|
|
INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONSДата публикации: 24.02.2017 07:23
INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS
SESSION 1
Assignment 1. Read the following quotations. Comment on them and answer the questions.
«Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.» (J.F.Kennedy) «In business, you don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate.» (Chester L. Karass) «To be successful, you have to relate to people…» (George Ross)
Read the questionnaire, tick the most appropriate phrases, add the points and check your score.
Results or relationships? Get the deal or build trust?
What kind of negotiator are you? Do you feel it's more important to have a good relationship with the other party or is it more important to win the contract? For most people, building a relationship and getting the deal are important aspects of an effective negotiation.
a) If I reveal my true feelings, the other party will take advantage of them. b) I don't consider the consequences my feelings can make on my opponent. c) I hide my feelings from my opponent by using the correct body language.
a) Keeping a good relationship is more important than making somebody angry by rejecting a marginally acceptable deal. b) A good relationship is essential in any negotiation. c) My interests are more important than building a relationship.
a) A marginally acceptable deal is better than no deal at all. b) «Something for nothing» is always better than «something for something». c) I look after my interests, but I also look after theirs, too.
a) I don't worry about rejection when negotiating. b) I am willing to give in when a relationship is important. c) If the other party lets me take advantage of a situation, then I do.
a) It is best to be open about true intentions. b) If the other party is under pressure, I puss harder. c) Power is more important than a good cause.
Your score: 1 a – 1; b – 3; c – 2. 2 a – 2; b – 1; c – 3. 3 a –1; b – 3; c – 2. 4 a – 3; b – 1; c – 2. 5 a – 1; b – 2; c – 3.
What kind of negotiator are you? 1 – 5 points You are concerned with relationships and you seek CO-operation. Your target is to win the war, even if it means losing the battle. But be careful, or you may be taken advantage of.
6 – 10 points You believe that a negotiated outcome can benefit both sides. You place value on both relationship and results. Remember that preparation is still key.
11 – 15 points You are concerned more with results than with relationships. In order for one party to win, the other party may have to lose. You prefer to take something for less than you give.
Assignment 2. You are going to read and analyse articles A – D about different negotiating styles. Before you read, match the words from each article with their definition. Then answer the questions after the articles.
Article A 1. tactics a) be flexible 2. make compromises b) not changing your opinion or attitude 3. consistency c) the methods you use to get what you want Negotiations are demanding and may become emotional. You may find your Russian negotiator banging his or her fist on the table or leaving the room. Accept such tactics with patience and calmness. They are designed to make it difficult for you to concentrate. Russian negotiating teams are often made up of experienced managers whose style can be like a game of chess, with moves planned in advance. Wanting to make compromises may be seen as a sign of weakness. Distinguish between your behaviour inside and outside the negotiations. Impatience, toughness and emotion during the negotiations should be met with calmness, patience and consistency. Outside the negotiating process you can show affection and personal sympathy. From the Financial Times
Article B
1. speak your mind a) when you find out what the other side wants 2. place great weight on b) say what you think 3. exploratory phases c) consider very important
As well as being formal, negotiations are direct. German managers speak their mind. They place great on the clarity of the subject matter and get to the point quickly. Excessive enthusiasm or compliments are rare in German business. You should give a thorough and detailed presentation, with an emphasis on objective information, such as your company's history, rather tan on clever visuals or marketing tricks. Prepare thoroughly before the negotiation and be sure to make your position clear during the opening stage of the talks, as well as during their exploratory phases. Avoid interrupting, unless you have an urgent question about the presentation. From the Financial Times
Article C
1, attach little importance to a) style of behaviour 2. protocol b) pay little attention to 3. manner c) the way things are done on official occasions
Communicating is a natural talent of Americans. When negotiating partners meet, the emphasis is on small talk and smiling. There is liberal use of a sense of humour that is more direct than it is in the UK. Informality is the rule. Business partners do not use their academic titles on their business cards. Sandwiches and drinks in plastic or boxes are served during conferences. This pleasant attitude continues in the negotiation itself. US negotiators usually attach little importance to status, title, formalities and protocol. They communicate in an informal and direct manner on a first-name basis. Their manner is relaxed and casual. The attitude 'time is money' has more influence on business communication in the US than it does anywhere else. Developing a personal relationship with the business partner is not as important as getting results. From the Financial Times
Article D
1. counterparts a) count on / depend on 2. rely on b) give your opinion 3. put your point across c) the people on the other negotiating team
At the start of the negotiations you might want to decide whether you need interpreters. You should have documentation available in Spanish. Business cards should carry details in Spanish and English. During the negotiations your counterparts may interrupt each other, or even you. It is quite common in Spain for this to happen in the middle of a sentence. For several people to talk at the same time is accepted in Latin cultures, but is considered rather unusual in Norther Europe. The discussion is likely to be lively. In negotiations, Spanish business people rely on quick thinking and spontaneous ideas rather than careful preparation. It may appear than everybody is trying to put his or her point across at once. That can make negotiations in Spain intense and lengthy, but also enjoyably creative. From the Financial Times
Answer the following questions. A. In which country (Russia, Germany, the US or Spain): 1) should you start a negotiation with general conversation? 2) do negotiators show strong emotions? 3) is it common for there to be several conversations at the same time during a negotiation? 4) do negotiators focus on results rather than developing relationships? 5) do negotiators plan their tactics carefully? 6) should you not stop someone while they are talking? 7) is it usual for the atmosphere to be relaxed and friendly? 8) do negotiators prefer to think of ideas during a negotiation rather than before it starts? 9) do negotiators like to talk about business immediately? 10) should you not give the other side too much as they will not respect you?
B. 1. If you are from one of these countries in the article, do you agree with what the article says? 2. If you are from another country, which of these countries is the nearest to your own country in terms of negotiating behaviour? Why?
Assignment 3. Read about the experiences of negotiating internationally below and answer these questions.
1. What are your personal reactions to the experiences described and views expressed? 2. Would the experiences described be a) normal, b) a little unusual, or c) very unusual in your country?
1. It was very different to what I am used to. They didn't seem to want to write anything down. There was a real emphasis on getting to know you – lots of small talk. l felt it was all rather slow. No one seemed to be in a hurry to get anything done.
2. Our negotiation was interrupted by new people coming in all the time. There was also a lot of attention paid to the business cards, which was new for me. We had three meetings before we talked about any business at all. We were kept waiting for a long time.
