Showing posts with label Negotiator. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Negotiator. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 16, 2020

Trust In Negotiations.


 
Last year I included the following as part of one of my Blogs - It is even more valid today.


Trust:

Trust is built up over time between parties. It becomes established as agreements are honoured exactly as agreed – not just once, but every time.

Trust is a major part of a relationship, a corner stone.

Trust allows each side to “know” how the other party will act, not just an expectation but a promise that will be fulfilled. 

One can expect (and be right) that secrets and confidences will be kept. The parties know if the trust is ever broken it can never be repaired.

Deals will be delivered to the letter – exactly as agreed, not distorted, misinterpreted, reneged upon or ignored and forgotten.

If changes have to be made they will be discussed and agreed in advance.

The parties know the value of trust (and the cost of losing it).

In Business: 

Trust is very difficult to maintain because:
  • Employees are for ever changing.
  • Market and economic pressures do not remain constant.
  • Greed for profit / commission or bonus have a negative impact – relationships are expendable when there is a quick profit to be made.
When an individual does not understand complexity, consequence, sustainability and the long term, they do not understand trust, relationships, integrity and partnership.


Friday, June 28, 2019

#Negotiating Lessons from #Brexit Experience - Lesson Five - Deadlock

-->
The UK Westminster Government have been in deadlock, even stasis, for many months; a situation of its own making and repeated at various levels. This state of affairs means that we may have participants involved who do not know how to move forward: do not understand how deadlock works, how to analyse it and seem unable to listen or take advice and so are caught in the headlamps of stasis. Whatever the case, it is not good for the reputation of Parliament, the reputation of MPs, the knowledge and experience of Government Ministers and their advisors – both Permanent and bought in.

Problem One – Deadlock should always be under control – Your control. It is a very useful tool or weapon depending on the nature and style of the negotiation. Even if one has not set up the deadlock, one should see it coming and be able to manage it.

Deadlocking is useful

because:

·      The cost is cheaper than having to negotiate.
·      The political cost is often cheaper than moving to another tactic / strategy (e.g. General Election) – but only if there is a way out.
·      It buys time to work out new strategy or tactic and review objectives – after all they more no longer be realistic or achievable.
·      It provides time to sort out Negotiator / Negotiating Team if they are not up to the job – have personality issues with the other side – have lost credibility.
·      It applies pressure of time and silence on the other party which may force movement.
·      It allows one party to frustrate and irritate the other – although this is a risky game.
·      While in deadlock one does not have to negotiate. Remember, negotiators often will create long and varied arguments designed not to persuade but to deadlock. These tactics keep the other party engaged – give the appearance of a negotiation but are in reality a means of stopping the process.
·      Threat of not negotiating and deadlocking may not be real but is worth suffering than changing a deal and may be rewarded by the other side backing off.

The current deadlock besetting the UK is under the control of the EU.

Why? Because:

·      They have done a deal with the UK and to renegotiate is a precedent. To recognise a change in PM as a reason for renegotiation is a precedent. The value of the unity of their 27 is higher, far higher, than the UK being in a mess.
·      They do not want the UK to leave the EU and whilst deadlock keeps UK as a member state it suits both EU and Remainer factions.
·      Maintains a Status Quo
·      Buys time for moves by Remain parties to frustrate, build strength, undermine Leavers.
·      Allows time to use persuasion to rehearse arguments of the benefits of EU membership
·      Maintains the unity of the EU amongst the 27 members.
·      Enables “Business as Usual” during deadlock period
·      International business will reposition their assets within the EU to avoid the uncertainty thus benefitting EU states
·      Provides time for a change in the Commission, EU Parliament etc.
·      Causes UK Leavers to “think again”.
·      Keeps the strategy of “While the UK has not left there is the chance they will remain.”

To break out from the Deadlock the costs to the other party (EU) have to be escalated so that the advantages of negotiating or getting on with the leaving process outweigh the costs of maintaining the status quo. The position that the EU is blocking is to allow the UK to negotiate new trading relationships right now which might give it an advantage and demonstrate the value of being independent and fully sovereign outside the EU. Having been a member for so long and an architect of this rule makes the current situation very ironic.

But of course, until the EU has set up the new appointments to the offices of the EU it will not be ready to change anything. At present it will not want to move anyway as:

·      Precedent – Maintaining the 100% solidarity of the member states is a priority. EU will do nothing to disturb this.
·      Face – Ensuring the Union is seen to be strong, united and the 4 pillars remain non-negotiable.
·      Concessions – Until the EU knows exactly what the UK wants from the EU in the long term it is unable to assess trading options. It only desires one thing (the UK to remain). Until the UK actually leaves, the current situation suits the EU.
·      It will be happy to take on the UK over outstanding debts, duties and contributions as the EU institutions and advisors all benefit from legal process.

At the moment the EU has to do nothing as the UK indulges itself in this stasis; primarily because of the internal problems besetting the Conservative Party. However, to the outside observer what has been learned?

·      The UK does not appear to have a clear long-term objective for itself which unites its citizens. EU membership or isolated independence are strategies without a coherent objective.
·      In not knowing clearly what the ultimate objective is, it is difficult to negotiate.
·      Without clarity of objective it is not surprising that outsiders are not clear how committed the UK is to anything.
·      There is no vested interest helping the UK to determine the way forward or selecting the right leadership.

When there is no clear set of objectives or goals to provide clarity of direction, then one must look at what must be avoided (the direction from which to retreat):

·      Break-up of the United Kingdom with Scotland leading the way for independence, followed by a “me too” campaign to unite Ireland as a common market.
·      A breakdown of the British economy leading to serious damage to our lead service industries and consequences to tax raising.
·      Loss of status as a Global Player.


It is a time for professional negotiating. The UK leaving the EU is not the problem – It is the need for experienced leadership to navigate the negotiating process with confidence. Far greater negotiations lie ahead which are being damaged already by the performance of the current players.

Wednesday, April 24, 2019



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

The intention of this site is to be able to exchange views and ideas amongst our growing community of negotiators. 

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 Negotiating

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

#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.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

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.

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.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

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.



Friday, May 29, 2015

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. 

Monday, March 29, 2010

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