1. Negotiation & Conflict
Management in Organization
© www.asia-masters.com

2. Negotiating Skills

3. What is Negotiation?
• Negotiation is a method by which people settle differences. It is
a process by which compromise or agreement is reached while
avoiding argument.
• In any disagreement, individuals understandably aim to achieve
the best possible outcome for their position (or perhaps an
organization they represent).
• However, the principles of fairness, seeking mutual benefit and
maintaining a relationship are the keys to a successful outcome.
© www.asia-masters.com

4. What is Negotiation?
Specific forms of negotiation are used in many situations:
international affairs, the legal system, government, industrial
disputes or domestic relationships as examples.
However, general negotiation skills can be learned and applied
in a wide range of activities. Negotiation skills can be of great
benefit in resolving any differences that arise between you and
others.
© www.asia-masters.com

5. Why Negotiate?
It is inevitable that, from time-to-time, conflict and
disagreement will arise as the differing needs, wants, aims and
beliefs of people are brought together. Without negotiation,
such conflicts may lead to argument and resentment resulting in
one or all of the parties feeling dissatisfied.
The point of negotiation is to try to reach agreements
without causing future barriers to communications.
© www.asia-masters.com

6. Stages of Negotiation
In order to achieve a desirable outcome, it may be useful to
follow a structured approach to negotiation. For example, in a
work situation a meeting may need to be arranged in which all
parties involved can come together. The process of negotiation
includes the following stages:
1. Preparation.
2. Discussion.
3. Clarification of goals.
4. Negotiation towards a WIN-WIN situation.
5. Agreement.
6. Implementation of a course of action.
© www.asia-masters.com

7. Facts About Negotiation
© www.asia-masters.com

8. Approaches to Negotiation
Negotiation typically manifests itself with a trained
negotiator acting on behalf of a particular organization or
position. It can be compared to mediation where a neutral third
party listens to each side's arguments and attempts to help craft
an agreement between the parties. It is also related
to arbitration which, as with a legal proceeding, both sides make
an argument as to the merits of their "case" and then the
arbitrator decides the outcome for both parties.
There are two opposite types of negotiation: Integrative and
Distributive.
© www.asia-masters.com

9. Distributive Negotiation
The term distributive means; there is a giving out; or the
scattering of things. By its mere nature, there is a limit or finite
amount in the thing being distributed or divided amongst the
people involved. Hence, this type of negotiation is often referred
to as 'The Fixed Pie'. There is only so much to go around, but the
proportion to be distributed is limited but also variable.
A distributive negotiation usually involves people who have
never had a previous interactive relationship, nor are they likely
to do so again in the near future. Simple everyday examples
would be buying a car or a house.
© www.asia-masters.com

10. Integrative Negotiation
 The word integrative means to join several parts into a whole.
Conceptually, this implies some cooperation, or a joining of
forces to achieve something together. Usually involves a higher
degree of trust and a forming of a relationship. Both parties
want to walk away feeling they've achieved something which
has value by getting what each wants. Ideally, it is a twofold
process.
 Integrative negotiation process generally involves some form or
combination of making value for value concessions, in
conjunction with creative problem solving. Generally, this form
of negotiation is looking down the road, to them forming a long
term relationship to create mutual gain. It is often described as
the win-win scenario.
© www.asia-masters.com

11.  There are many different ways to segment negotiation to gain a greater
understanding of the essential parts. One view of negotiation involves three
basic elements: process, behavior and substance. The process refers to how the
parties negotiate: the context of the negotiations, the parties to the
negotiations, the tactics used by the parties, and the sequence and stages in
which all of these play out. Behavior refers to the relationships among these
parties, the communication between them and the styles they adopt. The
substance refers to what the parties negotiate over: the agenda, the issues
(positions and - more helpfully - interests), the options, and the agreement(s)
reached at the end.
 Another view of negotiation comprises 4 elements: strategy, process and tools,
and tactics. Strategy comprises the top level goals - typically including
relationship and the final outcome. Processes and tools include the steps that
will be followed and the roles taken in both preparing for and negotiating with
the other parties. Tactics include more detailed statements and actions and
responses to others' statements and actions. Some add to this persuasion and
influence, asserting that these have become integral to modern day
negotiation success, and so should not be omitted.
© www.asia-masters.com

