1. FHB: Burger- Menzel/Lloyd intercultural communication and negotiation techniques - short introduction - Prof. Dr. Bettina Burger-Menzel & Angela Lloyd, Brandenburg University of Applied Sciences (FHB)

2. FHB: Burger- Menzel/Lloyd The negotiation process Preparation Relationship building Exchange of task-related information Persuasion Concessions Agreement compare Deresky, H. 2000: Management across borders and cultures, p. 169

3. FHB: Burger- Menzel/Lloyd Let‘s play... „double-booking“

4. FHB: Burger- Menzel/Lloyd...this is also true for negotiation, e.g. Northern European style Appeal to logic Only rational answer to factual arguments possible Concessions signalised early in the process Short-term relationship Authority based on performance... Compare: Deresky, H. 2000: Management across borders and cultures, S. 175 Mediterranean style Appeal to emotions Emotional answer to factual arguments possible Concessions during the whole negotiation process Long-term relationship Authority based on hierarchy...

5. FHB: Burger- Menzel/Lloyd And there are other issues to consider...

6. FHB: Burger- Menzel/Lloyd * source: Fisher, R./ Ury, W./ Patton, B., 1981: The Harvard Negotiation Project, Boston, Mass.

7. FHB: Burger- Menzel/Lloyd * source: Fisher, R./ Ury, W./ Patton, B., 1981: The Harvard Negotiation Project, Boston, Mass.

8. FHB: Burger- Menzel/Lloyd Let‘s play again... „complaint“

9. FHB: Burger- Menzel/Lloyd * source: Fisher, R./ Ury, W./ Patton, B., 1981: The Harvard Negotiation Project, Boston, Mass.

10. FHB: Burger- Menzel/Lloyd * source: Fisher, R./ Ury, W./ Patton, B., 1981: The Harvard Negotiation Project, Boston, Mass.

11. FHB: Burger- Menzel/Lloyd * source: Fisher, R./ Ury, W./ Patton, B., 1981: The Harvard Negotiation Project, Boston, Mass.

12. FHB: Burger- Menzel/Lloyd rule 4: agree on objective criteria compare Hindle, T., 2001: Erfolgreich verhandeln, München, p. 66f. Summing up on objective criteria for... being well prepared and informed about both sides having a clear conception of goals (costs, utility,...) having a clear idea of different options (usefulness of instrument, e.g. easy to being implemented, easy to be controlled...) having a clear idea of priorities (where and what to offer when) knowing the realistic time frame being able to take the minutes and formulate an agreement...

13. FHB: Burger- Menzel/Lloyd * source: Fisher, R./ Ury, W./ Patton, B., 1981: The Harvard Negotiation Project, Boston, Mass.

14. FHB: Burger- Menzel/Lloyd... defining roles within a team rolesresponsibilities leaderconducting the negotiation ruling on matters good guy/girlshowing understanding for the opposition bad guy/girlintimidating the opposition stopping the negotiation hardlinerkeeping the team focused emphasising difficulties sweeperbringing all views together suggesting ways out of a deadlock Comp. Hindle, T., 2001, Erfolgreich verhandeln, München, p.21

15. FHB: Burger- Menzel/Lloyd... using seating tactically Your team Opposing team BAD GUY GOOD GUY BOSS HARD- LINER SWEEPER Comp. Hindle, T., 2001, Erfolgreich verhandeln, München, p.28

16. FHB: Burger- Menzel/Lloyd... using seating tactically BAD GUY GOOD GUY BOSSHARD- LINER SWEEPER Comp. Hindle, T., 2001, Erfolgreich verhandeln, München, p.28

17. FHB: Burger- Menzel/Lloyd...and now it is time for ‚learning by doing‘ !