3. There were too many jokes and first names. It wasn't clear who was in charge and making the decisions. It was too casual and relaxed for me. l think people should behave more formally, use surnames and behave like business people.
4. We thought we had a deal and made an agreement. Then they asked for some new concessions. It was all quite hard line.
5. There was no compromise. It was a real fight. In the end, we reached deadlock and they walked out. There was a lot of emotion and shouting – I was not sure if it was normal or not. It upset me a bit, if I am honest. 6. There was a lot of eating and drinking during the negotiation, having lunch at the same time as working.
7. They seemed to want to discuss everything at the same time. It felt disorganised and without structure, I prefer some kind of agenda – you know, more logical.
8. It was more like some kind of competition. They seemed to just want to win - to get something for nothing.
Useful language
Negotiation Phrases Welcoming and Establishing a Rapport
Setting the Negotiation Agenda
Negotiation Phrases for Making Proposals
Responding to Suggestions
Agreeing – Reacting to a Negotiation Proposal
Negotiation Phrases for Objecting
Giving a Reason in Negotiations
Prioritising Interests
Giving Clarification in Negotiations
Negotiation Phrases for Compromising
Accepting a Negotiation Proposal
Negotiation Phrases for Concluding
INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS
SESSION 2
Assignment 1. Read the following quotations. Comment on them and answer the question.
«Failing to plan is planning to fail» (Anonymous) «There is no substitute for the hard work of preparation.» (Winston Churchill) «Fact-finding is the mother's milk of negotiation.» (Richard Nixon)
Do you agree with these quotes? Explain why, or why not. Give examples from your own experience.
Mini-lecture Success Through Preparation, Strategy, and Planning Negotiation is a method by which people settle differences. It is a process by which compromise or agreement is reached while avoiding argument and dispute. In any negotiation, parties understandably aim to achieve the best possible outcome for their position. However, the principles of fairness, seeking mutual benefit and maintaining a relationship are the keys to a successful outcome. In order to achieve a desirable outcome, it may be useful to follow a structured approach to negotiation. The process of negotiation includes the following stages:
Before negotiations begin, preparing and planning are very important. 1. The most difficult aspect in negotiating preparation is finding out about the other side. It is essential to get as much information as possible about the situation. If dealing with people from another culture, be sure you find out about its etiquette and negotiating styles: the way people negotiate, what they consider to be acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, its attitude to body language, physical contact, conversational rules, relationship building, hierarchy, attitudes to time, and so on. It is demanding work, but it will pay off in making your negotiation successful and effective. Here are some key points to check off before you start your negotiation:
Negotiations take place between people who often view the exact same facts and statements differently. So put yourself in their shoes. Prepare a list of questions you can ask which will help you find out more. 2. Secondly, it is necessary to work out your initial bargaining position (what your needs and objectives are), decide your priorities and prepare a fallback position: conditions that you will accept if your original objectives are not met. Prepare a HIT list which refers, in negotiation terms, to H – HAVE TO HAVE, I – INTEND, T – TRADABLE (or the mnemonic L-I-M that stands for Like, Intend, Must) A HAVE TO HAVE is an essential aspect or outcome for one of the parties in the negotiation. Generally, there are only one or two in each negotiation. However they are a MUST. You must achieve these items in order for your negotiation to be successful. INTEND refers to something that is less essential, but still important in the negotiation. You might be prepared to be flexible with respect to these items. You only have a few of them, i.e. perhaps two to five. A TRADABLE item is something you put in your proposal which you believe your partner would like to have. You are prepared to exchange this item for something which you would like to obtain. Before you begin the negotiations with your partner, it is very important to determine these issues and decide which category they belong to from your point of view. These issues should be clear to all members of your negotiating team. The clearer you are about your goals and needs and of those of the opposite party, the more effective you can be as a negotiator. When you decide on your «H's» it is best to set very clear and targeted objectives. To help you define them effectively, it is recommended to set SMART goals. Your objectives must be: Specific –state exactly what you want to achieve Measurable –know how much you want to achieve Achievable – choose realistic goals for the given circumstances Relevant – find interesting points for both parties Timed – set a realistic deadline To check how REAL your goals are, you can ask yourself the following questions: Can you Rate them? How important are the goals? Are they Exact? How clearly defined are the goals? Are they Achievable? How realistic are the goals? Are they Logical? Do the goals make sense for both parties? If you are negotiating as part of a negotiating team, be sure you allocate your roles and responsibilities. 3. Thirdly, any good negotiation has an agenda. Organizing and planning an agenda helps you in three ways:
«When you know where you are and where you want to go, it is a lot easier to make the trip.» It is very important to understand the difference between the three points: issues (the points on the agenda), positions (what you want to ask for) and interests (why you want what you want) It is essential to analyse these points from your side as well as from the opponent's side. Clarify them before you finalize your agenda. 4. Finally, before any negotiation takes place, a decision needs to be taken as to when and where a meeting will take place and who will attend. Setting a limited time-scale can also be helpful to prevent any disagreement. If you are in a position to influence the choice of venue, decide whether you prefer to:
Now let's move on to a negotiating scenario. At the beginning of a negotiation, follow these steps:
Negotiation styles When you are negotiating with people from other cultures, it is important to be aware of their negotiating styles, that is the way people negotiate and what they consider as 'normal' behaviour. There are big differences in the way that people from different cultures conduct negotiations. In some cultures, business partners form long-term relationships. In other cultures, the relationship lasts only as long as the contract. Let us look at an attitude to small talk, time and the basis for reaching agreement in the cultures with long-term relationships and cultures with short-term relationships. In long-term relationships small talk is important for getting to know people on a personal level before starting to discuss business. In short-term relationships work is separated from private life. When discussing business, it is considered a waste of time to talk about personal matters. Speaking of attitude to time, In long-term relationships people are willing to invest a lot of personal time in relationships. Socialising outside office hours is essential. In short-term relationships apart from lunch breaks, not much time is given to socialising. In relation to the basis for reaching agreement, you won't reach an agreement unless you like and trust your business partners in long-term relationships unlike short-term relationships where people reach an agreement on the basis of strong arguments, e.g. this is the best product / price. Five negotiation styles: an overview Before we proceed to explain the different negotiation styles it is important to note two things. First, people tend to prefer a style. This does not mean that they can use other styles. In fact, with practice people can effectively use different negotiation styles. Second, there is no best universal negotiation style. The best style to use differs from negotiation to negotiation. There are five negotiation styles: accommodating, avoiding, collaborating, competing