12. The Advocate's Approach
In the advocacy approach, a skilled negotiator usually serves
as advocate for one party to the negotiation and attempts to
obtain the most favorable outcomes possible for that party. In
this process the negotiator attempts to determine the minimum
outcome(s) the other party is (or parties are) willing to accept,
then adjusts their demands accordingly. A "successful"
negotiation in the advocacy approach is when the negotiator is
able to obtain all or most of the outcomes their party desires,
but without driving the other party to permanently break off
negotiations, unless the best alternative to a negotiated
agreement (BATNA) is acceptable.
© www.asia-masters.com

13. Other Negotiation Styles
Shell identified five styles/responses to negotiation.
Individuals can often have strong dispositions towards numerous
styles; the style used during a negotiation depends on the
context and the interests of the other party, among other
factors. In addition, styles can change over time.
• Accommodating: Individuals who enjoy solving the other
party’s problems and preserving personal relationships.
Accommodators are sensitive to the emotional states, body
language, and verbal signals of the other parties. They can,
however, feel taken advantage of in situations when the other
party places little emphasis on the relationship.
© www.asia-masters.com

14. • Avoiding: Individuals who do not like to negotiate
and don’t do it unless warranted. When negotiating,
avoiders tend to defer and dodge the confrontational
aspects of negotiating; however, they may be
perceived as tactful and diplomatic.
• Collaborating: Individuals who enjoy negotiations
that involve solving tough problems in creative ways.
Collaborators are good at using negotiations to
understand the concerns and interests of the other
parties. They can, however, create problems by
transforming simple situations into more complex
ones.
© www.asia-masters.com

15. • Competing: Individuals who enjoy negotiations because they
present an opportunity to win something. Competitive
negotiators have strong instincts for all aspects of negotiating
and are often strategic. Because their style can dominate the
bargaining process, competitive negotiators often neglect the
importance of relationships.
• Compromising: Individuals who are eager to close the deal by
doing what is fair and equal for all parties involved in the
negotiation. Compromisers can be useful when there is
limited time to complete the deal; however, compromisers
often unnecessarily rush the negotiation process and make
concessions too quickly.
© www.asia-masters.com

16. Adversary or Partner?
Clearly, these two basically different ways of negotiating will require
different approaches. To ignore this can be devastating for the result, but it all
too often happens. Because in the distributive approach each negotiator is
battling for the largest possible piece of the pie, it may be quite appropriate -
within certain limits - to regard the other side more as an adversary than a
partner and to take a somewhat harder line. This would however be less
appropriate if the idea were to hammer out an arrangement that is in the
best interest of both sides. If both win, it's only of secondary importance
which one has the greater advantage. A good agreement is not one with
maximum gain, but optimum gain. This does not by any means suggest that
we should give up our own advantage for nothing. But a cooperative attitude
will regularly pay dividends. What is gained is not at the expense of the other,
but with him.
© www.asia-masters.com

17. Bad Faith Negotiation
Bad faith is a concept in negotiation theory whereby parties pretend to
reason to reach settlement, but have no intention to do so, for example, one
political party may pretend to negotiate, with no intention to compromise, for
political effect.
Inherent bad faith model in international relations and political psychology
Bad faith in political science and political psychology refers to negotiating
strategies in which there is no real intention to reach compromise, or a model
of information processing. The "inherent bad faith model" of information
processing is a theory in political psychology that was first put forth by Ole
Holsti to explain the relationship between John Foster Dulles’ beliefs and his
model of information processing. It is the most widely studied model of one's
opponent. A state is presumed to be implacably hostile, and contra-indicators
of this are ignored. They are dismissed as propaganda ploys or signs of
weakness. Examples are John Foster Dulles’ position regarding the Soviet
Union, or Hamas's position on the state of Israel
© www.asia-masters.com

18. Emotion In Negotiation
Emotions play an important part in the negotiation process,
although it is only in recent years that their effect is being
studied. Emotions have the potential to play either a positive or
negative role in negotiation. During negotiations, the decision as
to whether or not to settle, rests in part on emotional factors.
Negative emotions can cause intense and even irrational
behavior, and can cause conflicts to escalate and negotiations to
break down, but may be instrumental in attaining concessions.
On the other hand, positive emotions often facilitate reaching an
agreement and help to maximize joint gains, but can also be
instrumental in attaining concessions. Positive and negative
discrete emotions can be strategically displayed to influence task
and relational outcomes and may play out differently across
cultural boundaries.
© www.asia-masters.com

