#Negotiating Lessons from the #Brexit Experience - Lesson Three

Grandstanding.

Grandstanding may signal a range of messages which could have the opposite meaning to those intended. Good negotiators always think about consequences as part of their assessment of both objective and strategy - particularly those that may not be easily foreseen or may lead to the opposite of what is intended.

Trying to appear tough by taking “hard” positions. Making it look like a hard battle by using strong language, using argumentative behaviour, deadlocking. In fact trying to look and sound like their idea of a negotiator. This is not a good idea. And who are they trying to fool?

Not the other side of the table. Often this type of game is played out with the other side’s connivance. People forget that leadership is a very lonely situation; it is often only other leaders who appreciate this, and they are the sole ones they can trust (more than one’s own side). When you wonder who your friends are, they may be those sitting on the other side of the negotiating table.

Spectators want to see a real hard negotiation in order to accept the result.  Audiences want to hear strong language, to satisfy themselves that the “best” deal has been achieved. Agreements may be easier to accept if there has been a hard fought battle, often the reason for some of the "staged" battles in industrial relations disputes.

It can't be a good deal unless it takes time to achieve. Some cultures measure the quality of a deal based on how long it takes to achieve. If a deal is reached in quick time, it seems too quick, too easy and therefore not the best deal. This can lead to a staged ritual dance between the parties. Long meetings, deadlocks, ultimatums, walk outs, threats. All these are the dramatic tools of the grandstanding negotiator. Make it look as if the deal has been hard fought. Make the protagonists “look” good. Of course, while the "show" is performed, the real negotiation may be going on behind the scenes, in secret.

In talking about time, I am reminded of one dispute when I had to advise a negotiating team to go away and play golf as it had reached an apparent deal inside two months (a deal that more than matched their objectives). However the other side was not able to accept the deal until 6 months had passed even though it was also happy with the position. Their boss had said a good deal could not be achieved quicker than six months. So rather than try to force early acceptance, which would have been dangerous as it might have led to unnecessary concessions to buy the deal, it was better to go away until the time had passed. This kept everyone satisfied.

The danger of grandstanding is that the game (strategy) may become more important than achieving the planned outcome. The drama takes over and because it is so important to “look tough” the players cannot lose face by starting to soften their style (look like giving in) - even though this would provide the best and most efficient deal for the parties.

#Negotiating Lessons from the #Brexit Experience - Lesson Two

The Problem with Selling a Deal .

Most negotiators are wary of those who have to “sell” a deal in order to try to get it agreed, because the perception is that it not the best deal, right deal, appropriate deal or an adequate deal.

Most often it is politicians, PR specialists and Sales Professionals who are guilty of this approach. It may be because they often “get away” with using their persuasive selling skills that they grow to believe that they can sell anything. This misplaced confidence to be able to spin any outcome as being a “good” or the “best” deal is at best misleading and at worst lying. Whatever the view, it is not good practise and demonstrates a scant regard for the fundamentals and disciplines of professional negotiating.

One of the most common reasons for this selling behaviour is down to a failure to set clear objectives or  plan a proper choice of strategies. “We’ll listen to what they say, see where they are coming from and take it from there” one hears far too often. A plan which is focussed not on what one should be seeking (what one wants), but what the other side will let you have is weak, reactive and inefficient.

There is no substitute for well prepared objectives with well thought through strategies and contingencies. The focus should on what you want, pro-active and positive.  This all needs coaching and practise to build up confidence and courage.

It’s why we are here.

#Negotiating Lessons from the #Brexit Experience - Lesson One

Multilateral Bargaining - It is always dangerous to have separate, bilateral meetings when trying to get a collective agreement involving three or more parties, although often necessary. For the unwary and inexperienced it is easy to get picked off by more expert and prepared negotiators.

Having a private meeting with one party when there are up to 28 parties to the deal, can lead to making a concession unilaterally to each one in turn to gain each as an ally. All of the 27 other Premiers might ask for a different condition in return. This could lead to 27 concessions (favours) being made for just one gain. Using up considerable currency in a very inefficient manner. And if the deal does not happen, the other parties now know of 27 possible concessions that they might (should demand) gain during the next negotiation.

Buying favours to build up alliances can lead to secret agreements that are “called in” later as part of other deals. An ever present danger.

It is one thing to have informal discussions to “get a feel” as to how things might go in the formal negotiation - what interests and concerns the other parties might have, but to go beyond the preparation and investigative dialogue stages will be a step too far.