and compromising. People often ask "which is the best negotiating style?" As with much management theory there is no single 'best' or 'right' approach. All five profiles of dealing with conflict are useful in different situations. Although we're capable of using all five, most of us tend to have one or two preferred negotiation conflict styles that we use unconsciously in most conflict situations. Why? Either because our preferred styles have worked for us in the past, or because of our temperament (nature) or because of our upbringing (nurture). So if you're involved in business negotiations, which negotiation styles are likely to reward you with the biggest profit prizes? This question will be answered later. First let's consider each of these important negotiation styles. Competing / Compete (I win - You lose) / Hard bargainingIndividuals who prefer the competing style of negotiation see negotiation as a game that must be won at any cost. It is an ideal style when dealing with negotiation where lasting relationships are not very important. However, when preservation of the relationship is an issue, the competing style of negotiation is less suited. In hard bargaining, each party tries to achieve their aims without making concessions or making only few or small ones. The aim is to 'beat' the other side. Competitive style negotiators pursue their own needs - yes, even when this means others suffer. They usually don't want to cause others to suffer and lose, they are just so narrowly focused on their shorter term gains that they plunder obliviously through negotiations like a pirate. They often use whatever power and tactics they can muster, including their personality, position, economic threats, brand strength or size or market share. At its extreme negotiators call their behaviour aggressive or psychotic. When to use?When you need to act or get results quickly. Competition is critical when you are certain that something is not negotiable and immediate compliance is required. What's the Danger?The difficulty with people who are high compete (which a large percentage of buyers are) is that competitive styles overuse competition. This means that the other party knows exactly what behaviour to expect and can prepare more easily. In a negotiation of roughly equal power, high compete behaviour is very likely to lead to deadlock - which will get you nowhere. They may also be more interested in "winning" rather than reaching an agreement. . So if a relationship is important to you, and if your market reputation is important, then be careful to curb your competition. Self DefenseThe most important thing to remember is: Don't Cave In! Some people say that they make concessions in the face of a competitive negotiator demanding a concession - in order to create goodwill. Don't listen to these self deluders, they're bleeding profits. Appeasing competitive negotiators doesn't create goodwill - it just creates requests for more concessions. What's more, a competitive style negotiator will see you as weak, and come back for more. Restate your position firmly using strong language (not 'we'd like' or 'want', but rather: 'we require' or 'need') and never reward bullies. Accommodating /Accommodate (I Lose - You Win)Individuals who negotiate with an accommodating style put great value and emphasis on preserving the relationship. It is a great style when in negotiation with a recurring party (say a recurring trade partner) however, it is less ideal to use when chances are high you will only negotiate once with this party. It is the opposite of competing. For accommodating style negotiators, the relationship is everything. Accommodating profiles think that the route to winning people over is to give them what they want. They don't just give products and services, they are generous with information too. Accommodators are usually very well liked by their colleagues and opposite party negotiators. When to use?When you or your company are at fault, repairing the relationship is critical, and if you have nothing else that would benefit the other party. i.e. an olive branch or gift to rebuild bridges. What's the Danger?It is almost always a bad idea to accommodate when negotiating against high compete styles. With high compete negotiators your generosity will be seen as a sign of weakness to be taken advantage of. Self DefenseWhen someone is offering you a gift at the negotiation table, do you humbly accept their generosity? Be careful, as theirs may be a proverbial 'Greek Gift' - i.e. they may be luring you into reciprocation, obliging you to give back something of greater value in return. So keep in mind the value of the item being given - the relative value to both sides. You also need to be careful that they are not an incompetent negotiator, making big concessions that jeopardizes the viability of their business, or agreeing a deal that their managers will later veto. If they go bust because they are giving away too much, you could both end up losing. Avoiding /Avoid (I Lose - You Lose)This style is used by parties who dislike negotiation and tend to avoid it. When trapped in a negotiation, parties will tend to concede swiftly and have little initiative. This can be viewed as diplomatic. The downside is that avoiding parties will not be very likely to obtain a satisfactory result in the negotiation. This is most often referred to as "passive aggressive". People who habitually use this style really dislike conflict. Rather than talk directly with you about the issue, avoiders may instead try to take revenge without you knowing about it. The avoid style can be a typical reaction to high compete negotiators. When to use?When the value of investing time to resolve the conflict outweighs the benefit; or if the issue under negotiation is trivial (trivial to both parties). If there is a lot of emotion in a negotiation, it's pointless pushing through and hammering it out. Better to allow people to calm down first, let the testosterone hormone leave everyone's system first so that reason and rationality can reappear. At that point an avoid style is likely the most pragmatic alternative - suggest a timeout of 15-20 minutes. What's the Danger?Whoever has the greater urgency will usually end up with the short end of the avoidance stick. Stalling is a common sales tactics, when sales / the vendor knows that procurement needs their product or service yesterday. When communication channels are cut off, you leave the other party to fill in the blanks. They may believe you need more time, or may think that you're no longer interested in a business relationship with them, resulting in their approaching your competition, or contemplating downsizing. Self DefenseSet clear expectations of timing early on in your negotiations. Understand their decision making process and levels of responsibility. Having these insights can assist you in invalidating their reasons for avoiding, and will make your sharp questions more difficult to side-step. Escalation options will also be clearer to you. Compromising /Compromise (I Lose / Win Some - You Lose / Win Some) /Soft bargainingParties that value fair and equal deals in negotiation tend to prefer the compromising style. This style tends to get fast results from a negotiation. In soft bargaining, the parties try to reach an agreement by giving concessions very freely. A pitfall of this style is that concessions often come too fast, without properly discovering the underlying issues. Too many people confuse the word 'Compromise' with 'negotiation'. Compromising often involves one or both negotiators settling for less than they want or need. In the absence of a good rationale or properly exchanged trades, half way between the two positions seems "fair". What compromising ignores however, is that the people that take the most extreme positions tend to get more of what is on offer. When to use?When you are pushed for time and you are dealing with someone who you trust. They also need to be clear that it would not be in their best interest for them to "win" a cheap victory. Both parties win and lose - but make sure you win the right things and lose the right things. What's the Danger?When you use compromising as an excuse for not preparing properly. If the outcome of the negotiation is critical, then you should not compromise on things that you absolutely must have. Only retreat within your position when you have a solid rationale for doing so, and when you're being rewarded in another way. i.e. make a reasoned