Module 4

MODULE 4
ENGAGEMENT PLANNING
_________________________________________________
1. INTRODUCTION
Effective planning and preparation are the most critical elements in achieving
negotiation objectives. Those negotiators that achieve their objectives invest many
days and hours in planning for a negotiation. Results without proper planning occur
by chance rather than by the efforts of the negotiator.
To plan effectively a negotiator must anticipate the most important events that may
occur during a negotiation and prepare for them in advance.
§༊ Firstly, a negotiator must know what he/she wants to achieve (goals);

§༊ Secondly, a negotiator must prioritise these goals according to the most
appropriate basis;
§༊ Thirdly, where a negotiation involves a number of issues, a negotiator must
combine them into various groups (packages) for discussion with the other party
and also prepare an agenda and administrative plan according to which the
negotiations will proceed;
§༊ Fourthly, since a negotiation process does not only depend on the personal goals
and needs of the negotiator, but also on the goals and needs of the other party,
information about the other party is essential.
§༊ Fifthly, when a negotiator represents a corporation or another entity, information
about the goals and needs of that constituency is crucial.
In order to plan and prepare effectively a negotiator must:
§༊ Understand the nature of the conflict, given that conflicts vary in size, seriousness
and characteristics, as well as the parties involved. Although most of the aspects
of a conflict may be obvious, this is not always the case. What appears to be a
serious conflict may turn out to be simply innocuous.
§༊ Identify negotiation issues which are those matters of substance for discussion
with the other party. Some are simple, such as the price for a product. Others
are more complex, such as the myriad of economic data to justify a union’s wage
demands. Some are subtle, such as the exact wording of a clause in a contract
that both parties essentially agree about, but which could easily result in conflict if
not carefully handled.
§༊ Prioritise the issues which must be ranked in terms of their importance and how
critical it is that they should be achieved during the negotiation.
MODULE 4 – ENGAGEMENT PLANNING 65

© Infostrat – Executive Negotiator Programme
§༊ Develop a most desired package of important issues, or several alternative
packages, since discussing each issue separately could easily lead to inferior
results, could confuse the other party in terms of the importance of issues or
could, due to a lack of understanding as to how issues interact and support each
other, result in attractive opportunities for solutions being missed.
§༊ Establish an agenda. A procedure is required that places important issues in the
order in which they should be discussed.
§༊ Understand the other party. It is essential to gather information on the other
party’s goals and the relative important of those goals to that party.
§༊ The following background information is very important:
• The other party’s current sources and needs. A comprehensive diagnosis

could involve information on matters such as the financial condition of that
party, immediate and pressing problems, and the party’s social, political,
business or personal operating environment. When buying a car it is
beneficial for the buyer to know that the dealer is carrying excess stock, that
the current model is due for replacement, that it is the end of the dealer’s fiscal
year, and that the dealer is under pressure to increase sales to move his/her
quota of vehicles. This information unveils the other party’s unstated goals,
and helps the negotiator to understand how that party is likely to interpret
his/her behaviour.
• The history of the other party’s negotiating behaviour. Information on how a

party acted in past negotiations is generally a good indicator of how that party
may behave in future. This information is of particular value when preparing
for a negotiation.
§༊ Specify goals and objectives. This comprises clarifying all the goals of the
negotiation, prioritising them and considering possible trade-offs amongst them.
Apart from tangible goals, there are also intangible goals, such as maintaining a
certain precedent, achieving a fair outcome, or concluding a mutually acceptable
agreement.
§༊ Clarify how to manage the negotiation process to attain the goals that have been
set. This entails understanding the conflict, identifying possible areas of co-
operation, determining ways to establish trust, and identifying the best ways to
negotiate issues.
2. THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING

Preparation and planning are the most important elements of negotiation.
Inexperienced negotiators often believe that success lies in persuasiveness,
eloquence, clever ploys, and occasional emotional behaviour, but although these
behaviours are important, they do not constitute the foundations for sustainable
agreements.
Unfortunately, systemmatic planning is something that most negotiators do not

willingly undertake, often pleading time constraints and work pressure as reasons

why they cannot pay it sufficient attention. In practice, however, they find planning
somewhat boring and easily become over-anxious to ‘get the show on the road’.
In addition to the error of not investing sufficient time in planning, negotiators

furthermore fail to pay sufficient attention to the planning process, which results in the
following:
§༊ Failure to determine clear goals and objectives places a negotiator in a position

where he/she is unable to develop possibilities quickly and accurately, to respond
to requests for concessions or to deal with proposals for rearranging the elements
in an agreement. This could in turn result in a negotiator agreeing to a proposal
that transpires to be disadvantageous or feeling so confused that he/she
becomes defensive thus delaying the negotiation, to the frustration of the other
party.
§༊ Inability to formulate convincing arguments results when a negotiator does not
devoted enough time to planning. In addition, he/she might consequently not
understand the strengths and weaknesses of his/her own position and not
recognise weaknesses in the other party’s arguments.
§༊ Failure to consider the other party’s needs and negotiating history renders a
negotiator unable to estimate what the other party really desires. Furthermore,
he/she is also not able to understand the other party’s strategy and tactics, and
will not know when to stand firm and when to be flexible.
§༊ Inability to convincingly defend positions during a negotiation. A negotiator
cannot simply depend on reacting quickly and cleverly during the give-and-take of
a negotiation, since simply being eloquent when presenting a position will be of
no assistance when the other party contests the legality or economic feasibility of
this position.
3. DIFFERENT TYPES OF PLANNING

In a negotiation, there are three types of planning, namely strategic, tactical and
administrative, however, although these three types are discernible, in practice they
often overlap. Acknowledging and recognising the three categories serves to remind
a negotiator of the process for identifying goals and objectives. When negotiators
rely on tactical planning alone, they may win in the short-term, but they ultimately
lose because they were not clear on final goals. However, should a negotiator keep
his/her eye on the big picture alone, he/she may trip up over immediate obstacles
and therefore never achieve the ultimate goals.
Negotiators need to not only determine where they want to go and how they wish to
get there (strategic and tactical), but also the means (administrative) they need to
succeed.

