#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.

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.

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.