exchange. Trade across goals and interest. All too often negotiators try resolve 1 single goal at time, before moving on to the next tabled agenda item. Collaborating / Collaborate (I Win - You Win)Collaborating style is also known as Principled negotiating. In their book, Getting to Yes, Fisher and Ury introduced the term Principled negotiating. It refers to a style which focuses on discovering the interests behind the position. The principled negotiator separates the person from the issue and concentrates on mutual gain in order to reach agreement. In short, it leaves both sides with a sense of achievement, i.e. a win-win situation.Collaborating parties tend to enjoy coming to creative solutions during negotiation. This can potentially lead to positive results or transform simple problems into difficult solutions. Either way, parties that prefer a collaborating style make a real effort to understand the issues of the opposing party of the negotiation. Most people confuse "Win/Win" or the collaboration style with the compromising style. This is most definitely not the case. "Win/Win" is about making sure both parties have their needs or goals met, while creating as much mutual value as time and resources allow. "Win/Win" negotiators usually evolve through the other profiles, growing into collaborative negotiators. This means collaborative profile negotiators can revert to one or two of the other styles when pushed or when the situation calls for it. Collaborative profile negotiators are adamant that their needs must be met - and they acknowledge that the other party has needs that must be met too. Often referred to as 'expanding the pie', collaborative negotiators are willing to invest more time and energy in finding innovative solutions, feeling secure in the fact that there will be more value to share out later on. The mantra of collaborative negotiators is: 'it's not enough that I win, I will not be happy until you have won too.' When to use?Under most circumstances collaboration is the primary style you should use for most goals in business to business negotiations. If a relationship is important to you, and if your market reputation is important, if the other party needs to perform and not just exchange a standard product for cash, high risk (e.g. new market or new product or both), if there is a large amount of money at stake, then you are best advised to think about all the ways in which you can build a more trusting collaborative working relationship. If you need to understand the feelings and deeper interests or motivations of all negotiators, then collaboration is your best path. What's the Danger?Be careful not to collaborate with competitive style negotiators – unless they agree to and live up to your agreed (written or unwritten) rules of collaboration. Die hard competitive negotiators can be treated in transactional trading manner - e.g. "I'll only give you this if you give me that". When we share information we need to make sure that we share information at the same level of detail. Too much and we could be exploited - too little and the other party can lock up like a clam. Collaboration requires more time and needs to be at the right level. So if you're a vendor and your buyer doesn't have the authority or knowledge or won't invest the time, save your effort. Same advice goes for buyers in reverse. Self DefenseSo when might you need to defend yourself against a Collaborative negotiator? If you have decided that it's not in your interest to use a collaborative style with a negotiator, then decide on your alternative style. So a commodity supplier who suffers a great deal of competition in their market place will try to get their foot in your door. A wise procurement manager will be careful to not investing too much time, or give any time - unless there is value. Your time is short, so be careful who you collaborate with. RememberBefore you negotiate, stop and ask yourself:
In a successful negotiation, everyone should leave the negotiating table happy with the outcome: there should not be winners and losers. The negotiators should try to reach a win-win solution. This can be achieved in a number of ways. One way of furthering negotiations is probing ( asking the right questions and listening carefully to the answers). If you want to succeed in a negotiation, find out as much as you can about the needs and concerns that underlie a party's position. Clearly, different interests generate different results. Use questions (i.e. who, what, when, where, why, how) to gather information on interests. Here are some probing questions:
Another way of furthering negotiations is a proposal (offer) and counter-proposal (counter-offers). A proposal is an offer made by one party to the other. Proposals can be made in written and/or verbal form. They provide the basis for the negotiation and a possible settlement, i.e. the deal. A successful proposal is one that results in an agreement. A counter-proposal offers an alternative proposal that may suit both parties. This can happen when one party refuses or does not agree with the original proposal. Through a series of proposals (offers) and counter-proposals (counter-offers) the two sides work towards an agreement which will benefit them both. Useful language Here are some ways of presenting / making proposals and counter-proposals and asking for / clarifying information:
One more way of furthering negotiations is a concession and a trade-off. In order to succeed in a negotiation the parties make concessions or trade-offs. When you offer to change your position to one that is less favourable to yourself, you make a concession. Perhaps this is in exchange for a concession from the other side, although there is no guarantee of this. Your concession may be a goodwill gesture: a concession you make hoping that the other side will see this as friendly and make a concession in return. But even in a friendly negotiation, there may be horse-trading, with each side making a series of concessions in return for concessions from the other side. If you argue about something for a long time, especially about the price of something, you haggle. A series of concessions in exchange for concessions from the other side is a series of trade-offs. If you make a concession, you may not get anything back. If you make a trade-off, you give something away and get something in return.
Assignment 2. (Test) A. Choose the correct option to complete each sentence.
1. At the start of a negotiation, it can be important to establish a . . . . . . . . . . . . with the other side. a) rapport b) stalemate c) guarantee
2. When both sides give something away in order to make a deal, they reach a . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a) concession b) compromise c) guarantee
3. When one side gives something away, they make a . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) compromise b) breakthrough c) concession
4. Something which stops a negotiation going smoothly is a . . . . . . . . . . . . a) limit b) sticking point c) lock
5. A situation in a negotiation where no progress can be made is a . . . . . . . a) deadweight b) deadline c) deadlock
6. A . . . . . . . . . . . . is a creative solution which allows the negotiation to progress. a) breakthrough b) breakout c) breakpoint
7. If both sides in a negotiation leave the table without a deal (empty handed), the negotiation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) breaks down b) breaks off c) breaks out
8. The minimum offer you are willing to accept is known as your . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) opening position b) fallback position c) bottom-line position
9. Some negotiations may involve a time restriction or . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) deadlock b) deadline c) dead end B. Which of the ideas in the test could contribute to the success or failure of an international negotiation?
Assignment 3. Which of these negotiating tips do you agree with? Why?/Why not? 1. In the early stages, you need to ask the other side a lot of questions. 2. Always interrupt if you don't understand something. 3. Never make a concession for free. Always get something in return. 4. Use simple, direct language and be open about your aims. 5. Signal what you are going to do. For example, say, 'I'd just like to clarify that.' 6. Summarise often so that everyone is clear when you reach agreement. 7. Adapt your language so that you don't appear aggressive. 8. Talk about your emotions and how you are feeling.