Once one has the “intelligence” gathered in, then comes the time to construct powerful proposal options which will bind in all the parties. This approach maximises the efficiency of one’s trading currency, but needs plenty of practise and experience.

Advanced Negotiation - Latest UK

There's a lot of talk - positioning - statements about rules and procedures - attempts to structure expectations, but the listening and whispering will be going on behind very closed doors.

Articles of interest:

FT - Fall in Pound may trigger wage negotiations..........

Global Government Forum - Britain turns to private sector, foreign governments for help on Brexit talks.

Business Insider - Germany might not care if the UK loses access to the single market

Independent: Donald Tusk: Freedom of movement is non-negotiable if Britain wants access to single market

Poor Negotiating - A Reminder

Whether the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland decide to remain or leave the E.U. there will be negotiations inside and outside the Kingdom involving organisations great and small.  But to negotiate with strength, control and authority there will need to be a much clearer set of objectives than have currently been defined and this will require a significant quality of leadership. After all, everyone I meet, who voted in the previous referendum on the Common Market, had no intention of it becoming what it is today; the responsibility for this outcome lies with the politicians (in government and opposition) who let it happen AND the failure of our democratic system to control them and keep them to  the outcome for which we had voted.

To date, the campaigns for In and Out have been chaotic and negative and for many of us  achieved one significant result - that the current crop of politicians and influencers can not be trusted to handle the consequences of any result the referendum might bring.

When coaching Directors and MBA students I find a common problem when analysing their negotiations. It is the inordinate amount of time spent on negative argumentative behaviour, when negotiations is about the possible. The more time wasted in arguing about what is not possible, probable, permissible or needed (what we do not want ), the less time there is for the possible and predictable way ahead (what we want that is possible). The negative, fear tactics are more in line with  PPI selling than the task of shedding more light on the critical issues that have to be weighed up by the intelligent electorate who will be making the decision.

It is the confusion between strategy and objective that highlights the leadership problem. The Referendum hustings are beset with politicians looking for media opportunities to “sell” themselves to their parties, constituencies, and funders in the hope they may get further up their particular hierarchy. They use the present opportunity as a personal strategy to gain attention. However,  the Referendum is only a strategy to provide a clue as to where we want to go. European Union Membership is only a strategy to help us achieve what we want as a Nation. What we want as a nation has yet to be defined, but at least we may be able to define what we do not want. Staying with the status quo may mean that we as a nation no longer want leadership, but prefer drift.

The parties with whom we will have to negotiate are all watching and listening. Our politicians may not realise it, but they are already in the early stages of the post referendum negotiations, and structuring expectations in a way that may not be helpful to us, but helpful to those with whom we will have to deal.

We need to toughen up.

Saying you are negotiating may not be negotiating!

Setting the prime objective of a negotiation as just “closing a deal (any deal)” is not negotiating and dangerous. It underlines your priority objective to the other side giving away leverage on the one hand and leaving one no exit if deadlock occurs.

However many may think that they are negotiating when they are saying they are trying to get the best deal. It is not. It is giving in to the other side before you start. It puts all the control in the hands of the other party and you get what others are prepared to give you / let you have - not what you want and only what you deserve.

Being seen to negotiate by  going through the motions of negotiating - meetings, discussions, arguments,  - may just be grandstanding for the audience. Trying to make it look tough and difficult to get an agreement are old games which have been played out many times over  hundreds of years which should not fool anyone these days. However, these little dramas are still attempted by the inexperienced, less skilled and under-prepared performers - especially if PR gets in the way.

Often the other side will go along with this game. Why? Well because they may have to protect the relationship between the parties by playing along so as to humour them and keep them from embarrassing themselves. Protecting the other side’s “face” is often important - especially in the world of politics and international affairs.

Anyone can say "yes" just to get a deal, but it will be a deal on the other party's terms.

Negotiating for Europe #5 – Discipline at the Close

Beware Last Minute Nibbles.

During the end game, there were some public declarations that a deal was close and that there were just a few minor details to sort out. I suspect that these declarations of being nearly there were made more out of habit and in hope than in all seriousness. It is common for many negotiators and hagglers to try to push for concessions in the end game by bringing up small demands whilst dangling the prospect of a deal. The hope is that the incentive of reaching the deal, especially after long and protracted sessions, may be so inviting that unconditional  concessions will be easy to secure. Most often it is Buyers who use this successfully when dealing with Sellers who just want to secure a deal. Trades Union negotiators use it when they know a Management team is under pressure to get the deal and get back to work.

