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.