Assignment 4. A. Answer the following question. How effective are these negotiating styles? a) Playing the 'tough guy'; being persistent in stating your demand and negotiating as long and hard as possible until the other person finally gives in b) Being flexible; being prepared to make concessions when appropriate and achieving a win-win situation, although you may not get everything you want c) Staying 'silent'; pausing between sentences, listening more and talking less so that the other person trusts you and is more vulnerable
B. Match these negotiating techniques (1-4) with what the negotiators actually say (a-h). What other negotiating techniques do you know? 1. Explain the value of a concession 2. Testing the situation 3. Responding to an unacceptable concession 4. Checking with a higher authority a) What if I take 4,000 units? How much that would cost me? b) Yes, and your sales also increased because of that, right? c) Let me run this by my boss and I'll get back to you, OK? d) I see … (silence) e) What would you say if we were to extend the deadline by a fortnight or so? f) I'd like to do business with you, but I am afraid we are simply too far apart. g) We'll pay for the delivery. In real terms, that's a saving of about $600. h) Here she is! Well, if you don't mind, our Purchasing Manager will take over from here.
C. Complete a sales manager's notes below on making concessions with the words and phrases in the box. What do you think of the advice?
Sales negotiations: making concessions 1 I don't give the first ………. . 2 Don't assume you have to match your customer's concessions ………. . 3 Don't give a concession away without ………… . 4 Never give away a concession unless the customer ………… . 5 The best time to ………… is when you're offering one. 6 Whatever you do, don't advertise you're ………… . 7 The ………… offer is unacceptable – it only creates …………. . 8 If the customer isn't planning to buy, you need to ………… .
Case study: Ashbury Guitars
Background The Kim Guitar Company (KGC) in Seoul, South Korea, makes electric guitars for Japanese manufacturers and distributors in Europe and the US. A major US distributor, Ashbury Guitars, has contacted KGC about marketing a range of guitars under its own brand name for the Californian market. Ashbury Guitars is a well-established company with an up-market image. It has had no previous dealings with KGC. Ashbury’s owner, Richard Grant, plans to put three models on the market: the Ashbury SG1000 (the most expensive model), the SG500 and the SG200. The body of die guitars will have an experimental shape as well as advanced technical features. It is now early January. KGC has agreed to manufacture the guitars for Ashbury, even though it is a very busy time of the year for them. The two companies have had some initial correspondence by e-mail and now a face-to- face meeting is required. Several points of the contract need to be negotiated. KGC’s owner, David Kim, has flown to San Francisco to meet Richard Grant. At the meeting, the Marketing Director of each company will be present. The purpose of the meeting is to make a deal acceptable to both sides, and which could be the basis for a long-term relationship.
You are negotiating as either: • The KGC team: David Kim and Marketing Director • The Ashbury team: Richard Grant and Marketing Director
Read your information files. Identify your priorities and work out your strategy and tactics. Then negotiate so that you get the best deal for your company.
Assignment 5. As the owner of either Ashbury Guitars or KGC, write an e-mail summarising the points agreed during the negotiation. Indicate any terms of the contract requiring discussion or clarification.
Information file: KGC Models You can supply three models in the first year: Ashbury SGiooo, SG500, and SG200. The SG1000 will be costly to produce because it has advanced technical features. Quality To reduce costs of production, you want 40% of the order to be manufactured by other Korean firms. Quantity You want Ashbury Guitars to place a first order of at least 2,000 guitars. You need a large order to cover the costs of setting up the production lines. Try to persuade Ashbury to buy a large number of the SGiooo model because your profit margin on this guitar is high. List price (USS Estimated cost Prices quoted of production to Ashbury
SG1000 510 920 SG500 340 550 SG200 290 475 Payment By bank transfer, as soon as the goods have been dispatched. Delivery 30 June . If an earlier delivery is required, production costs will increase by 10% because of overtime payments to workers. Before 30 June, the factory will be fulfilling orders for other customers Discounts Your company policy is to offer new customers 3% off list price for a first order, and 5% for second and further orders. Guarantee You usually offer a guarantee of 5 years.
Information file: Ashbury Guitars
INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS
SESSION 3
Assignment 1. Read the following quotations. Comment on them and answer the question.
«The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress» (Joseph Joubert (1754-1824), French moralist and essayist) «Strength lies in differences, not in similarities» (Stephen Covey, US author and management consultant) «If you destroy a bridge, be sure you can swim» (African (Swahili) proverb) «Forty for you, sixty for me. And equal partners we will be.» (Joan Rivers, American comedian and businesswoman)
Do you agree with these quotes? Explain why, or why not. Give examples from your own experience.
Assignment 2. A. Do you agree or disagree with these statements. Why/why not?
1 Conflict is not always a bad thing. 2 Where there is a conflict, it is best to keep things rational rather than showing your emotions.
B. Look at this checklist of techniques used to deal with conflict. Which do you most often use? Which get the best / worst results? What other techniques have you used or seen used?
1 Ignore the problem – it will sort itself out 2 Try to put yourself in the other person’s shoes. 3 Use humor to defuse a tense situation. 4 Say loudly and clearly exactly what is on your mind. 5 Remain calm and do not get emotional. 6 Ask a lot of open questions. 7 Speak more than you listen. 8 Try to reach a compromise. 9 Accept you are in the wrong – anything for a quiet life. 10 Summarise what the other person says in your own words.
Mini-lecture
Confrontation / Deadlocks and Mediators / Reaching Agreement Negotiation is a method by which people settle differences. In any disagreement, individuals understandably aim to achieve the best possible outcome for their position (or perhaps an organisation they represent). Sometimes one side is in a stronger position than the other: they have more bargaining power. For example, during a recent strike at Lamda Inc., the company was in financial difficulty and the public was on the workers’ side, so Lamda was negotiating from weakness. The strikers’ union knew this: they were negotiating from strength. The union made demands: objectives that were so important that they were unwilling to change them. They wanted a 15 per cent pay increase. Later they moderated these demands, and said they would accept ten per cent. However, their demand for a week’s extra holiday was non negotiable: they would not accept less. Lamda said they were being forced to accept something that they did not want. They accused the union of making them negotiate under duress. Eventually Lamda conceded to most of the union’s demands and gave them what they wanted. The media said that Lamda had backed down, climbed down and given in. The feelings had been very strong on each side: the dispute was bitter, and the negotiations were confrontational and adversarial.In that sort of situations negotiation is seen in terms of ‘getting your own way’, ‘driving a hard bargain’ or ‘beating off the opposition’. While in the short term bargaining may well achieve the aims for one side, it is also a distributive or win-lose approach. This means that while one side wins the other loses and this outcome may well damage future relationships between the parties. It also increases the likelihood of relationships breaking down, of people walking out or refusing to deal with the ‘winners’ again and the process ending in a bitter dispute. Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-bargaining negotiation. It tends to approach negotiation on the model of haggling in a market. The term distributive implies that there is a fixed amount of value (a "fixed pie") to be divided between the parties involved. Sometimes this type of negotiation is referred to as the distribution of a "fixed pie."Confrontational negotiating tactics Negotiations are rarely easy, mainly because they tend to consist of two sides trying to “beat” the other. In that sense, deception, bluff and lies and finally threats are tools that come naturally and logically to negotiators in order to manipulate favourably the balance of power. A) Lying, deceiving or bluffing? To Lewicki (1983), the primary purpose of lying in negotiation is to increase the liar's power over its opponent by using false or misleading information. These lies can take many forms from which bluffing and deceiving play an important part.
