Monthly Archives: May 2011

Don’t fall into the trap of always using your favourite behaviour type in negotiations – it is important to select the right negotiating style for the right occasion. This includes situations where your decision is to “compromise”, which is the desired style in the book “Getting to Yes” by Roger Fisher and William Ury.

Even here you can use a variety of styles to achieve your outcome. You can use “push” behaviours such as stating expectations or using incentives and pressures. You can use “Pull” behaviours such as listening, exploring and focusing on common ground. You can use “join” behaviours such as visualising and describing positive outcomes for both parties. Or you can use “parting” behaviours such as “recessing” and “adjourning”.

All of these behaviours have their place in a strategy of compromise. Different styles suit different stages of the negotiation. (Generally “push” is more useful later in the deal and “pull” is more useful earlier on). Equally different styles can suit different people you are dealing with. No use relying on a “push” behaviour like “proposing with reasons” for example, if the person on the other side leads with their heart rather than their head. So, even if your chosen style is “compromise” there is more than one behavioural style you can use to achieve it…

Written in response to this article (insidearm.com)

The 3 way negotiation between BP, its JV partner AAR and Rosneft over Arctic exploration rights seems to have taken an unexpected turn. Negotiations are apparently over after BP failed to meet a “deadline” imposed by Rosneft. It would seem that both Rosneft and AAR have been using high pressure tactics here. AAR initially resorted to Court action to stop the deal as a backdrop to their negotiating stance. Now Rosneft’s deadline pressure is a classic “tough guy” tactic.

Pressure tactics are usually the preserve of “users” in negotiation – those who seek to gain an advantage solely for themselves and not for the other side. The best tactic to deal with these people is to stand up to them and make their behaviour the issue – otherwise they will keep doing it.

So, BP may have made the right call in refusing to respond to deadline pressure from Rosneft. This now puts the pressure back on Rosneft. If they stick to their deadline they will have to find a new partner to negotiate with. If they don’t stick to their deadline and resume the negotiation with BP, then they will have shown that their ultimatum was just a tactic and their negotiation credibility with BP will be much weaker going forward.

It was timely for the Prime Minister of Pakistan to visit China last week (see article here) as an alliance with a partner of this kind potentially gives Pakistan extra “scale” or “weight” in its discussions with the US, and these are recognised sources of bargaining power.

However, on closer scrutiny this development probably makes little difference to US/Pakistan relations. The Pakistan government has “security” negotiating needs with the US – fulfilled by large supplies of cash and other resources. It also has a constant domestic negotiation going on with its own radicalised Islamic population where it also has “security” needs – hence its ambivalent attitude to the war on terror.

China has an interest in friendly relations with Pakistan, but it is unlikely to want to supplant the US as a major supplier of cash and other resources. Equally, China, with a large Muslim population of its own which it wants to control, is unlikely to be any more in favour of Pakistan’s semi-tolerant attitude to extremists than the US is.

If, as a result of this, the US does not feel that there is any real threat that Pakistan could ever substitute China for its relationship with the US in its international dealings, then the US is unlikely to feel too anxious or threatened about a one-off visit by the Pakistan Prime Minister to China.

The successful negotiations in California between the Health Services and the fast food chains (see article here) is a good example of how “visualisation” behaviour can help people “join” together in a negotiation. The parents of those committed to fast food could visualise how a healthy regime would benefit future generations of their kids, and the fast food chains could visualise an opportunity to capture more (currently healthy eating) customers, as well as, no doubt scoring points for social responsibility. The article calls this “inventive negotiation”.

Once you can see that both parties want to join then it’s possible to find “coinage” on both sides to cement the deal. “Coinage” is a low value concession from one side that meets a high value need on the other. So, it doesn’t cost a fast food outlet much to provide apples and milk as an alternative, because either way they are still going to sell something to customers (whether it’s fast or healthy food). Equally the fast food families had nothing to lose by joining in with the scheme since all they were agreeing to do was visit fast food outlets they wanted to go to anyway.

Joining behaviour is great in some cases, but can only work where it’s genuinely possible to visualise and paint a picture of future outcomes that encourages people to “join”. That is not possible in every negotiation, and sometimes the parties resent moves to “join”, particularly if they are suggested too early in the process or there are some bitter feelings dividing the parties. So, it was a great tactic here and can be a very helpful tactic often, but won’t always work….