3.1 Strategic planning
Strategic planning is aimed at defining long-term goals and enabling a negotiator to
position him-/herself so as to achieve such goals. By means of strategic planning a
set of objectives that the parties wish to attain are determined, as well as the process
for achieving these objectives.
For example, in a labour negotiation, management might want to define what its
goals are for the next five years regarding wage compensation, job security etc, and
what process is necessary to achieve these goals. In the case of a negotiation
involving the sale of land for a shopping centre, the buyer would need to define what
he wishes to pay, what terms he requires, and whether he wishes to be in a position
to acquire land for future expansion. In addition, the buyer would need to establish a
strategy for achieving these goals.
3.2 Tactical planning

Tactical planning involves the development of short-term tactics and plans aimed at
achieving long-term objectives.
In the aforementioned example of a labour negotiation, management might decide

that part of their overall goal is avoiding strikes. In the first negotiation session,
management would then propose the automatic extension of the current wage
contract if negotiations for a new contract are not completed by the expiry date of the
current contract. Although this is a tactical step, it is part of a long-term strategic goal
of eliminating strikes and thus reducing ways in which the union could exert pressure
on management during wage negotiations. In the case of the land for the shopping
centre, the buyer might request a first right of refusal on adjacent land to support his
long-term strategic objectives of expanding the shopping centre if it is successful.
3.3 Administrative planning

Administrative planning focuses on the process of acquiring the necessary
manpower and information so as to ensure a smooth negotiation process. This type
of planning includes organising the negotiation team with regard to the functions of
team members, co-ordinating tasks, disseminating information and scheduling
caucuses, recesses etc. It also includes planning how to obtain information about
the other party’s goals, needs and negotiating history.
4. NEGOTIATION PREPARATION TEMPLATE

During perusal of the following sections of MODULE 4, it will prove beneficial to
concurrently keep in mind the Negotiation Preparation Template.

5. NATURE OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PARTIES
Conflict between negotiating parties primarily relates to the aspects discussed below.
5.1 Outcomes
When parties to a negotiation have a win-lose or zero-sum interdependence, their
goals are mutually exclusive. If Party A achieves its goal, Party B of necessity
cannot achieve its goal. However, when the parties have a win-win or non-zero-sum
interdependence, Party A can achieve its goal only if Party B achieves its goal.
Where parties are interdependent, and their goals are totally separate from one
another, the likelihood of conflict is extremely limited.
Unfortunately, these distinctions are seldom so clear-cut in practice. Parties can be

interdependent in different ways. Although they may pursue different goals, these
goals need not be sufficiently exclusive to result in the success of one party
preventing the other party from succeeding. Where they are interdependent such
that both parties work together for mutual gain, both may win, although the one party
may win more than the other, or make a larger contribution to the mutual effort than
the other.
Consider a case where Party A and Party B set up a new financial services business.
Both have five years of independent experience in this field, each contributes
R20 000 to the business as start-up capital and each works in the business on a full-
time basis. A profit-share agreement is concluded where Party A receives 60% and
Party B 40% of the profits, on the basis that Party A has resided in the business area
for many years and therefore has an established network of business contacts and
high visibility, whilst Party B is new to this area. Although Party A and Party B are
interdependent in the sense of achieving overall gain, their individual returns are not
equal. Despite their acceptance of the rationale that unequal inputs should translate
into unequal outputs, two aspects of their agreement may cause conflict, namely
whether the additional contribution by Party A justifies a 20% difference in returns,
and whether the time perspective within which this agreement is formulated is valid.
Although the initial contribution of Party A may be very valuable, this is likely to
gradually diminish over two or three years as Party B becomes equally well-known
and exposed, thus posing the question whether the differential is still sufficient to
justify the differentiated outcomes. Furthermore, Party A may argue his contribution
from a short-term perspective based on current market knowledge and exposure,
whereas Party B may take a long-term view that provides for phased changes to the
initial agreement as inputs equalise.
5.2 The means of obtaining outcomes

Conflict is not limited to substantive issues only, but also arises over how the
relationship is conducted and the output produced. Failure to be sensitive to the
means whereby outcomes are produced could become a source of bitter conflict and
be even more difficult to deal with than conflict over inputs and outputs.

In the aforementioned case, Party A may wish to extensively advertise the financial
services they offer and the successes they achieve, whereas Party B may argue that
advertising should be selective, as high value clients are generally not lured by
advertising and may in fact respond negatively to extensive advertising which would
tend to commoditise a service that should be discreet and tailor-made for individual
needs.
5.3 Negotiation procedures

The procedures parties use to resolve disputes between them could become a
further potential source of conflict. There are non-substantive, procedural issues of
trust and process that could create conflict.
Party A may prefer negotiations to take place in a long, continuous session, whilst
Party B may prefer short, frequent meetings. Party B may be concerned about
Party A’s management style stemming from the style Party A had displayed in a
previous business.
5.4 Intangible factors

Intangible factors in a negotiation are psychological objectives aspired to by the
negotiators and are often a major source of conflict. Since these objectives are
present in most negotiations, negotiators need to be aware of their existence and
impact.
There could be intangibles related to the outcomes (winning by achieving exactly

what was initially requested, obtaining a good settlement, not making concessions,
beating the other party, faring as well or better than any other negotiator in previous
similar negotiations) and/or intangibles related to the procedure (a fair and
reasonable process).
Although intangibles could have a marked influence on a negotiation, they are

seldom openly stated, which could result in negotiators having one or more of the
following problems:
§༊ Failing to understand how intangibles influence the behaviour of the other party
and therefore having difficulty discerning what is important to the other party;
§༊ Failing to take cognisance of the influence intangibles have in terms of their own
negotiation objectives; and/or
§༊ Not understanding the influence of their own intangibles and the psychological
process that determines whether they feel satisfied with a deal or not.
Negotiators need to take into account that intangibles act as filters through which
they and the other party see and evaluate tangibles, colouring, shaping, or even
distorting feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with deals. Simply relying on a
cost/benefit analysis is not sufficient to determine their or the other party’s
satisfaction. They need to understand how they and the other party will see the
package of outcomes.