The tactic may have worked in previous rounds of these Greek Debt negotiations, but this time, after all that has passed, this was not going to happen. As Trust has been lost, it has been important to make sure that all the required conditionality was in place and was going to be “honoured” if an agreement was to be reached and to work.

The German position, as reported by Paul Carrel of Reuters, was made clear by Ralph Brinkhaus, deputy parliamentary floor leader for Merkel’s conservatives:

“The more money is handed out in one stroke, the less leverage one has to stop payments if the reform process in Greece does not pan out as planned and as promised.

“A lot of trust has been lost in recent months,” he said, adding that aid should only be provided in return for Greece delivering reforms.

Read more: http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-senior-german-conservative-sees-open-questions-on-greek-bailout-2015-8?r=US&IR=T#ixzz3igZYLg7g

The lesson in the end game is to make sure that all concessions are traded against the agreement of specific conditions. That if a last minute concession is being sought it is traded on agreeing the deal and bringing it to a close. The concession being traded should be small and conditional that the deal is now done. And if trust is a problem, it should be agreed on the basis of everything being clearly understood and how it will all be implemented and what the penalties will be incurred for failing to honour the accord.

The Negotiating Gifts from Greece - 3# - Be Sharp but Beware Clever Clever

Experienced Negotiators Know how to use a Weak Position to Advantage

1. If you are in a Lose / Win situation your options provide plenty of scope to be proactive by making proposals or pursue varied strategies. After all, you have nothing to lose. Proposals can be realistic or unrealistic depending on whether you wish to move forward or just buy time. Strategies can be outrageous in a multilateral negotiation with many parties, as the complexity  of the situation and the needs for a level of unity protects (and hampers) all.
   
2. Following the old negotiator’s adage “one is always in a stronger position than one thinks”, and taking courage; being proactive and making a proposal can bring surprising results:
1. It can steal the agenda,
2. Give uncommitted parties something to work with,
3. Force a response,
4. Seize the high ground,
5. Control the deadlock.
   
3. Pursuing varied strategies and tactics can lock the parties in a dangerous and escalating competition in which each tries to prove their ideas are better (more clever) than everyone else’s. This is a modern day negotiating curse - being too clever in developing smart games, gambits and tactics - brings in high risk as strategy becomes more important than the original objective.
   
4. Beware that being sharp is not confused with being clever, and being clever may be no better than being stupid.
   

The Negotiating Gifts from Greece - #2 - Kicking The Can Down The Road - Deadlocking

How to Deadlock the Negotiation -

1. Argue and keep arguing - whilst arguing you are not making concessions or even proposals. In fact you are not negotiating (attempting to secure an agreement). You keep the position in stasis by playing the argument game. Negotiations appear to be ongoing, but the reality is deadlock. This is used for many reasons - for example: to buy time - encourage concessions as the other parties surrender through frustration - allow deadlines to be overrun - appear to be fully engaged in the negotiation when not - grandstand to the audience (audience as in noise to listen to)
2. Unrealistic Proposals - making proposals that one knows to be unacceptable are designed to create argument - deadlock. It allows one to push the onus to the other side and make them responsible for lack of progress. It is high risk, but often tried. If the other side sees it for what it is it is matched by an equally unrealistic response. There are elements of this behaviour operating between the Greeks and Germans as I write.
3. Appeal to higher authority - referendum - seek the view of the electorate and use their answer to deadlock further.The danger is two can play at this game. Another matching game to deadlock the process or bring people to their senses.
4. Making an agreement but then take it away for approval / ratification and then finding all sorts of problems with it. Kicks can down the road, but attempts to set up opportunities to amend the agreement. Lots of this going on.
   

These techniques are used often by parties who:

• May not know what they want.
• Do not know what is likely to happen if they go through with threats or agree to something they do not fully understand.
• Have nothing to lose.
• Know it costs less to deadlock than to negotiate / make concessions.
• Find that by using frustration tactics they get rewarded - especially if some parties are keen to “get a deal”.
• Want to appear to be negotiating by being at the meeting, but have no intention of allowing progress.
• Think that winning the argument is negotiating - it is not.