19. Positive Affect In Negotiation
Even before the negotiation process starts, people in a positive mood have more
confidence, and higher tendencies to plan to use a cooperative strategy. During the negotiation,
negotiators who are in a positive mood tend to enjoy the interaction more, show less
contentious behavior, use less aggressive tactics and more cooperative strategies. This in turn
increases the likelihood that parties will reach their instrumental goals, and enhance the ability
to find integrative gains. Indeed, compared with negotiators with negative or natural affectivity,
negotiators with positive affectivity reached more agreements and tended to honor those
agreements more.
Those favorable outcomes are due to better decision making processes, such as flexible thinking,
creative problem solving, respect for others' perspectives, willingness to take risks and higher
confidence.
Post negotiation positive affect has beneficial consequences as well. It increases satisfaction with
achieved outcome and influences one’s desire for future interactions. The PA aroused by reaching
an agreement facilitates the dyadic relationship, which result in affective commitment that sets
the stage for subsequent interactions.
PA also has its drawbacks: it distorts perception of self performance, such that performance
is judged to be relatively better than it actually is. Thus, studies involving self reports on achieved
outcomes might be biased.
© www.asia-masters.com

20. Negative Affect In Negotiation
Negative affect has detrimental effects on various stages in the negotiation
process. Although various negative emotions affect negotiation outcomes, by
far the most researched is anger. Angry negotiators plan to use more
competitive strategies and to cooperate less, even before the negotiation
starts. These competitive strategies are related to reduced joint outcomes.
During negotiations, anger disrupts the process by reducing the level of trust,
clouding parties' judgment, narrowing parties' focus of attention and changing
their central goal from reaching agreement to retaliating against the other side.
Angry negotiators pay less attention to opponent’s interests and are less
accurate in judging their interests, thus achieve lower joint gains. Moreover,
because anger makes negotiators more self-centered in their preferences, it
increases the likelihood that they will reject profitable offers.
© www.asia-masters.com

21. Opponents who really get angry (or cry, or otherwise lose control)
are more likely to make errors: make sure they are in your favor.
Anger doesn’t help in achieving negotiation goals either: it reduces joint
gains and does not help to boost personal gains, as angry negotiators
don’t succeed in claiming more for themselves. Moreover, negative
emotions lead to acceptance of settlements that are not in the positive
utility function but rather have a negative utility. However, expression of
negative emotions during negotiation can sometimes be beneficial:
legitimately expressed anger can be an effective way to show one's
commitment, sincerity, and needs. Moreover, although NA reduces
gains in integrative tasks, it is a better strategy than PA in distributive
tasks (such as zero-sum). In his work on negative affect arousal and
white noise, Seidner found support for the existence of a negative affect
arousal mechanism through observations regarding the devaluation of
speakers from other ethnic origins." Negotiation may be negatively
affected, in turn, by submerged hostility toward an ethnic or gender
group.
© www.asia-masters.com

22. Competitive VS. Collaborative
Negotiations
© www.asia-masters.com

23. Competitive Negotiations
© www.asia-masters.com

24. Competitive Negotiation
In competitive negotiation, the approach is to
treat the process as a competition that is to be won
or lost.
Zero sum
The basic assumption of competitive negotiation
is that it is a 'zero sum game'. That is, the people
involved believe that there is a fixed amount to be
gained which both people desire, and if one person
gains then the other person loses. It is like arguing
over a pie: if one person gets a piece of the pie then
the other person does not.
© www.asia-masters.com

25. Win-lose
The outcome of zero-sum negotiation is
defined in terms of winners and losers. One
person gets what they want and feels smug (or
maybe a bit guilty), while the other person loses
out and feels cheated or a failure.
Zero sum
© www.asia-masters.com

26. Substance only
• In competitive negotiation, the substance of what is
being traded is the only real concern, and dealings
are done in a hard and 'what I can get' way.
• A way of thinking zero-sum is to translate everything
into financial terms. Thus, for example, if you are
buying or selling a car, you think first in terms of its
resale value. The only perceived negotiable for many
competitive negotiators is price.
© www.asia-masters.com

27. Substance only
Unimportant relationship
• In competitive negotiation, the relationship between the
people is unimportant. They do not care about one
another or what the other thinks about them. This
typically occurs in one-off sales where 'caveat emptor' is
a key rule.
• To show concern for the other person is to show
weakness that may be taken advantage of. This can lead
to trickery where false concern is shown, and reactions
where any show of concern is perceived as likely trickery
(and can lead to attempts of two-faced double-dealing).
© www.asia-masters.com