For example, when buying a car one person may be focussed on achieving a fixed
trade-in amount, whereas others may be set on achieving a price better than that
achieved by an acquaintance, completing the negotiation as soon as possible on
account of the irritation it is causing, or pressing for a very favourable outcome that
would create a feeling of equality that eradicates the perception of being an
underdog.
Intangible issues are, understandably, very seldom negotiated directly and it is

therefore usually necessary for negotiators to re-cast intangible issues in terms that
are more concrete. For example, when it is important for a party to achieve equality
in terms of power and status, this need could be addressed by ensuring that both
parties have equal control over where the negotiation takes place, over which issues
are included in the agenda for the negotiation, and are granted equal access to
information sources etc. Even aspects such as the shape of the negotiation table
may have an influence on a party’s feeling of equality.
In cases where the status and power of the negotiating parties are unequal, the effect
on their satisfaction with the procedure and outcome of the negotiation is dramatic,
since a high- or a low-status position has a profound effect on perceived satisfaction.
Parties that regard their status as low tend to be more concerned with equality than
high-status parties. Status discrepancies hold a real danger in that parties that
experience their status as high tend either to see the other party’s status demands as
trivial, extreme or unfair (as they do not wish to relinquish their advantages related to
their high status), or may see the status difference as irrelevant to the negotiation.
High-status parties tend to view the status demands of the other party as nonsensical
and as an attempt to waste time, and are therefore inclined to obstruct such
demands by refusing to acknowledge them.
Although negotiating parties may succeed in achieving psychological intangibles, this

is frequently at the cost of ongoing conflict and unsatisfactory settlements on the
tangibles. Naturally, it is worth fighting for intangibles, such as principles, resisting
bad precedents, maintaining a reputation, wanting to win and look strong and
avoiding a weak image, but it should always be borne in mind that it is these very
intangibles that often have contributed to protracted strikes, painful divorces and
bloody wars.
Each party in a negotiation must recognise intangible elements and be willing to

trade off intangible and tangible elements to achieve a mutually satisfactory outcome.
5.5 The history of the relationship between the parties

Very few negotiations are once-off in nature and by far the majority are in the context
of an ongoing relationship. The way that past negotiations were conducted and the
agreements that were reached or not reached, greatly influence the way parties
approach current negotiations. Even where a person new to an organisation
negotiates on behalf of that organisation, he/she may knowingly or unknowingly
inherit the negotiation legacy of his/her predecessors. This is also true where

organisations negotiate through representatives that are total strangers to one
another, as the history of the relationship between the organisations comes into play.
In the financial services industry, businesses develop long-term relationships with
banks, given the fact that loans are long-term contracts and financial institutions feel
less risk in loaning money to businesses that they know and trust.
The history of the relationship between the parties determines the climate for the
current negotiations. Where one party feels that the other has ‘won’ or obtained an
unfair advantage in the past, that party will, as the 'loser', be inclined to be extremely
cautious or even angry to the point of seeking revenge. Where the last negotiation
ended amicably, but the relationship between the parties has subsequently
deteriorated, this is likely to cause the parties to be tense, cautious, and distrusting.
When the negotiating relationship had been strained in the past as the result of one
of the parties feeling that it had been ‘fleeced’, that party might accuse a new
negotiator of dishonesty, untrustworthiness and even deceit, despite this negotiator
not having been previously involved on behalf of the other party. Such accusations
need not necessarily be verbal, but could be conveyed by attitude and expression.
The tendency for the accusing party to focus on the negative aspects of the other
party’s behaviour so as to justify its own negativity, invariably creates a ‘self-fulfilling
prophecy’ in that the accused party might well act accordingly, as it feels that it has
already been tried and pronounced guilty. Even when the accused party does not
act in the described manner, it may experience personal offence and react angrily or
defensively.
When a negotiator knows prior to a negotiation that the other party is entering the
negotiation with a particular set of historical experiences, this enables him/her to
psychologically and factually prepare him-/herself and anticipate how that party may
see and interpret events. This information helps the negotiator to determine the
negotiation strategy and tactics, depending upon whether there is a desire to change
the negative elements that currently define the relationship.
6. STRUCTURE OF THE NEGOTIATING RELATIONSHIP

6.1 Aspiration bases
In every negotiation, negotiators determine targets to which they aspire (aspiration
bases) and which denote the points at which the outcome of a negotiation would
satisfy negotiators.
6.2 Real bases

Given that the negotiators in a specific negotiation aspire to different targets, they
understand that it is not possible for both parties to achieve their aspiration bases.
They accept that they will either pay more or receive less. The question is how much
more or how much less will be acceptable to the parties? Beyond which points will
the parties not go further (real bases) without walking away from the negotiation?