The Negotiating Gifts from Greece - How not to Negotiate

Gift One: Preparation

1. A few lessons in How not to negotiate.
1. Being Unprepared hands control to those who would seize it. The lack of a clear idea of what the consequences of Grexit might be make it difficult, or even impossible, to have clarity of purpose or objective. Why has this not been done? Daring to think the unthinkable is a negotiator's skill (but not a politicians).
2. Two wrongs do not make a right - Remember where you start from. How good was the agreement that created the situation? Was the last agreement respected and honoured? Had either party carried our any diligence to check the integrity of the relationship?
3. What is the relationship like? Can it be repaired / improved through the processes of negotiation? How important is the relationship? Does it matter?
4. Membership qualifications were not met although the rules for membership are clear. The consequences for turning a blind eye were always clear to see. This should have meant that all parties should have been working to resolve this looming crisis years ago. However, it would appear that eviction from the Union is not catered for. (Another unthinkable).
5. No should mean No. But what does No mean in the Eurozone and European Union?
6. Poor strategy, but all too common! It goes like this: "Let’s see what the other side come up with and then make our minds up / decide what to do". Or: "We will listen to what they say and then tell them it is not enough" A typical buyers gambit but often leads to a game of slow surrender. It allows the skilful negotiator to set the agenda; it can signal to other side that you do not know what you want; it may signal that you are ready to negotiate when you are not (make concessions / surrender / change the rules / disunity).
7. Be realistic! - Objectives need to be realistic. Proposals need to be realistic (unless being used to cause deadlock). Can the terms be met? Would you meet the terms if you were sitting on the other side? If the objective is agreed, will it be honoured / implemented? Can you trust the other side? Can you trust yourself?
8. Objectives that are more about avoidance may be part of the problem. Avoid "giving in"; Avoid being seen / perceived as losing; Avoid evicting a member state; Avoid losing face; Avoid taking a "haircut"; Avoid being seen as weak by one's own electorate; Avoid giving in (set some other party up). The list goes on.

Negotiating and Risk

Poor Negotiating creates Dangerous Risk - You Pay in the End!

A key objective (and responsibility) of the good negotiator is to reduce and manage risk. The professional negotiator see these as fundamental and part of the constant set of objectives always on your list of objectives - Relationship, Risk.

•  To protect the security and safety of the organisation.
•  To make sure that in doing a deal with other parties, those parties will not put at risk the security and safety of the organisation.
• To ensure that there is adequate conditional protection built in to the deal.
•  To make sure all parties are clear about the penalties for not honouring the agreement in full.
•  That there is no doubt that the organisation and its servants have the determination to go through with the penalties and that is clearly understood by all parties to the agreement.
• That all parties understand that subject to the above, the deal will be honoured in full as agreed.

 However, in politics, being seen to negotiate may be more important than agreeing a deal. Sometimes there is no intention of going through with a deal anyway; it is enough to be at the negotiating table to buy into a club. During the process objectives, strategies and responsibilities become confused. Instead of negotiating to clearly defined outcomes, the game is corrupted by conflicting agendas - the original goal becoming lost in a fog of politics and vested interest.

 Politicians sitting around the negotiating table add risk by allowing their own personal objectives to influence their party’s objectives, their sponsor’s objectives and their country’s aspirations.  With this level of complexity at work, simple mistakes and hidden agendas can have very significant consequences! In politics we often see a reliance on trust - but trusting politicians is risky business. 

Negotiating Lessons from The Past

It is an interesting time to be working as an Industrial relations specialist and negotiating expert. The pendulum is swinging back towards another period of unrest as relations between “Management” and “Union” become increasingly strained. There is a fear that we might be returning to the 70’s. This is most unlikely, as today’s economic situation is very different. However, what we are witnessing are reminders of past lessons.

Issues of the moment in the current round of disputes include:

• Forced changes in contractual pay and conditions

• Pay freezes and reductions in benfits and conditions of employment

• Reductions in pensions , closure of schemes, major deficits in funding of schemes

• Job security (insecurity)

• Bullying and competitive management behaviour

• A challenge to industrial democracy and a perceived attempt at union busting

Many of these disputes have declined into attacks between personalities. Some are taking on new issues as situations grow worse and objectives become blurred. This is leading to deadlock followed by blame being directed across the table.

So what is going on?



1. Leadership Issues

 If a company suffers a strike it is the Management’s responsibility. It is part of the negotiating landscape. Both sides are responsible for allowing issues to escalate to the point where one side or the other has to take this level of action. An unwanted strike will be a failure of planning, communications, management of expectations, realism, sensitivity, understanding and more importantly, leadership.