28. Competitive Strategy
Competitive strategies that seek substantial gains focus on
hard exchange and may descend into deceptive double-dealing.
Hard exchange
• In a hard exchange, what is being exchanged is clear and
above-board and both sides agree to the deal. There is no
trickery or pressure and the players agree to the exchange,
albeit with one person potentially more satisfied than the
other.
• The hard exchange is like a fair fight. Both players accept the
rules and play cleanly (although perhaps based more on a
respect for the rules than respect for the other person). This
may be encouraged by potential punishment for double
dealing, such as in the litigation that sellers may face.
© www.asia-masters.com

29. Competitive Strategy
Double dealing
The alternative method of competitive negotiation is to
throw the rulebook out of the window and resort to tricky
approaches such as aggression and deception. Either party
may tell lies and use verbal or even physical persuasive
methods. We are all bound by internal values and the level
of trickery or physicality used will vary along a spectrum.
Although we may find this distasteful, we all know that it
happens and many of us have been less than fully truthful
in our negotiations.
© www.asia-masters.com

30. Collaborative Negotiations
Just negotiating collaboratively is not enough to win
together; however, without collaborative negotiation we will
surely lose together. As such we also share the other aspects
that contribute towards achieving success with collaborative
negotiation. These include: addressing the factors that affect
collaboration internally and externally; developing a method for
effective partner selection before the negotiation even begins;
and agreeing how best to design the relationship for effective
delivery of commitments and relationship success once the
negotiation concludes.
© www.asia-masters.com

31. Collaboration is easy to say, but not so easy in
practice
The Oxford English Dictionary offers a simple
definition of collaboration: ‘to work jointly’. I would
build on that from a business perspective to describe
collaboration as: ‘to work jointly towards an agreed
goal or objective’. At a general level, human beings aim
to be collaborative. But why is it that within and across
organizations people find collaboration so difficult?
Why is it that the effort expended in collaborative talks
frequently shows little positive return in practice?
© www.asia-masters.com

32. Everyone knows the forces pushing towards increased
organizational collaboration continue to grow. They also know that
customers want solutions not products; that the pace of change is
increasing; that organizations must focus on what they do well and
work with others that offer complementary assets and capabilities.
In Wikinomics[1] the authors wax lyrical about the future of
collaboration. It’s easy to talk about collaboration but knowing
‘how’ to do it well is a different story. In my book Alliance Brand:
Fulfilling The Promise of Partnering [2] it shows organizations ‘how’
to win with partnering and alliances, where being able to
collaborate is one of the seven key elements that make up an
organization's capability to partner.
[1] Tapscott, Don and Wiliams, Anthony D Wikinomics How Mass Collaboration Changes
Everything, Atlantic Books, 2006.
[2] Darby, Mark Alliance Brand: Fulfilling the Promise of Partnering John Wiley & Sons
2006.
© www.asia-masters.com

33. Factors Affecting Collaboration
We believe that all negotiators act with positive intent; it
might not be their fault that a relationship falls apart at the time
or later in life, or maybe they are just not aware that terms
struck could actually cause conflict in operation. There are
usually bigger factors at play, many of which will be explicit, but
some of which may be implicitly driving behaviors and are
therefore harder to recognize. My work with organizations both
large and small suggests there is a common set of ‘factors
affecting collaboration’. These contribute towards an
organization's culture and must all be pointing in the right
direction for it to be able to collaborate well internally, and must
complement (not conflict with) the organizations that it wishes
to work with externally (see Figure 1).
© www.asia-masters.com

34. © www.asia-masters.com

35. BT Global Services (BTGS) is a great example of an
organization addressing the factors affecting
collaboration as it seeks to double its revenues from
partnering over the next three years. Steve Cash is
General Manager for BTGS Systems Integrators & Channel
Partners (SI&CP) and the person responsible for the BTGS
Partner of Choice Program, the initiative that makes the
partnering aspirations a reality. Steve and his team have
adopted ALLIANTIST methods and are already seeing
positive results; over the past 12 months BTGS has
addressed about 30 factors that were affecting
collaboration; both internal and external. These include:
© www.asia-masters.com