They understand that the primary function of their real bases is to prevent them from
being carried away and continuing to negotiate outside the range of their best
interests.
6.3 Contracting zone

In a negotiation, the aspiration and real bases indicate the range of acceptable
outcomes. The aspiration bases define success, whereas the real bases are the
outer limit of acceptability. The area between the real bases is the contracting zone
where most of the negotiation takes place.
When a seller’s real base is below the buyer’s real base, a positive contracting zone
exists, e.g. the lowest wage settlement the union is willing to accept is below the
highest wage settlement management is willing to grant. Conversely, when the
seller’s real base is higher than the buyer’s real base, a negative contracting zone
exists that makes any agreement impossible.
In essence, negotiation is a process whereby negotiators establish an agreement

somewhere on the continuum (positive contracting zone) between the real bases of
the parties involved. Each negotiator attempts to reach an agreement as close as
possible to the real base of the other party. Although this objective is obvious, it is for
the following reasons unfortunately not always easy to achieve:
§༊ Although the parties are generally willing to disclose their aspiration bases, they
usually do their best to hide their real bases.
§༊ The parties usually work hard to convince each other that their real bases are
very close to or identical to their aspiration bases.
§༊ Although the parties generally do not want to reveal their real bases, there are
occasions when it is to a party’s advantage to reveal its real base as a means of
convincing the other party that it has very little room to move as its real and
aspiration bases practically coincide.
When both parties succeed in convincing each other that their real bases and
aspiration bases are very close, a negative contracting zone is created, which
questions the feasibility of further negotiation.
6.4 Awareness of the limits

Negotiators needs to be prepared for dealing with a situation where the other party
refuses to accept certain proposed items for inclusion in the agenda, or devalues
issues to a degree where they fall below their real base. In cases where the other
party is not willing to reassess the importance of an issue, or to consider whether that
issue can be discarded or postponed to a later date, negotiators are compelled to
consider whether it is possible to alter their position, or to accept that negotiation is
not possible. At this point the negotiators are likely to activate their BATNA’s.

7. IDENTIFYING, DEFINING, PRIORITISING & VALIDATING
THE ISSUES
7.1 Identifying & defining the issues
The next planning step involves defining the issues to be negotiated. By analysing
the conflict situation, negotiators are able to identify the main issue (eg. the price of
the house or the payment schedule) and the minor issues (eg. whether certain
appliances are to remain in the house and whether the present owner will paint the
roof). In the process of the purchase of a home, real estate agents, attorneys, or
bankers usually contribute to the list of matters that should receive attention in the
negotiation, e.g. taxes, escrow amounts for undiscovered problems, a certificate that
the woodwork is free from woodworm etc.
In any negotiation, a complete list of the issues at stake is best derived from:
§༊ An analysis of the conflict;

§༊ An analysis of past experiences in similar conflicts;
§༊ Research and consultation with experts;
§༊ A study of precedents and legal frameworks;
§༊ Brainstorming ideal settlements; and
§༊ Defining the most important intangible goals.
7.2 Compiling the negotiating agenda

Once each of the parties have identified and defined their issues, they need to
transfer these issues into negotiation agendas that will constitute the overall
negotiation mix.
Although the accumulated issues may initially seem excessive, this is not necessarily
a disadvantage as negotiators are inclined to be more flexible when more, rather
than fewer issues, are on the table. A large bargaining mix affords negotiators
greater creativity in developing mutually beneficial agreements.
7.3 Prioritising the issues

After compiling the negotiation agendas, the parties must determine the priority of the
issues. Prioritising intangible issues is also very important, although they are more
difficult to discuss and to rank due to their subjective nature. Although they are often
easily brushed aside, they remain very important in determining whether a party is
achieving a fair or acceptable deal.
Prioritising of issues can be achieved in different ways:
§༊ A simple way is for the negotiator to rank them in terms of what is most important,
what is second most important, and what is least important;

§༊ An even simpler process is to group issues into categories of high, medium and
low importance;
§༊ When a negotiator represents a constituency, it is important to involve the
constituency in terms of setting priorities. The number of times that different
issues are mentioned in meetings, reports, or preparation sessions, often
exposes what is really on people’s minds;
§༊ Listing the issues in a loose-standing or interconnected manner, bearing in mind
that issues which are loose-standing can easily be added to or deleted, whereas
connected issues cannot easily be divorced from one another. Some issues are
functionally connected (eg. the price a buyer is prepared to pay for his new home,
and the amount the bank will loan the buyer) whereas others are merely mentally
connected.
By understanding those issues that are the most and the least important, the
negotiation process is speeded up and the quality of agreements is enhanced.
In cases where negotiators are not sure of what they desire and of the priority of the
issues before entering a negotiation they:
§༊ Easily fall prey to arguments, offers, counter-offers and concessions that are not
in their best interests;
§༊ Often give away important information without appreciating the consequences;
§༊ Tend to lose perspective and agree to inferior settlements, or become ensnared
by unimportant points; and/or
§༊ Are inclined to accept points aggressively argued by opponents.
7.4 Validating the issues

After the identification and prioritisation of issues, negotiators need to consult with
others to validate these issues, especially when the negotiator represents a group or
organisation. Although it is not always common practice, negotiators need to have
pre-negotiation contact with the other party and their constituency to finalise the
negotiation agenda and to test whether the identified issues adequately cover the
concerns and priorities of their constituencies.
At times such interaction between a negotiator and his/her constituency can become
a drawn out and an exhausting process, e.g. where a negotiation is conducted on
behalf of a management in a labour dispute. The negotiator would then need to
consult internal sources (supervisors and rank-and-file members) to ascertain the
patterns of conflict or the grievances that have developed during the term of the
current wage agreement, and external sources to take note of agreements reached
by other groups in the community or industry in similar circumstances. Pre-
negotiation contact affords the negotiator the opportunity of toning down the
constituency’s wish list should it be unrealistic and unattainable, and to suggest
issues that should be included in the agenda.