If any of the current levels of dispute have not been anticipated by the managements involved, then both the dispute and the management are “out of control”.

Too often we see objectives which are unclearly specified at the outset become further distorted as a dispute escalates. Managements who pursue single inflexible strategies fail, even if the objective is reasonable and fair. Macho, confrontational behaviour to be seen as a strong tough leader creates intransigence, deadlock and out of control confrontation. 70’s behaviour. When both sides indulge in this behaviour they cease to represent the interests of those on whose behalf they act.

2. Listen to The Language

A key role for the Manager as Leader is to look after the interests of those they manage. It is the Manager who should be communicating company positions, explaining the challenges ahead, clarifying offers on the table and ensuring their employees understand. If this key channel breaks down, or is not trusted, then management leadership is failing and the vacuum invites others in who will have different agendas.


Engage with employees as employees. When a company starts to talk about “Union Members” rather than “Our Staff” or “ Our Employees”, it signals a breakdown in relations. The conflict is  described by personality not issue.

When the dispute is over, relationships will need to be rebuilt and then strengthened.


Key Negotiating Lessons:

Objectives need to be absolutely clear.

You should always review the impact on relationships. For management, internal relationships are critical; for investors they may be irrelevant.

Beware – Improved staff relationships will most likely be both an objective in itself as well as a strategy for managing change. Ask yourself:

• What kind of staff relationships do you want to have following the outcome of the negotiation?

• How quickly do you want to implement change?

• What will be the impact on your own employees if you pursue the current strategy?

• What is the best way to achieve widespread support? For objectives and strategy? To rebuild?

• Do you want the Management to represent the best interests of your staff or do want this to be taken over by others? Who do you want them to trust most?

• Listen more talk less

Auditing Negotiating Trainers

Some of my assignments over the past years have included audits of Negotiating Skills Training Courses and Trainers for clients. These have been to check that the quality of a client’s courses meet a standard that allows clients to have confidence that a training event delivered in the UK will be as good as one delivered in the USA or China. Also I have assessed trainers and potential trainers as they work with the material to see if they are able to deliver at the right level and with genuine authority. The real lesson from carrying out these assignments has been that Trainers without real experience as negotiators do not make very effective negotiating trainers.

The problems I see regularly are:

Sterile Delivery

• They do not understand the material they try to deliver which can cause confusion and false messages.

• They are not engaged with the subject and as a result there is no enthusiasm

• There is a lack of authority because they are unable to work outside the straitjacket of the script. They do not have their own experiences from which to draw illustrations and anecdotes.

• When using scripted stories, they are often poorly delivered and many times told out of context.

No Authority:

• Their lack of real “hands on” experience limits the ability to give credible answers and explanations

• Working to the script (someone else’s experience and expertise) is too easily recognised by trainees – once this is seen, the credibility is lost

• Relying on the crutch of a Power Point Driven presentation may provide comfort, but it does not build confidence. Need I say more?

• A trainer giving signs of lack of confidence encourages challenge and argument from the floor which can destroy the event for the other trainees

• Case work loses its effectiveness if a trainer without credibility attempts to critique participants


The Key Lessons:

Know your subject!

Work with an experienced professional who can train / present – they will provide the quality and teach you a thing or two. Develop a professional partnership

Be honest – If you don’t know the answer, admit it – it gains respect. – But make sure you can answer it next time

Get out and acquire some real experience of your chosen subject. Remember many are convinced the trainer has chosen to train because of past failure elsewhere. As trainers we should be the best passing on best practice.

Get some serious Train the Trainer development and practise practise practise

Negotiation Requires Courage and Talent: Get Organised - Get Ready - Develop.

As we go into the dark days of the winter and we batten down the hatches to weather the storm of Brexit and take stock about who and what really matters; this is a good time to look around, contemplate strengths and weaknesses, to prepare for the challenge ahead and to evaluate one’s resources. This is the time when you will find out whether you really have leaders within your ranks – really have talent. Anyone (almost) can play a strong hand if you are holding all the Aces, but it needs a lot of skill, experience and practice to play a weak one.

So, who around you has what it takes? Have you looked after them during the good times so that they will stay with you and be ready to cope with the tough ones ahead? Who are the ones with real talent who need to be better equipped to succeed and prepared to take on more responsibility? Who is ready to take on your challenges?