B) Threatening Threats can be considered in three different approaches: decision making, communication and commitment. If Threats have a tendency to increase the conflict on an individual basis and when they don't produce the immediate expected effect, they initiate counter measures and damage significantly the level of trust in the relationship.
In a distributive / adversarial negotiation, each side often adopts an extreme position, knowing that it will not be accepted, and then employs a combination of guile (lie), bluffing, and brinkmanship (threats, confrontation, ultimatums)in order to cede as little as possible before reaching a decision. Although using tricks isn’t recommended, there are negotiators who:
■ issue threats, final offers or ultimatums: they say that the other side must accept something, with very bad consequences for them if they refuse. Brinkmanship is a type of "hard nut" approach to bargaining in which one party pushes the other party to the "brink" or edge at which the other negotiating party must either agree or walk away. Successful brinksmanship convinces the other party they have no choice but to accept the offer and there is no acceptable alternative to the proposed agreement. ■ lie and bluff: they threaten to do something that they do not intend to do, or are not able to do.Negotiators propose extreme measures, often bluff, to force the other party to chicken out and give them what they want. This tactic can be dangerous when parties are unwilling to back down and go through with the extreme measure.
Of course, you can always call someone’s bluff: pretend to believe them, when you know they are bluffing. Although negotiators generally consider themselves to be very logical, many of their decisions are made without thinking them through. Sometimes tactics are used to make negotiators uncomfortable and force quick, gut reactions. Here are some common tactics: - Demand immediate responses. - Don’t allow breaks or time to rest. - Make personal negative comments. - Always refer back to concessions already made. - Explain that the bosses just won’t agree. - Add a demand to every concession made. - Don’t let yourself be pressurized by these tactics. Remain calm and take your time to consider the implications before you respond. Dealing with problems When negotiations get stuck, and don’t progress, there are a number of things you can do to avoid stalemate.
Steps in managing conflict / confrontation effectively
Here are 4 steps to handle any conflict.
Facilitate Discussion
Listen to what the other person is saying
Deadlocks and Mediators
Deadlock is a situation in which an agreement cannot be made : a situation in which ending a disagreement is impossible because neither side will give up something that it wants. It is a situation, typically one involving opposing parties, in which no progress can be made. Let me illustrate it with the following example. Every year (in Baseland ) there are negotiations between the baseball players’ union and the baseball team owners about pay and conditions for the coming season. Last year, after months of negotiations, there was deadlock: the negotiations broke down. Some commentators said there was stalemate; an impasse: a situation where no progress can be made. There were irreconcilable differences between the two sides and it was impossible to reach an agreement. The baseball players went on strike.
The two sides agreed to bring in a mediator, someone from outside to help restart the negotiations and bring the two sides close together in a process of mediation. The person they chose was a respected retired politician. He recommended a cooling-off period where each side would take no action. The payers ended their strike for the time being.
Another month passed, and still there was no progress. The two sides agreed to accept an agreement imposed by an arbitrator. A judge was chosen. She looked at the claims of each side and imposed a settlement or resolution to the dispute, fixing the salaries and the working conditions of the players. In this case, arbitration had settled the dispute.
Conducting Negotiations Through The Mediator
There are many ways to use the mediator to your delegation’s strategic advantage in the negotiation process. Most frequently, parties use a mediator as an information conduit to express their views or position on the matters in issue to the other party. There are other ways to effectively use the presence of a mediator in international negotiations; for instance, the mediator may facilitate the provision of responses to questions that have thus far been refused or ignored in the negotiation process or to better define the interests and goals of each side to the other. • “Opening” statements can be an effective tool to persuade the mediator and the decision maker from the other party of the delegation’s understanding and position on the matters in issue.. • The mediator may have all parties in one room until it is no longer productive. At that time, the mediator will typically break the parties apart into separate rooms for further “shuttle” negotiations. • It is important to use caution when providing confidential information to the mediator.
Using Experts Experts can be useful in negotiations involving complex or technical issues. There are two distinct ways to effectively use experts in negotiations: • Use an expert that is not perceived to be affiliated with any party to provide persuasive arguments and solutions for complex issues. For such an expert to be effective all parties must have confidence in the expert’s neutrality and in the usefulness of such expert’s opinions. – Such an expert will be more effective if perceived by the other parties to be neutral – Your delegation should recognize that no expert is truly neutral. Each expert brings his or her own biases, individual and cultural, to the negotiation. • Use an expert as a member of your delegation’s negotiation team. Such an expert can advise the delegation on complex issues and offer creative solutions. Such an expert can quickly and effectively address technical concerns raised by the other parties if required. – Interpreters, scientists, economists and lawyers are an example of the type of technical experts that delegations typically utilize. – Your delegation can expect that the other delegations and the mediator will have a lawyer as part of their negotiation team. Reference PILPG and Baker & McKenzie
Negotiating After Deadlock. Moving from Confrontation to Collaboration.
To move negotiators from confrontation to collaboration means knowing how to break a deadlock and move the negotiations forward even when the people you’re negotiating with decide to take a firm stand against you.