When negotiators fail to consult the other party prior to a negotiation, this often
results in the negotiator broaching a number of ‘surprise issues’ that the other party
may be unprepared to discuss, or confronting the other party with grossly unrealistic
priorities. No negotiator welcomes sudden surprises or being put into a situation for
which he/she is unprepared. When this occurs, negotiators either request a recess
or refuse to include the new issues in the agenda, as they were unable to prepare
adequately beforehand. At worst, the disadvantaged negotiator could request an
opportunity to consult his/her constituency. For this reason, negotiators should
exchange and negotiate lists of issues prior to a negotiation so as to reach
agreement about tangible and intangible issues for inclusion in the agenda.
However, certain intangible issues may for understandable reasons not be revealed,
e.g. when a negotiator is intent on achieving the lowest price in the industry to
support his/her ‘desire’ to achieve the best deal in the industry.
8. ANALYSING THE OTHER PARTY

Gathering information about the other party is a critical step that is all too often
neglected in preparing for a negotiation.
8.1 Identity & characteristics

Although negotiators learn much about the other party at the negotiating table, it is
essential for them to gather as much information as possible through research and
investigation before the negotiation commences. This research should look into the
other party’s business history and include an analysis of its previous negotiations
(successful or otherwise). Financial data should be obtained from financial services
organisations, financial statements, newspapers, files, annual reports, public records
of legal judgements etc. Much can also be learned from visiting the other party and
questioning friends, peers and its business associates.
Although studying the other party can be a tedious and time-consuming exercise, the
results usually far outweigh the investment.
8.2 Reputation & style

The other party’s previous negotiating behaviour is normally a good indication of how
it will behave in future. Hence, when a negotiator has had no previous negotiating
experience with the other party, it is of great value to speak to those persons who
have had such experience.
Negotiators should never lose sight of the potential dangers when drawing
conclusions from information about the other party. The assumptions about how the
other party may behave in future should always be seen as mere assumptions that
should be tested within the negotiation, as negotiators may act differently in different
circumstances and at different times.
“Assumptions are potential hurdles that can move us in the wrong direction..........
The reality of negotiation is that we must and should make assumptions about the

opposing party.......... The important thing to remember is that your assumptions are
just that. They are no better than poorly educated guesses. Don’t fall in love with
your assumptions. Check them out: they are neither right nor wrong until proven
so.” Chester Karrass (1974).
Our assumptions concerning the other party may be based on:
§༊ How the predecessors of that party negotiated with us in the past;

§༊ How that party has negotiated with us in the past in the same or different
contexts; and
§༊ How the other party negotiated with others in the past.
Although information is of great value in preparing for a negotiation and in alerting

negotiators to what might happen, it is extremely important that they continuously
remain open to new information that confirms or denies the validity of their
assumptions. There is a constant danger that invalid assumptions could become
‘self-fulfilling prophecies’. Assumptions that the other party will be demanding and
aggressive may result in that party adopting an attitude that “the best defence is a
good offence”. This could in turn lead the negotiator who made the assumption, to
respond to this attitude with aggressive demands and negative behaviour. Although
the other party may not respond in the way suggested, it may, despite initially
entering the negotiation with the intention to co-operate, decide to reciprocate and hit
back. Such reciprocation may then prompt the negotiator to feel vindicated, thus
triggering an escalating cycle of competitive mistrust and hostility.
8.3 The other party’s objectives

Negotiators are inclined to think in stereotypes about the interests and goals of the
other party, using their own goals, interests and values as guidelines. They also
often assume that others are like them and want the same things that they desire.
The manager who is only interested in promotion is surprised when other members
of his staff prefer a meaningful increase in salary to a promotion that holds little or no
financial benefit.
The best information about the goals and interests of the other party is available
directly from that party. Given the importance of the goals and interests of the parties
with regard to developing a negotiation strategy, skilled negotiators often exchange
information about goals and interests before the commencement of the negotiation.
8.4 The other party’s needs

Knowing and respecting the needs of the parties in a negotiation is crucial to the
success of that negotiation. The example given in Figure 4.1 of a Needs Analysis
based on the Maslow Needs Hierarchy (1954) is helpful in understanding the other
party’s needs.

NEEDS HIERARCHY (Maslow 1954)
NEEDS DESCRIPTION
1. Physiological Biological drives and urges – hunger, sex,
thirst, chemical balance
2. Safety & security Self-protection, self-preservation, vocational &

personal security
3. Love & belonging Affection from others, belonging, friendship
4. Esteem Freedom & independence, pride, competence,

positive self-regard
5. Self-actualisation Personal growth, maximising own human

potential, creativity
Niere
nber 6. Knowing
& understanding
Mastery, & to
know the
unknown
g
(197
7. Aesthetic Appreciation of beauty, order, balance,
3) is aesthetic
values
of
the Figure 4.1
opini
on
that needs are the driving forces that underlie a negotiator’s position on issues and
that an understanding of these needs provides insight into intangible objectives.
Where a negotiator is motivated by a need for security, that negotiator is likely to
desire an agreement that ensures safety and protection, whereas a negotiator
motivated by a need for affiliation will seek a supportive relationship with others and
will do nothing to endanger that relationship.
8.5 The authority of the other party to take decisions

Negotiators representing others, or a constituency, often have limited power to enter
into agreements, or may be restricted in many different ways. There are instances
where negotiators are told that they may only relay information and proposals to their
constituency.
The authority of a negotiator is often limited in order to prevent him/her being cajoled
into a decision that will not be in the best interests of his/her principles, or to prevent
sensitive information from being carelessly divulged. Although these limitations are
often a necessary precaution, they have the effect of being extremely irritating to the
other party who would prefer to interact with someone who is well informed and has
the authority to take decisions. Negotiators much prefer to negotiate with a party
who does not have to regularly revert to his/her constituency; therefore appointing a
party without the necessary authority can cause unproductive tension within the
negotiation.
9. DEVELOPING SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS

Negotiation is, as has frequently been said, a process whereby a negotiator attempts
to convince the other party that his/her position is correct and that the position of the
other party is therefore flawed. This requires negotiators to have sufficient
convincing facts to support their arguments and to refute the arguments of the other
party.
Experienced negotiators ask the following questions to assemble information in

support of their arguments:
§༊ What are the facts that support our point of view?

