoAtYL3OWU, accessed 31 December 2015.

Complete Quiz 15 – Negotiating and Handling Complexity.

Recommended 10 hours of study for Atlas109 Leadership and Communication

Concept pages above and concept comprehension questions at bottom of this page.

Fisher & Ury: Getting to Yes: Chapter 1 (Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, (New York: Penguin Books, 1983, Book Summary from University of Colorado at http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/example/fish7513.htm, accessed 25 December 2015).

R. Nicole Cutts, Conflict Management – Using Principled Negotiation to Resolve Workplace Issues, at http://nl.walterkaitz.org/rnicolecutts_principlednegotiation.pdf, accessed 25 March 2016. Cutts references Fisher, R., Ury, W. & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin Books.

Leigh Thompson, Videos – Negotiating Tactics 101, Kellog School of Management, Northwestern University, at http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news_articles/2014/08012014-negotiation-tactics-101.aspx, accessed 25 December 2015.

Harvard Law School, “How to Improve Negotiation Skills, Win-Win Negotiation Strategies from the Pros.” (Free download available from http://www.pon.harvard.edu/free-reports/thank-you/?n=1&freemium_id=15988.)

Mark Young, Sharks, Saints, and Samurai: The Power of Ethics in Negotiations, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2, April 2008.

James Sebenius, What Can We Learn from Great Negotiations? Negotiation Journal, Vol. 27, No. 2, April 2011.

Susan Brodt & Marla Tuchinsky (March 2000), Working Together but in Opposition: An Examination of the “Good-Cop/Bad-Cop” Negotiating Team Tactic, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 81(2):155–177 (Science Direct link at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597899928790, accessed 25 December 2015).

G. Richard Shell, When is it legal to lie in negotiation? HBR Case Study, at https://hbr.org/product/when-is-it-legal-to-lie-in-negotiations/an/SMR003-PDF-ENG, accessed 25 December 2015.

Deepak Malhotra, Smart alternatives to lying, Harvard Business Review, July 2004, at https://hbr.org/product/smart-alternatives-to-lying-in-negotiation/an/N0405C-PDF-ENG, accessed 25 December 2015.

James Sebenius and David Lax, Three Ethical Issues in Negotiation, Negotiation Journal 2, no. 4 (October 1986): 363–370.

Vanessa Van Edwards, 2014, How to Bargain and Negotiate, 6-minute YouTube video, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uVaXHoQpDU, accessed 3 February 2016.

Reflections on negotiation by Mel Cappe

In early 2017, Mel Cappe (Secretary to the Cabinet for the Government of Canada from January 18, 1999 to May 12, 2002) was interviewed for approximately an hour by former Minister David Dingwall for the Ryerson Negotiation Project. The interviews can be viewed on the following two YouTube videos:

Recommended readings in MPP and MPA courses 

[TO COME]

Concept comprehension questions

CCQ206.15.01. Among the statements a-d pertaining to action-forcing mechanisms choose the one that is invalid or choose e if all are reasonably valid.

a. Deadlines are classic examples of action-forcing mechanisms, and are the most common way to manipulate time in order to induce a settlement.

b. Action-forcing events are clear breakpoints that force some or all of the participants to make hard choices or incur substantial costs.

c. Deadlines rarely lead parties to alter their goals.

d. Action-forcing mechanisms are external events or stipulations created in the course of negotiation or mediation that are designed to force parties to take steps toward reaching or implementing an agreement.

e. All of a-d are reasonably valid.

CCQ206.15.02. Among the statements a-d pertaining to advice for women negotiators choose the one that is invalid or choose e if all are reasonably valid.

a. Recognize that there is no substantial gender difference in salary negotiation.

b. Recognize that women need to make an extra effort to be liked during negotiation, foe example by expressing appreciation for the other side’s perspective, supporting arguments with objective criteria, and framing comments in positive terms.

c. Recognize that women who do negotiate their salaries and responsibilities are more likely to thrive.

d. Recognize that when you negotiate issues that challenge people’s deeply seated beliefs about gender, they may respond with moves that question your credibility and competence.

e. All of a-d are reasonably valid.

CCQ206.15.03. Among the statements a-d pertaining to dealing with difficult people choose the one that is invalid or choose e if all are reasonably valid.

a. When someone is being difficult, take yourself mentally to a place where you can look down objectively on the dispute and plan your response.

b. Dealing with difficult people requires coming to like them and even agreeing with much of what they claim.

c. Use your power and influence to help educate your opponent about the situation.

d. Discuss acceptable norms of behavior with a potentially difficult counterpart before you negotiate.

e. All of a-d are reasonably valid.

CCQ206.15.04. Among the statements a-d pertaining to best alternative negotiated agreement (BATNA) choose the one that is invalid or choose e if all are reasonably valid.

a. Your BATNA is not necessarily your ideal outcome but it is the best you can do without the other person.

b. If the proposed agreement is better than your BATNA, then you should accept the proposed agreement.

c. Your BATNA is the best one can do if the other person refuses to come to an agreement.

d. Your BATNA should always be revealed to your opponent because it will strengthen your argument.

e. All of a-d are reasonably valid.

CCQ206.15.05. Among the statements a-d pertaining to Fisher and Ury’s Four principles of negotiation choose the one that is invalid or choose e if all are reasonably valid.

a. Separate the process of inventing options from the act of judging them.

b. Focus on positions, not interests.

c. When the other party stubbornly refuses to be reasonable, shift the discussion from a search for substantive criteria to a search for procedural criteria.

d. When a problem is defined in terms of the parties’ underlying interests it is often possible to find a solution which satisfies both parties’ interests.

e. All of a-d are reasonably valid.

Page created by: Ian Clark, last modified on 20 April 2017.

Image: Axum Investments, at http://www.axuminc.ca/winwin-and-sustainable-business-relationships/, accessed on 25 March 2016.