Negotiating Final – petes in lab (calculate ratios) not nopat and equity multipler

The One Minute Negotiator & Getting to Yes Negotiating Skills The One Minute Negotiator & Getting to Yes

The One Minute Negotiator by Don Hutson and George Lucas http://www.donhutson.com/videos-and- podcasts/the-one-minute-negotiator/

The One Minute Negotiator Model What is a negotiation? … The ongoing process through which two or more parties, whose positions are not necessarily consistent, work in an effort to reach an agreement.” Do you need to know how to negotiate? “Negotiaphobia” – disease of attitude and skill deficiency Many people see negotiations as act of combat or conflict Skill you need to work on

Three-Step EASY Treatment Process Engage: Recognize you are in a negotiation and quickly review the viable strategies. Assess: Evaluate your tendency to use each of the negotiation strategies, as well as the tendencies of the other side. Strategize: Select the proper strategy for this particular negotiation. Your One Minute Drill: Each time you begin a negotiation situation, take a minute to review the 3 steps.

Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument Late in the negotiation process after legitimate strategies fully used When only a small gap remains on one issue Always directly tied to an agreement

Negotiation Strategy Matrix Proactive Competition Win/Lose Collaboration Win/Win Avoidance Lose/Lose Accommodation Lose/Win Low Cooperation High Cooperation 4 different strategies and which one involves Reactive

What really matters is how the other side sees you Affects how they negotiate with you “know yourself as others know you” 2 categories of collaborators: Sages and Dreamers “unilateral collaboration is de facto accommodation” check strength of accommodation tendency vs competition tendency  helps us get there Biggest concern is when the number for any strategy is way too high Deploy this strategy regardless of the situation and the strategy used by the other party They way we perceive ourselves and other perceive us can be quite different Know yourself the way others view you as well  wont be as successful (see the difference in your perception) Collaboration  when you have the opportunity you should Sages  people who know when to collaborate (evaluate a situation and know when it is benifitical to do so) Dreamers  idealistic (group of collaborators who will do it regardless)  if you fall into here the other parties need to be on the same page (willing to collaborate) unilateral collaboration is the same as accommodation Main concern is not what your go to tendency is but more when you’re too high on one vs. the other (always will go, even if the situation it does not make sense)

Assess Their Tendency Most people are extremely predictable Key is to be observant enough to recognize it Behavioural style and company culture 4 basic interaction styles – similar to DISC Pace of information exchange Focus on tasks or relationships Drivers (D)  similar to the dominant Expressives (I) Amiables (S) Analyticals (C) Building out ability to observe Behav style and company  start to understand the individuals you’re dealing with (how they behave) You can an idea of company culture

Interaction Styles Drivers Expressives Analyticals Amiables Fast Pace Task Focus People Focus Slow pace, fast pace The more task and slower pace (analytical  number driven) close to the C in DISC. Like detail want time and information in order to make decisions Drivers are focused on one issue and tend to have a shorter attention span for things like detail (since they are task/goal oriented failure is not an option) Amiables  don’t like to deal with conflict  stressfull may seem passive aggressive Expressives  people focused but tend to have a fast paced way in how the proccess and meke choices (collaborators) Tend to be dreamers  hard for them to get the task done (idealistic, but the follow through may not be there). Get bored easily. Slow Pace

Strategize None of the four strategies are universally applicable or appropriate Avoidance Minimal issue Recognize it may grow in importance Do it in way that demonstrates investment in relationship Superior option readily available elsewhere Objections are a sign of interest Accommodation In significantly weaker bargaining position – no leverage Can improve leverage with knowledge How you accommodate is as important as when “this time around we would be willing to consider…” and don’t make excuses You rarely want to use avoidance  but it sometimes does make sense (be careful to know that this tiny issue you want to let go, may come back to haunt you later – issues end up growing) If you seem careless, and you are going to deal with it again, just demonstrate you do care about the relationship You know you have a better option somewhere else. Therefore don’t need to engage in a particular negotiation Avoiding the sales person  as the other party you may see this as a sign of interest (no objections, they agree with what I say, but it could be a sign of avoidance) Objections can be a sign of interest because you are taking into account what they are saying Accommodation  sometimes you really need to do this. When you have a weaker bargaining position you have no leverage (nothing that can influence an opinion) ability to influence others is about leverage (the ability to influence ones actions or behavior, what can you hold against them or use as a form of reward or punishment) Can improve leverage with better knowledge How you accommodate you need to respect the other persons interest and longer term relationships You don’t want t give the impression that you’re always willing to do so. (Make sure it is a one-time thing)

Competition Collaboration Opponent not inclined or capable of collaborating Need senior players in loop to get at true needs Not worth the effort Be careful to look for true potential of negotiation Collaboration When situation presents a significant opportunity with capable and willing decision-makers on all sides Win-win-win 80/20 rule Requires preparation, need identification, and candor – trust Internal collaboration is prerequisite for external collaboration Sometime you cannot collaborate when the other person does not want to Competitively they may be incapable (skill level or the wrong person – not the decision maker) Not worth effort  not a bigger relationship with no long term potential (win and get out of there) but look for the underlying potential for bigger or longer term. Suggest to collaborate whenever you can  because when you have the opprotunity it always make sence to do so (people who are cappable on the other side, two way street and the right people in the room to make the choice and tell you what their interest really are) = a win win win outcome (we win, other party and your relationship  not negatively impacting further potential) 80/20  might only be able to collab 20% of the time, a small fraction may other get to a collab (other parts are lacking) it will hhowever contribute to 80% of your success. The challenge is that its not easy (indentify your needs and your other peoples needs – involves cander, trust  cannot mask your true needs because then you don’t know what they want/need) You need internal collab to work towards further outside

Getting to YES by Roger Fisher and William Ury Harvard Negotiation Project

Principled Negotiations Typical neg0tiations are ‘positional’ People state their positions – what they want Strategy is ‘distributive’ Competing, compromising, or accommodating Mindset is that someone is set, and not static and you need to thnk about how you will distribute it. Distributed approach Principle negotiation  collaborations  integrative approach, care to move towards the bigger pie

Principled negotiations use an ‘integrative’ /collaborative strategy Produce a wise agreement Efficiently and amicably 4 basic points: Separate the people from the problem Focus on interests not positions Generate a variety of options before deciding what to do Insist that the result be based on objective criteria Try to produce a wise agreement  makes sense for everyone (not a mechanical split based on certain dissues  is distributed approach) principle negotiations are wiser. You don’t have the mind set of scarcity Efficiently  better than you would other wise.  short time to get to an ideal agreement (focus on core interests and not positions) Amicably  relationship is better off or at the very least not worse off (end on good terms) Show why it does make sense Separate  often don’t do this and attack the people (work together to attack the problem and not the people) Interests positions are basically what you want, interests underlie why you want it and the reasoning behind it, focus on the why instead of what they want, underlying interests (ex. Critera keeps the process fair, egos get involved but is the result is based on a critera you can base if and justify the result.