§༊ Who could we speak to or consult (experts, records, files, research) that could
elaborate or clarify the facts?
§༊ Have others negotiated similar issues under similar circumstances, what strong or
weak arguments did they use, and what can we learn from their successes or
failures?
§༊ What point of view is the other party likely to espouse? What arguments is the
other party likely to use, how can these arguments be refuted, how can flaws in
the logic underpinning these arguments be exposed, and how can the confidence
of the other party in its arguments be eroded?
§༊ How can facts be developed and presented in the most convincing manner?
10. THE GOAL SETTING PROCESS

10.1 A point of departure – optimistic, realistic, pessimistic
In a negotiation, there are two key target points:
§༊ The first is the negotiator’s aspirations base, derived from the most optimistic
settlement that can be expected. This is consequently often the opening bid or
asking price.

§༊ The second is more pessimistic and relates to what the negotiator regards as an
achievable settlement, namely the real base.
Negotiators who know that they are inclined to be too optimistic about what is
achievable should preferably start with a ‘wish list’ and then systemmatically
moderate these demands by defining what is most realistic and what is minimally
acceptable. Conversely, negotiators who know that they are inclined to be too
pessimistic about negotiation outcomes, should preferably start out by identifying the
minimum acceptable outcome and then widening the range by defining what is
realistic, and brainstorming what might be optimally possible. Finally, negotiators
with a track record of being realistic should preferably start by defining realistic
objectives and then working from that point to determine the upper and lower
boundaries.
The most important requirement with regard to goal-setting is that negotiators should
start out from the point where they feel most comfortable, or from the point where
their research and preparation has clearly indicated the most likely aspiration and
real bases are.
10.2 Positive thinking about objectives

When preparing for a negotiation, negotiators become aware of how the other party
will behave, what the other party is likely to demand and how they feel about dealing
with that party. Unfortunately, negotiators tend to devote far too much attention to
the other party in their effort to figure out what it is likely to want, how to meet its
demands etc. By focusing most of their attention on the other party, and neglecting
to pay enough attention to their own negotiation strategy, negotiators adopt a
reactive approach to the other party’s anticipated conduct. This often results in
negotiators feeling threatened and defensive, and as a consequence being less
flexible and creative.
By focusing on defining realistic, optimistic and pessimistic goals, negotiators are

better aware of the range of possible outcomes and therefore more inclined to be
creative in terms of identifying possibilities for mutually beneficial outcomes, and to
be flexible with regard to what is acceptable.
10.3 Anticipated packaging

Negotiators need to consider the best ways of achieving satisfaction with regard to
the mix of negotiation objectives they have together identified. They should carefully
consider whether these objectives should be negotiated individually to achieve an
optimal settlement, or whether they should be packaged. In a real estate transaction
the negotiator may propose a firm but high price, as he/she requires cash
immediately, however, he/she may be willing to decorate and clean the property for
the buyer, as this could be done at no cost using old paint and own labour.
When evaluating a bargaining mix that includes a number of different issues, most
negotiators find it very helpful to explore different ways of combining these issues

into packages. Since different packages will have different outcomes, each needs to
be evaluated in terms of optimistic, pessimistic and realistic outcomes.
10.4 Understanding trade-offs and throwaways

Negotiators must often decide how to react when the other party proposes a package
that for example positions Issues A, B, and C in what would be their (the negotiator’s)
optimistic range, Issue D into their realistic range, Issue E in their pessimistic range,
and omits to mention Issue F as part of the package. Should the negotiator accept
that Issue F becomes a ‘throwaway’ and therefore ignore it? Is Issue F relatively
unimportant and therefore worth giving up to secure an agreement on Issues A, B
and C that fall into the optimal range?
For a negotiator to be able to evaluate the items or issues in a bargaining package,

he/she needs to have an idea of what each item or issue in the mix is worth in
relation to the other items or issues. Such an evaluation provides the rationale for
possible ‘trade-offs’. Naturally, it is not an easy task, as different items or issues do
not have the same value for the negotiator and the other party as they may measure
items or issues against different norms. When negotiating the rental of floor space
for a new retail outlet, the negotiating mix would usually include items such as the
monthly rental, the duration of the rental contract, options to renew the rental
contract, cancellation penalties, restrictions on signage and many others. For the
tenant a difference of R25 or R50 in the monthly rental may be relatively unimportant
compared to permission to erect vital signage. Hence, the tenant may be amenable
to trading a higher rental for larger or additional signage. The negotiation package
may naturally also include intangible issues that are open to subjective assessment.
Many negotiators have found it convenient to position all issues on some common
continuum to compare them, e.g. translating all issues into rand value. In the store
rental example, the tenant would estimate the rand value of a large sign in terms of
the additional customers it would attract as well as the associated increase in
revenue, and compare this calculated value to the higher rental. Some negotiators
prefer a utility scale as the basis for comparison, assigning utility points to each issue
in accordance to its relative importance. If the tenant is so uncertain about the
success of the new outlet that he/she fears the possibility of having to close the outlet
before the end of the rental contract, the possibility of including a sub-lease as a
clause may be of extreme importance and therefore be awarded 50 utility points.
Conversely, if the tenant is assured of long-term success, he/she may not rate a sub-
lease clause very highly and therefore only value it at 15 points.
10.5 Setting goals

On entering a negotiation, negotiators usually have an idea of the outcome they wish
to achieve. Unfortunately, many negotiators fail to appreciate that wishes do not
necessarily constitute goals.
When contemplating goals, negotiators must take cognisance of the fact that:

§༊ Wishes are not necessarily goals;
§༊ Goals must be seen within the context of the goals of the other party;
§༊ The interconnected goals of the parties to a negotiation define the issues for
negotiation;
§༊ Goals are limited by what the other party is capable of, or willing to give, and
should therefore be attainable; and
§༊ Goals should preferably be concrete, specific, and measurable. If not, the other
party may fail to understand what the negotiator wants, and what needs he/she is
expressing.
A negotiator is not stating a clear goal when he/she insists that the price for a
property should not require an instalment that places him/her under undue pressure
with regard to monthly income. Such a goal provides no clarity on what ‘undue
pressure’ means. Is undue pressure 50%, 45%, 30% etc of the negotiator’s monthly
income? Even when the negotiator states a specific amount that is available for a
monthly instalment, this still leaves uncertainty as to whether it is the largest possible
instalment, whether it is merely the amount which would cause the least possible
discomfort, or whether it has been calculated according to bank guidelines that
suggest that an instalment should not exceed 30% of gross monthly income.
11. DEBRIEFING
After every negotiation session and at the conclusion of a negotiation, the
participating parties should debrief the negotiation, taking cognisance of whether the
strategy and tactics were successful, to ascertain what worked and what did not, to
identify gaps in their knowledge about the other party, and to decide on changes that
may need to be made to advance the negotiation towards a mutually beneficial
outcome.
The debriefing template given in Figure 4.2 overleaf could prove a useful guide in
ensuring that no aspect of the debriefing is omitted.

DEBRIEFING TEMPLATE
ANALYSIS
Review of own and other party’s assumptions
Review own and other party’s aspiration base
Review own and other party’s real base
Review own and other party’s BATNA
PREPARATION
Reconsider team/team composition
Reconsider team roles
Evaluate success of negotiation strategy and

revise if required
Evaluate success of negotiation plan and revise

if required
Evaluate success of concession strategy &

revise if required
Evaluate success of own tactics & revise if

required
Evaluate success of the tactics of the other party

& revise if required
ENGAGEMENT
Evaluate the climate & relationship and take
appropriate steps if required
Evaluate the framing of issues, goals & options,

and reframe if necessary
What degree of common ground has been

achieved & how can it be further strengthened?
Evaluate the power status, power deployment &

measures to counteract a power imbalance
Evaluate the success of the persuasion

techniques employed & consider changes
Figure 4.2

12. ESTABLISHING A KNOWLEDGE BASE
A common failing amongst most corporates relates to negotiation knowledge not
being systemmatically committed to a properly structured knowledge base that future
negotiators can consult when negotiating specific cases.
After the completion of every negotiation the accumulated knowledge derived from all
aspects of the negotiation, including what worked and what did not work, must be
committed to a database for future reference when similar negotiations come about,
e.g. obtaining approval for a gas pipeline across an environmentally sensitive area.
13. OUTCOMES
On completion of this module, the course participants will understand:
§༊ How to compile a multi-dimensional negotiation strategy and plan;

§༊ How to analyse the conflict between the parties to a negotiation;
§༊ How to develop negotiating procedures that are not a source of conflict;
§༊ How to identify, define, prioritise and package tangible and intangible issues
underlying the negotiation conflict;
§༊ How to optimise outcomes in a non-confrontational way;
§༊ How to conduct reference and precedent searches;
§༊ How to analyse the other party;
§༊ How to set goals;
§༊ how to build and maintain relationships;
§༊ How to determine where the negotiation limits lie; and
§༊ How to manage the goal-setting process and develop supporting arguments for
goals.
14. REFERENCES
The following publications and websites were consulted in compiling this module:
Lewicki R J, Litter J A, Saunders D M & Minton J W: Negotiation. Irwin McGraw-Hill,

Boston, 1985.
Berry W: Negotiation in the age of integrity. Nicholas Brealy Publishing,

London, 1996.
Karrass C. L. Give and take. Blackstone Audio Books. 1974.

Fisher R & Ury W: Getting to Yes. Random House. London, 1999.
Spoelstra M & Pienaar W: Negotiation Theories, Strategies and Skills. Juta & Co,
Kenwyn, 1996.
http://www.vantagepartners.com
http://www.munners.com
http://ickb.colorado.edu/m/negotiations_strategies.jsp
http://www.intractableconflict.org/m/human_needs.jsp
http://www.negotiationskills.com
http://www.mediate.com
http://www.businessknowhow.com
http://www.beyondintractability.org
http://colorado.edu

MODULE 4
ENGAGEMENT PLANNING
__________________________________________________
SUMMARY
§༊ Successful negotiators appreciate the importance of planning prior to a
negotiation.
§༊ Information is power in any negotiation. A multi-dimensional environmental scan,
together with a reference and precedent search provides very valuable
information that is not easy to glean within a negotiation.
§༊ Objective criteria serve a very important purpose in assisting parties with
diverging interests to create a negotiation paradigm orientated towards joint value
creation.
§༊ The issues in a negotiation are often complex and therefore need to be clearly
defined and understood, and options/ alternatives devised that are able to move
the negotiation from a mere decision about an option to a choice between
options, thereby creating a mutually beneficial outcome.
§༊ When negotiators understand their BATNA, their aspiration base and real base,
and the BATNA, aspiration base and real base of the other party, the possibility of
a mutually beneficial outcome is greatly enhanced.
§༊ Developing a feel for where the contracting zone lies in a negotiation provides
very valuable insight with regard to possible concessions and counter-
concessions.
§༊ By making use of the negotiation preparation planning template, negotiators can
ensure that they cover all the important planning steps in a structured way.

REVISED
1. ANAYSIS
1.1 What
seen
you
(Identify
intangible
1.2 How
to
(Identify
intangible
1.3 What
value
for
1.4 What
value
for

2. THE
2.1
organisation/constituency?
2.2
2.3
2.4
other
2.5
party/parties?
2.6
party/parties?
3. ANALYSIS
3.1
characteristics
party/parties?
3.2
require
party/parties?
4. ENVIRONMENTAL
4.1
organisation/constituency
this
4.2
this

4.3
exploit
4.4
relative
4.5
party/paties
negotiation?
4.6
party/parties
negotiation?
4.7
could
relative

5. INTERESTS
Priority
Interests
ranking
Tangible:
5.1
fears, Intangible:

5.2 Priority
Interests
party/parties ranking
desires Tangible:
Intangible:
6. CULTURAL
6.1
differences
may

7. COMPETITIVE
Priority
Your
ranking
7.1
could
negotiation?
8. DEAL
8.1 Value- enhancing, Priority

facilitate could ranking
agreement
beneficial?
8.1
……
8.2
Options
other
facilitate
9. CONCESSIONS
9.1
what
require?