Now is the time to “cut the crap” and focus on development that really makes a difference and will give a real return; training and coaching that will draw out the talent, build the confidence, excite, energise and motivate.

Profit from adversity – be courageous – use the time – build the team.

Make contact through our site - Sharppractices.co.uk

The Power of Proposal

The Power of Proposal

Gordon Brown is benefitting from being the proposer of the bail out solution which has become the framework for others to follow. It is a very good example of how a realistic proposal will dominate, especially in a multi lateral environment when a solution is needed very quickly.

The problem with the idea behind the initial US option was that the White House had not proposed a “realistic” proposition in the political sense, which is why it did not have the support or momentum from Congress. By the time the UK had finished its “behind closed doors” discussions between the Bank of England and the FSA (along with other private discussions), the World was desperate for an idea that could be clung to as alternative to disaster. The UK proposal worked politically and financially as a start.

The slight hiccoughs from Germany, and the problems in Iceland and the difficult Irish suggestion (dangerously expensive and unilateral for others to follow) helped the UK proposal be the “only game in town”.

The proposal was powerful because it was conditional, addressed the immediate issues on most sides, provided safeguards and had the pressure of urgency on its side. It was deemed to be essential to stabilise the markets.

The alternative would have been an unsightly public competition between western leaders over who would be the “one” to save the world. The arguments would have been partisan and divisive.

Having established this workable proposal, we now watch the modifying and packaging of the core elements into variations which better suit the different national markets. The next serious problem will be how disciplined parties will be in honouring these agreements.

You can only Spend it Once (WIGIG)

One of the fundamental rules of negotiating is to ensure that you know the real value of your concession before offering it conditionally. So before making a proposal, it is wise to know all the values in play, know all the priorities that need to be addressed, and sensitive to those of one's partners. Additionally, know the level of risk. If it can go wrong it will! If you are going to make a generous offer, then make sure that the conditions match it.

The problem in today's highly dangerous climate is that there are so many “unknowns” to consider; so much that we know that we don't know - that it is high risk to throw one's money around without a clear grasp of how complexity works and what might be the consequences of a hasty gesture. You only get to spend your money once – spend it wisely – but only when you know all the risks and have a very clear – crystal clear – view of the impact of the investment. Will it really have the affect you anticipate? Does the market share your opinion and your analysis?

This is no time for grand gestures. There is nothing new about today's problems, it is just a bigger mess than usual.

Strategy defeats Objective.

“We will do whatever is necessary?”

The objective of these words is probably to calm the worries of all of us with deposits in banks. It is also to be heard as a sign that someone is on the case - appearing to be in action. The reality of the phrase is to signal that there is not a clear idea of what needs to be done at this point in time. Blanket phrases often deliver the opposite message to the one intended. Instead of confidence, it develops worry. Instead of calm it generates genuine concern. It demonstrates that something has to be done, but not sure what. Worse, there is a message of knee jerk responses – reactive not proactive – not thought through – waiting for someone else to take a lead.

But the problem of strategy clouding objective is one reason why the current economic situation has developed. The Banks wanted to grow their profits, the Directors of Banks wanted to see their share prices rise and their own ability to earn bonuses be certain. However, the real objective of a bank is to offer a secure and safe deposit for other people’s money. Allow the bank to use it in a responsible way in return for reasonable interest and security. The covenant between the banks and the community they serve is one of security – it appears they have forgotten this, blinded by greed.

The opportunity for considerable profit from financial instruments developed by mathematical wiz kids proved too much. This is the very old – age old – problem of being deal struck and greed struck. The salesman already spending his bonus before the deal is done. The deal being done for personal gain – never mind implementation and delivery (that’s someone else’s problem). No management control, no focus on critical objectives (security) and a belief that someone will bail me out. No responsibility – no integrity. "I was only following orders."

Welcome to Scott Roberts Negotiating

Hello and welcome to  all of you who are interested in professional negotiating.

The intention of this site is for us to be able to exchange views and ideas amongst our growing community of negotiators. It is also a good medium through which to update members about developments and events at ScottRoberts Negotiating

As a group of interested practitioners, we will also comment about some of the more significant negotiations on-going in the world; negotiations which will or might impact on us all.

Feel free to use this site, and to build it into your own personal development schedule.

Best Wishes and Good Negotiating

Mike Roberts

Founder & Partner - ScottRoberts & Associates