Four deadlock causes and strategies to break the deadlocks are:
DEADLOCK CAUSE DEADLOCK BREAKER Pushing Your HOT button Go To The Balcony Lack of Benefit Understanding Step to Their Side Resistance to Your Ideas Build a Golden Bridge Lack of Consequence Use Your Power to Educate
The First Deadlock Cause & Breaker. The first deadlock may have been caused by your own natural reaction when someone pushed one of your buttons. Natural reactions occur, such as “striking back.” Reactions such as that are not conducive to successful deadlock breaking. A better strategy is to suspend that reaction, regain your mental balance and refocus on achieving the goals you set. A Harvard professor, Dr. Ronald Heifetz, coined a phase to explain this strategy. He called it, “Going to the Balcony.” It is his metaphor for taking a step back and getting a better perspective. The Second Deadlock Cause & Breaker. Of course, all deadlocks are not caused by reactions to other people’s words or actions. Some may be caused by someone else’s negative emotions, such as defensiveness, fear, suspicions, and hostility. When this occurs, you not only need to regain your own mental balance – you need to help the other person regain theirs, too. A good strategy is to do the opposite of what’s expected. Instead of arguing against the person’s point as he might expect, ask him to further explain. Practice active listening and people will be more inclined to listen to you. This strategy is called, “Step to Their Side.” The Third Deadlock Cause & Breaker. This deadlock comes about when a proposal has been made but the other parties can’t see the benefits of agreeing to it. This could be caused by a number of things. They may feel they can’t go along because it wasn’t their idea - agreeing might make them “lose face.” In these instances a strategy called, “Building a Golden Bridge” may be successful in breaking the deadlock. Simply put, this strategy means to show them how they benefit from the agreement. The Fourth Deadlock Cause & Breaker. The fourth deadlock breaker is “Use Your Power to Educate.” In the third deadlock we learned to show the benefits of agreeing. In this one, we do the opposite: we make them see the consequences of filing to agree. The other parties are unaware, or don’t understand what can happen if you do not break the deadlock and move on. It’s in this closure phase of negotiation that most deals are decided. If you’ve tried everything else, make them see the negative consequences of not reaching a mutually advantageous agreement. In summary, these strategies are: Go to the Balcony – You can only control your own behavior. This strategy allows you to do that. Belay (fix, stick to) your natural tendency to “fight fire with fire” and remember your goal. Instead of getting mad or thinking of getting even, buy some time and calm down. Step to their Side – To move from confrontation to collaboration, a favorable climate must be created. The “Step to their Side” strategy does just that. It gives you an opportunity to take the first step towards cooperation by listening to their side, acknowledging their authority and competence. Build a Golden Bridge – If the people you’re negotiating with are resisting your suggested solutions, you may have to convince them that these solutions are in their best interest as well as yours. The “Bridge” is the strategy that helps them understand that your solutions are really victories for them. Use Power to Educate - Simply said, some people just don’t understand the downside of not coming to an agreement. This strategy is used to elevate their understanding of the negative consequences of deadlock.
The sequence in which you use these strategies is important. For example, you can’t defuse someone’s negative feelings unless you’ve gotten your own under control. That means that you’ve got to make sure that your reactions are designed to move the negotiations forward and that they do not cause or contribute , to the deadlock. Performing these strategies in sequence, however, doesn’t mean that once you’ve used one you won’t have to use it again. Negotiations are fluid. You may find yourself moving back and forth and using a particular strategy to break deadlocks in the early stages of negotiation as well as the later stages. Also, because every negotiation is different, you need to use your specific knowledge of the situation to determine which strategy to use and when to use it in order to break the negotiation deadlock. REFERENCES Ury, William, Getting Past No, Bantam Books, New York, New York 10036
If the process of negotiation breaks down and agreement cannot be reached, then an adjournment or re-scheduling a further meeting is called for. This avoids all parties becoming embroiled in heated discussion or argument, which not only wastes time but can also damage future relationships. At the subsequent meeting, the stages of negotiation should be repeated. Any new ideas or interests should be taken into account and the situation looked at afresh. At this stage it may also be helpful to look at other alternative solutions and/or bring in another person to mediate. Inexperienced negotiators often avoid taking adjournments because they feel this might make them appear weak. Experienced negotiators, however, aren't afraid to call for a break. They frequently make effective use of them in order to:
When it's necessary for you to take an adjournment, follow these steps: 1 Give a reason for the adjournment and state how much time is needed. 2 Summarize the current state of affairs before you go. 3 Withdraw to a private area. AgreementAgreement can be achieved once understanding of both sides' viewpoints and interests have been considered. It's surprising how often negotiators miss the close. Many are afraid to end the negotiations because they fear they may have missed or forgotten something. The other side often misinterprets this fear as a delay trick and believes that the first party is uninterested or wants even more. They often become confused and defensive and the agreement begins to fall apart. Closing is a matter of instinct as well as common sense. It's necessary to look for the non-verbal signals and listen to the verbal ones. It's also important to keep your goal in mind. If you've reached it, then make the deal! It is essential for everybody involved to keep an open mind in order to achieve an acceptable solution. Any agreement needs to be made perfectly clear so that both sides know what has been decided. An agreement of any kind is a deal. When you reach an agreement, you can talk about clinching a deal or closing a deal. A bargain is also an agreement reached through negotiation. People who get what they want in a negotiation are said to drive a hard bargain. An agreement may be in the form of a contract. Contracts vary in their form and content. They can be oral and verbal, binding and legal, employment and labour, commercial and others. Checking the deal It’s important to check the points of an agreement to avoid misunderstandings. You could say:
Implementing a Course of ActionFrom the agreement, a course of action has to be implemented to carry through the decision.
Negotiation Settlement There are a number of signals that indicate that negotiations are coming to a close. This may not always mean that an agreement has been reached. In many cases, there are many rounds of negotiations. The preliminary round may uncover the major issues, while subsequent rounds may be needed to discuss and resolve them. Here are some signals of talks coming to a close:
Beware of last-minute strong-arm tacticsEven if you make the decision to treat your negotiating opponent with honesty and kindness, the other party may not extend you the same respect. Be prepared to stand your ground firmly, yet cordially, especially in the last few minutes of the negotiations. This is the time when manipulative parties may employ certain tactics in order to try to fool you into losing focus or lowering goals and standards. Remember that conflicts are generally resolved in the last few minutes. The theory behind last minute tactics is that one party may be more willing to give in out of fear that all of the concessions or progress made up to that point (perhaps hours or weeks of talks) might be lost. People also get tired or have other commitments that need to be met, such as making an important phone call before another business closes, or picking up children from school. Here are some last minutes tricks that negotiators often use at this time:
Language to use in closing
Formalize the agreement/negotiationIn most business negotiations it is a good idea to get something down in writing. Even if a decision has not been made, a letter of intent to continue the negotiations is often used. This is a way for each party to guarantee that talks will continue. A letter of intent often outlines the major issues that will be discussed in future negotiations. In some cases a confidentiality agreement is also necessary. This is a promise from both parties to keep information private between discussions. When an agreement has been decided, a formal contract may be required. On the other hand, depending on the seriousness of the decision, and the level of trust between the two parties, a simple handshake and verbal agreement may be all that is needed. For example, an employer may offer a promotion and an employee may trust that the new salary will be reflected on the next pay cheque. However, even if nothing is put formally in writing, it is wise to send an e-mail or letter that verifies the terms and puts the agreement on record, especially when a specific number is decided on.
