1. Prof. E. Van Genderen

2. 1. Your reaction 2. Their emotions 3. Their position 4. Their distrust 5. Their power

3.  Sailing analogy  Indirect action – against your natural reactions  Change the game  Creativity is vital – the Camel parable

4.  Sequence is important  Steps 1 ‘Don’t React’ and 2 ‘Step to Their Side’ (atmosphere)  Step 3 ‘Reframe’ (uncovers issues)  Step 4 ‘Build them a Golden Bridge’ (channeling)  Step 5 ‘Use Power to Educate” (Demonstrate the need for cooperation)

5.  Prepare, prepare, prepare  Lord Caradon ‘What is it that we want to leave the village tonight having achieved?’  ‘Have we achieve what we set out to achieve?’  Strategy > prepare > assess > prepare

6.  TIME and how it is viewed in the Gulf vs. the US  Relationships and trust  Hierarchy and where you fit into ‘the big picture’  Positions vs. interests

7.  Negotiation is the result of conflict  Your position is what you want  Your interests are the reasons behind your position

8.  Know your interests!  If you don’t know what is important to you, it won’t be satisfied by others  Rank-order your interests.  Try to know their interests.

9.  The Power of Perception:  ‘Unless you understand the other side’s perspectives, you will never be very good at making deals or settling disputes.’  Of critical importance: ‘Put yourself in the other side’s shoes.’  Find out as much as you can about the other side’s personality, current situation, etc.

10.  Interests > options > agreements  Options bring opportunity  Generate many options  Options ‘expand the pie.’  ‘First create, then evaluate.’

11.  Standards act as established, objective, and independent measurements  Common standards incl.: market rates, the law, fairness, ethics and morals, scientific criteria, technical standards, norms and precedence, etc.  Standards help us ‘divide the pie.’

12.  Enter negotiations with alternatives  Know your BATNA  BATNA = Best Alternative To not reaching an Agreement  Your BATNA is your ‘walk away’ plan.

13.  Negotiation power and BATNA  Your BATNA is your basic measuring stick for any agreement 1. What can you do on your own to satisfy your interests? 2. What can you do directly to the other side to make them respect your interests? 3. Resort to a third party

14.  A good proposal needs to satisfy: 1. Your interests; better than your BATNA, and 2. Their interests better than you believe their BATNA to be; and 1. Should be based on fair standards

15.  An option viz a proposal (commitment)  You should have 3 proposals in mind: 1. Your best case proposal 2. A less-than-perfect but proposal 3. Your ‘bottom line’; which should be at least slightly better than your BATNA 4. Prepare! Rehearse! Get feedback!

16.  ‘Action provokes reaction and reaction provokes counteraction.’  Natural behavior – react without thinking  3 Common reactions

17.  Sometimes it works – more often than not, it serves to justify their position and tactic  Keep in mind your interests and relationships  Change to a game you know well – their game suits them – not you  Playing ‘hardball’ damages relationships

18.  The opposite to striking back…  Pressure  Guilt  Coercion  Unsatisfactory agreements

19.  It rewards the wrong side  It sets precedence, and creates impressions and reputations (weakness)  ‘An appeaser is one who believes if you keep throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will eventually turn vegetarian.’

20.  Breaking off a relationship  Can be a costly strategy  Avoidance can be a powerful strategy – for a time.  ‘One who always breaks off goes nowhere, because they are always starting over.’

21.  Iranian hostage crisis (1979-1981)  Reacting distorts our power of reason, our mental balance, and our focus  Democratic viz non-democratic nations  The other side gains power in relation to its ability to make you react.

22. You have unilateral power… When you are under pressure or attack – get objectivity. Detach mentally Keep your eye on your objective

23.  There are 3 categories of tactics: 1. Stone Walls 2. Attacks 3. Tricks

24.  Call the Tactic  ‘Good Cop, Bad Cop’  Lies are the most difficult  Look for mismatch, look for inconsistencies

25.  Their power comes from their ability to make you react.  Be in touch with your body  Criticism  Guilt  Confrontation  Fear

26.  Pause  Take a Break  Thomas Jefferson ‘When angry…”  Dealing with rage: Imagine the person is simply having a tantrum  Don’t accept ownership

27.  Say nothing  Rewind the tape  Take a time-out  Don’t make important decisions on the spot  Get what you want (don’t get mad or even).