36. • Clarifying its strategy, purpose and interest in the context of any future
partnering activity and expecting the same of its partners (including
sharing tools and methods with partners to help them make better
decisions on collaborative intent with BTGS);
• A change in leadership of BTGS where the new messages firmly
emphasize collaboration (internally and externally) as a key means of
achieving results;
• Making organization structure changes to enable verticals (BTGS
customer lines of business; for example, government) to collaborate
alongside SI&CP teams to win more business together instead of
competing for the same opportunities;
• Introducing PAM™ software to enable effective partner search,
selection and negotiation for teams as well as a comprehensive
governance process to ensure that the total portfolio of BTGS partners
is considered for each opportunity;
© www.asia-masters.com

37. • Introducing partnering training and development initiatives for all staff
alongside the software tools that together equip users to collaborate
more effectively — this includes C-level (CEO, COO, SVP and other
senior decision makers) Partner Vision programs with selected
partners and the articulation and expression of an ‘SI&CP Way’, where
role modeling behaviors are rewarded and old ways of working are
consigned to Room 101.
• Significant changes to reward structures — whereas formerly vertical
teams and SI&CP were incented to compete, now they are rewarded
for collaboration — pay plans, targets and models to ensure a ‘channel
neutral’ effect on meeting the customer need have been introduced;
and
• There is a range of consequences too — failure to share information
early on may lead to loss of financial bonuses, and the organization has
started to make its intentions known for those who choose not to
embrace the new methods and behaviors.
© www.asia-masters.com

38. Exploring
© www.asia-masters.com

39. Barriers To Effective Communication
& How To Overcome Them
© www.asia-masters.com

40. Barriers to Effective Communication
• There are many reasons why interpersonal
communications may fail. In many communications,
the message (what is said) may not be received
exactly the way the sender intended. It is, therefore,
important that the communicator seeks feedback to
check that their message is clearly understood.
• The skills of Active
Listening, Clarification and Reflection may help but
the skilled communicator also needs to be aware of
the barriers to effective communication and how to
avoid or overcome them.
© www.asia-masters.com

41. There are many barriers to communication and
these may occur at any stage in the communication
process. Barriers may lead to your message
becoming distorted and you therefore risk wasting
both time and/or money by causing confusion and
misunderstanding.
Effective communication involves overcoming
these barriers and conveying a clear and concise
message.
© www.asia-masters.com

42. Common Barriers to Effective
Communication
The use of jargon. Over-complicated, unfamiliar and/or technical
terms.
Emotional barriers and taboos. Some people may find it difficult
to express their emotions and some topics may be completely
'off-limits' or taboo.
Lack of attention, interest, distractions, or irrelevance to the
receiver. (See our page Barriers to Effective Listening for more
information).
Differences in perception and viewpoint.
Physical disabilities such as hearing problems or speech
difficulties.
© www.asia-masters.com

43. • Physical barriers to non-verbal communication. Not being able to see the
non-verbal cues, gestures, posture and general body language can make
communication less effective.
• Language differences and the difficulty in understanding unfamiliar
accents.
• Expectations and prejudices which may lead to false assumptions or
stereotyping. People often hear what they expect to hear rather than what
is actually said and jump to incorrect conclusions.
• Cultural differences. The norms of social interaction vary greatly in
different cultures, as do the way in which emotions are expressed. For
example, the concept of personal space varies between cultures and
between different social settings.
© www.asia-masters.com

44. A Categorization of Barriers to
Communication
© www.asia-masters.com

45. Language Barriers
Clearly, language and linguistic ability may act as a barrier to
communication. However, even when communicating in the
same language, the terminology used in a message may act as a
barrier if it is not fully understood by the receiver(s). For
example, a message that includes a lot of specialist jargon and
abbreviations will not be understood by a receiver who is not
familiar with the terminology used. Regional colloquialisms and
expressions may be misinterpreted or even considered offensive.
See our page: Effective Speaking for more information.
© www.asia-masters.com

46. Psychological Barriers
The psychological state of the receiver will influence how the message is
received. For example, if someone has personal worries and is stressed, they
may be preoccupied by personal concerns and not as receptive to the message
as if they were not stressed. Stress management is an important personal skill
that affects our interpersonal relationships. See our pages What is
Stress? and Avoiding Stress for more information. Anger is another example of
a psychological barrier to communication, when we are angry it is easy to say
things that we may later regret and also to misinterpret what others are saying.
See our pages: What is Anger?, Anger Management and Anger Management
Therapy for more information. More generally people with low self-esteem
may be less assertive and therefore may not feel comfortable communicating -
they may feel shy about saying how they really feel or read negative sub-texts
int