10. POSITIONS
10.1
the
10.2
behalf
10.3
what
10.4
party/parties
negotiation
10.2
be
of
10.3
will
you
11. COMMON
11.1
6,
11.2
6,
11.3
6,
12. SETTING
12.1
establish
relationship
mutually
13. NEGOTIATION
13.1
employing?
13.2
employing?
13.3
other
13.4
other
14. SELECTING
Task
14.1 Relationship
negotiation
Back- up
15. IMPORTANT
15.1
negotiation
15.2
that
15.3 Relating
related
party/constituency
Relating
16.
16.1
negotiation
of
decision- making
16.2
Proposed
negotiation
16.3
Proposed
negotiation?

17.
17.1
the
consultation
the
17.2
decision- making
implementation
formally,
17.3
implementation
informally,
17.4
take
challenges,

CONCESSION STRATEGY
Concession you
could make to
The counter-
motivate the other The value of the
The reason why The cost of the concession you
party to move concession to the Priority
you would make concession to would require from
towards a value- other ranking
the concession? you? the other
enhancing, mutually party/parties?
party/parties?
beneficial
agreement.

NEGOTIATION DEBRIEFING TEMPLATE
Were your assumptions about the
other party accurate? If not, what is
necessary to in future be more
accurate?
Was your aspiration base set high
enough to inspire an optimal
agreement?
Did you hold to your real base? If not,
why not?
How strong was your BATNA and that
of the other party?
Was the composition of your
negotiation team correct? What future
changes are necessary?
Should the roles of the members of
your negotiation team be revised?
Was your negotiation strategy
successful? Which revisions are
necessary?
Were your negotiation tactics
successful? Which revisions are
necessary?
Were the concessions you made
conducive to the other party moving in
your direction?
Was there a good balance between
the concessions you made and the
counter-concessions you received?
Which tactics employed by the other
party were successful? How should
these tactics be countered in future?
Was the negotiation climate conducive
to a good relationship between the
parties at the outset of the
negotiation?
Were the negotiation issues, goals
and options optimally framed? Which
changes are necessary?
Were the persuasion measures
successful? If not, why not?
Were the cultural and gender issues
correctly identified and handled?
What improvements could be
effected?
Was sufficient common ground in
terms of shared and complimentary
interests established?
Was a value-enhancing, mutually
beneficial agreement achieved? If not,
why not?
Was an implementation plan devised?


Module 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MODULE 4

§༊ Firstly, a negotiator must know what he/she wants to achieve (goals);

In order to plan and prepare effectively a negotiator must:

MODULE 4 – ENGAGEMENT PLANNING 65

• The other party’s current sources and needs. A comprehensive diagnosis

• The history of the other party’s negotiating behaviour. Information on how a

2. THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING

Unfortunately, systemmatic planning is something that most negotiators do not

MODULE 4 – ENGAGEMENT PLANNING 66

In addition to the error of not investing sufficient time in planning, negotiators

§༊ Failure to determine clear goals and objectives places a negotiator in a position

3. DIFFERENT TYPES OF PLANNING

MODULE 4 – ENGAGEMENT PLANNING 67

3.2 Tactical planning

In the aforementioned example of a labour negotiation, management might decide

3.3 Administrative planning

4. NEGOTIATION PREPARATION TEMPLATE

MODULE 4 – ENGAGEMENT PLANNING 68

Unfortunately, these distinctions are seldom so clear-cut in practice. Parties can be

5.2 The means of obtaining outcomes

MODULE 4 – ENGAGEMENT PLANNING 69

5.3 Negotiation procedures

5.4 Intangible factors

There could be intangibles related to the outcomes (winning by achieving exactly

Although intangibles could have a marked influence on a negotiation, they are

MODULE 4 – ENGAGEMENT PLANNING 70

Intangible issues are, understandably, very seldom negotiated directly and it is

Although negotiating parties may succeed in achieving psychological intangibles, this

Each party in a negotiation must recognise intangible elements and be willing to

5.5 The history of the relationship between the parties

MODULE 4 – ENGAGEMENT PLANNING 71

6. STRUCTURE OF THE NEGOTIATING RELATIONSHIP

6.2 Real bases

MODULE 4 – ENGAGEMENT PLANNING 72

6.3 Contracting zone

In essence, negotiation is a process whereby negotiators establish an agreement

6.4 Awareness of the limits

MODULE 4 – ENGAGEMENT PLANNING 73

§༊ An analysis of the conflict;

7.2 Compiling the negotiating agenda

7.3 Prioritising the issues

Prioritising of issues can be achieved in different ways:

MODULE 4 – ENGAGEMENT PLANNING 74

7.4 Validating the issues

MODULE 4 – ENGAGEMENT PLANNING 75

8. ANALYSING THE OTHER PARTY

8.1 Identity & characteristics

8.2 Reputation & style

MODULE 4 – ENGAGEMENT PLANNING 76

Our assumptions concerning the other party may be based on:

§༊ How the predecessors of that party negotiated with us in the past;

Although information is of great value in preparing for a negotiation and in alerting

8.3 The other party’s objectives

8.4 The other party’s needs

MODULE 4 – ENGAGEMENT PLANNING 77

2. Safety & security Self-protection, self-preservation, vocational &

3. Love & belonging Affection from others, belonging, friendship

4. Esteem Freedom & independence, pride, competence,

5. Self-actualisation Personal growth, maximising own human

8.5 The authority of the other party to take decisions