28.  Reasoning with unreceptive individuals  Disarm the other side  Going to the balcony viz Stepping to their side  Mental balance

29.  Do the opposite of what they expect.  Stonewalling > pressure  Attacking > resisting or counterattacking 1. Listening 2. Acknowledging 3. Agreeing

30.  Patience and self-discipline  It offers a ‘window’ into their mind  Angry people want to voice their frustrations.  ‘Spouting off’ > more balance > openness to problem-solving

31.  The other side wants to be listened to and heard.  Sum up what you understand the other side has said.  Satisfaction for the other side

32.  Acknowledge their point(s).  Listen > acknowledge  Acknowledging is not necessarily agreeing!  Acknowledge the validity of their perspective > neutralize the emotional charge.  Former US Defense Secretary McNamara

33.  Acknowledge their feelings.  Don’t ignore emotions: Stonewalling > fear Attacking > anger, frustration, resentment, distrust * Be sincere.

34. *Apologies are acknowledgements. Example: Columbia law professor The power of apology: ‘I am really sorry for this mess.’ ‘I apologize if my decision effected you unfavorably.’

35.  Listen > acknowledge > agree  Agree whenever possible.  Find common ground.  Example: the US Senator

36.  Humor breaks ice. Example: Charity worker Think of a ‘yes’ as being a point or a vote in your favor. Use ‘yeses’ and collect ‘yeses’.

37.  Example: Anwar Sadat, Arab-Israeli relations (1977)  Cognitive dissonance  Acknowledging them does not mean supporting their behavior!  Authority and competence

38.  Ego stroking  Relationship building  Express your views – don’t provoke.  Change your mindset; either/or > both/and.  Don’t say ‘but’…(irritators)  ‘I’ statements viz ‘you’ statements.

39.  Acknowledgement defuses hostility, anger, resentment, distrust, etc.  Listen > acknowledge > agree 1. Their point 2. Their emotions 3. Them as people *Step to their side

40.  Change the game from positions to interests.  Ask ‘why?’  Why do you want that?  Example: Gromyko and Biden (1979)

41.  Tell them about the problem.  Let the problem ‘teach them’.  Problem-solving questions: 1. Focuses attention on both sides’ interests; 2. The options for satisfying them; and 3. The standards of fairness

42.  Why is it that you want…?  What is the problem?  Help me to see why this is so important.  You seem to feel pretty strongly about this…

43.  Why not do it this way?  What would be wrong with the following approach?’  Correct me if I am wrong but…  Perhaps you view the situation like this…

44.  What ifs lead to options.  Options lead to proposals.  Proposals lead to agreements.  Example: Project fixed budget

45.  Turn the negotiation into a brainstorming session i.e., Gramyko and Biden  What would you suggest that I do?  What would you do if you were I? *Through partnering, they take part ownership

46.  Getting around ‘stone walls’: 1. Ignore 1. Reinterpret 1. Test

47.  Deflecting attacks: 1. Ignore the attack 1. Reframe attack from you to problem. 2. Reframe a personal attack as friendly i.e., Warlord and General 1. Reframe from past wrong to future remedy.

48.  Change your language.  Instead of ‘you’ and ‘I’…’we’  The ‘Turning Point’ comes when you change the game. Positional Bargaining > Joint Problem- solving (Interests).  *Reframing = redirecting what the other side says against the problem.

49.  Build them a ‘Golden Bridge’.  Main obstacles to agreement: 1. Not their idea 2. Unmet interest(s) 3. Fear of losing face 4. Too much too fast

50.  Don’t push them toward agreement.  Reframe a path from their position to a mutual solution.  Example: S. Spielberg  Mediate your own agreement; start from where they are (not where you are).

51.  Involve the other side; ask for their ideas.  Ask for their constructive criticism.  Satisfy unmet interests; example: Campbell’s soup and restaurant chain.  Don’t assume a ‘fixed pie’; look for low-cost high-value trades.

52.  Kennedy and Khrushchev  Help write their ‘victory speech’.  Go slow – to go fast.  Build them a ‘Golden Bridge’ from their position to a mutual agreement.

53.  Use power to make it easier for them to say yes. Whilst at the same time, making it difficult for them to say no.  No agreement at this point is usually because they believe their BATNA is superior to your Golden Bridge.

54.  What do you think will happen if we don’t agree?  What do you think I will do?  What will you do?

55.  Demonstrate your BATNA. Example: Strikes in Japan  The power of a third party  Remind the other side of the Golden Bridge; give them a way out > back off > let them choose.

56. 1. Don’t React 2. Step to Their Side 3. Reframe 4. Build Them a ‘Golden Bridge’. 5. Use Power to Educate (not escalate)

57. What is Saddam’s position? What is the Kuwaiti position? What are Saddam’s interests? What are the Kuwaiti interests? What is Saddam’s BATNA? What is the Kuwaiti’s BATNA? How realistic is Saddam’s perspective of the situation? What do you think about Saddam’s decision not to accept the concessions?