Assignment 3. Which of these are good ways of dealing with conflict / confrontation in a negotiation?
1 Avoiding eye contact. 2 Smiling a lot. 3 Sitting back and appearing relaxed. 4 Stopping the discussion and coming back to it later. 5 Saying nothing for a long time. 6 Saying “I see what you mean”. 7 Finding out why the other side is unhappy. 8 Focusing on the issues, not on personalities. 9 Saying something humorous. 10 Speaking calmly and slowly.
Asking questions has two purposes: getting information and building trust. In both cases, it’s essential to be diplomatic. Therefore ask open and indirect questions rather than closed ones. An open question is created by using a question word like how, when, why, who, etc. A closed question gives you a yes/no or I don’t know answer. Open questions give you much more information than closed questions. They will also help you to get out of an impasse or stalemate. By using open questions, you show the other party you are interested in their concerns. An indirect question in English is polite and, therefore, helps to build trust, e.g. direct question How did you arrived at that figure? as compared to indirect question Can you tell me how you arrived at that figure?
Research shows that skilled negotiators often use the techniques listed below to achieve their negotiating objective.
Assignment 4. A. Match the techniques (1-5) to their definitions (a-e). 1 Open questions 2 Closed questions 3 Softening phrases 4 Signalling phrases 5 Summarising
a) Say what you are going to do before you do it. b) Modify language so that it does not appear too aggressive. c) Go over the points covered to highlight when agreement is reached. d) Gather information and explore the opposite number's views. e) Check understanding and ask for precise information.
B. Match each expression to the correct technique in exercise A.
a) Can you offer any collateral? b) There seems to be something wrong with your figures. c) Let's go over what we've agreed. d) What sort of loan are you looking for? e) Let me clarify my last point. What I meant was, we would want to retain control of the business.
C. Read the dialogue and identify expressions that match the techniques. Then place each expression under the correct heading in the Useful language box below. (Market Leader. Upper Intermediate Business English Course Book. 3d Edition. Unit 9).
CD3TRACK 5 (B = BANK MANAGER, C = CLIENT) B. I've looked at your business plan and I like some of your ideas for expanding your business. Could I ask you, what other people are providing finance for you? C. Well, two family members have offered I 00,000 Eurus for a small stake in the business. I haven't decided anything yet, and my partner is also investing some more money. We're still discussing the exact amount. B. Have you approached any other bank, if I may ask? C. Yes, two banks, but they turned me down. B. Oh, sorry to hear that - these are difficult times to raise money. I'd like to make a suggestion. Why don't you revise your business plan? And especially, put in a bit more about your competitors, for example. That'd help. C. Certainly, l can do that. B. Good. Could l ask what sort of repayment terms you have in mind? C. I'm pretty sure we could repay a loan - the whole amount, that is – within three years. B. Right. That might be a bit optimistic, I'd say. Anyway, suppose we were to offer you a loan of, say, 250,000 Eurus, once you've rev bed your business plan? How would you feel about that? C. Let me clarify what the money's for. The 250,000 would be for working capital, and to hire more staff; a finance director, marketing people, money for the extension of the factory . . . B. Well, we can talk about that a little later. Your first task is to strengthen the management as we discussed earlier. C. OK. Well, in that case, 250,000 would certainly help me to achieve some of my objectives in expanding the business. B. Good. We seem to be getting somewhere now. Let me sum up what we've agreed so far, then we can talk about your marketing strategy.
Useful language
Work in groups of four made up of two pairs. Pair A and Pair B: Read your instructions below.
Pair A
1. Look individually at the points to consider in an international negotiation listed below and add two more. 2. Choose the five most important points from your list. 3. Talk to your partner and agree the five most important points. 4. Join up with Pair B and try to agree the five most important points from your two lists.
1. Keep an open mind and be flexible. 2. Propose a strict agenda and keep to it. 3. Anticipate the interests of the other side. 4. Let the other side make the first offer. 5. Be very clear and direct about what you want from the other side. 6. Pay careful attention to building a rapport. 7. Put pressure on the other side to make an agreement. 8. Pay attention to the other side’s body language. 9. Don’t change your plan during the meeting. 10. Have a deadline for getting a deal.
Pair B 1. Look individually at the points to consider in an international negotiation listed on the right and add two more. 2. Choose the five most important points from your list. 3. Talk to your partner and agree the five most important points. 4. Join up with Pair A and try to agree the five most important points from your two lists.
1. Prepare carefully before you negotiate. 2. Avoid an agenda. Let the negotiation develop naturally. 3. Ask a lot of questions to find out the position of the other side. 4. Try to disguise what you really want. 5. Be prepared to walk away without a deal. 6. Never compromise on your key points. 7. Be careful not to let the negotiation break down. 8. Summarise often points you agree on. 9. Make no concessions until the end. 10. Make sure you 'win' the negotiation and get the best possible deal.
Agree on a single list of the five most important tips from your lists.
Assignment 5. Write some tips for negotiating successfully with your culture.
Assignment 6. In his book The Art of Winning, Harry Mills says that most negotiations have seven stages. These are listed below, but in the wrong order. Put the stages in order. What word do the initial letters of the stages spell?
Assignment 7. In his book The Pocket Negotiator, Gavin Kennedy describes two extreme styles of negotiator: Red stylists and Blue stylists. Read the summary of the two styles. Then decide if you are:
1. A Red stylist 2. A Blue stylist 3. Somewhere between the two styles
Assignment 6. Get prepared to role-play this situation in pairs.
A large foreign sportswear supplier and a local retailer have been negotiating the supply of running equipment. Look at the information and finalize the agreement using the expressions in the Useful language box.
Partner A. You are a large foreign sportswear supplier and have been negotiating with a new client for the supply of running equipment. Now you are meeting with your new customer to finalize the agreement. Summarize the information you have agreed on, set up an action plan, and close the negotiation.
Partner B. You are a sportswear retailer and have been negotiating with a new supplier for the supply of running equipment. This is the meeting in which you hope to finalize the agreement, set up an action plan, and close the negotiation.
Useful language
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||