Most (untrained) Negotiators take Angels vs. Devils perspective Zero-sum distributional view Implementing agreement is

1. Common misconceptions about negotiation • Most (untrained) Negotiators take • Angels vs. Devils perspective • Zero-sum distributional view • Implementing agreement is not considered, • Even if agreement is integrative, need to plan how to implement it because of prior hostile relationship

2. Example implementation of some agreements • Make the bid together (rather than compete for the bid so they could negotiate for a lower price). • The savings from joint bid was used to pay for the 3rd party to separate the fruit and deliver the parts to the different parties. • Fruit would be delivered to one party who would separate the parts deliver the other part to other party • Some would under-bid and over bid so that they could jointly sabotage the bidding process to favor each other and eliminate the competition • Agreements and discussion were video recorded to ensure implementation

3. Those reaching integrative agreement.. • Focus on interest vs. positions • Position=I need all of the fruits • Interest= I need the x part of all the fruit • Exchange information • Effective communication via good questioning or good revealing • e.g., Why do you need fruit? What do you need it for? • Accidental disclosure • Luck

4. How exchanging info leads to integrative agreement • When asked “what do you need the fruit for”, the answer “I need the rind/flesh/pits” came… • From further elaboration – • Get really specific (e.g., not just ‘I need it to help people, but I need x to create y). • Info disclosure may be inhibited if parties are suspicious of each other ‘stealing’ company secrets etc. Also, other party may not be ‘paying attention’ because of the stress of the hostile relations b/w the two parties • OR: Some asked “What part of the fruit do you need?” • This resulted in the solution • OR Answer why questions from your side… • Give detailed info to the same question from your own side (rather than giving info in the abstract, or waiting for the other party to answer ‘why’)

5. How to obtain integrative agreements • Think about the situation in new ways, i.e., engage in creative problem solving • e.g., think about prunes as 2 (or more) objects, rather than as one object) i.e., think of the objects under negotiation in a different way… • Get progressive agreement on little issues, and then move on to larger issues

6. How to obtain integrative agreements • Make pie bigger • In current exercise – • >> • e.g., House purchase (adding furniture into house purchase; save broker fees) • e.g., Mortgage broker (add aeroplan points instead of lower interest rate) • e.g., Salary negotiation (e.g., lower base vs. higher bonus; vacation)

7. Examples of win-win solutions in real-life • Franchise-franchiser agreements – • one party gets local control whereas other party benefits from national advertising • TTC employee wage negotiation – negotiated for a tax cut rather than a salary raise • Some real-estate agencies offer higher percentage of the sale price to the broker whereas others offer perquisites as part of completing sale instead of a higher percentage. • 04-05 Raptor trade – Vince Carter traded to NJ and money left over plus two more players

8. Examples of win-win solutions in real-life • Governments persuade companies to be more environmentally friendly by giving them tax-relief • Army recruits low SES youth into low paying jobs by promising to teach them skills and provide them with work experience. In return, such recruits do defense and humanitarian work. • Government sells ‘immigration’ policy to the public by arguing that migrant workers do jobs that no citizen wants to do, at low wages. This benefits not only the migrants who benefit from a job and from living in the country but also the citizens of the country who can purchase services/products of low paying jobs.

9. Is this exercise realistic? • Yes, issues would be the similar in real life in terms of morality of positions • Yes, party inequalities would be the same -- some will have more or less power (e.g., provincial vs. federal negotiations) • Yes, parties negotiating will often have prior hostile relationship and seemingly conflicting agendas • Yes, parties have to negotiate because they are accountable to their organizations e.g., constituencies • Yes, parties perceive self-importance of their own cause

10. Is this exercise realistic? • No, not realistic bec. doctors would never negotiate w/each other-- lawyers and governing bodies would be involved – • No, some parties would use a mediator

11. Sub-optimal agreements resulted when • Parties used their status e.g., “I am ??” • Rational arguments to persuade the other in the abstract (e.g., loss of x lives is worse than loss of y ”) • Speaking of positions in abstract “e.g., I am saving x vs. I am saving y ” • Answered ‘why’ question in the abstract rather than in the concrete • e.g., need x to save y/z vs. I need the rind/pits/flesh to make • Parties Engaged in ‘unethical’ behavior while making agreements • e.g., one party offered the other negotiator a job if that negotiator “gave in” to the first party’s wishes

12. For parties that didn’t come to agreement • Prior hostile relationship between parties prevented information exchange, although they understood each other’s situation, their own priorities came first. • Info exchange was mainly for own priorities (e.g., what the other party will be bidding) rather than to come to an optimal agreementAlthough there was open communication, • the personality of one party (selfish, arrogance, inability to look at the overall situation) prevented parties from coming to a compromise/agreement, • particular ways of viewing the negotiation situation (e.g. made negotiation out to be about money & compromise) • too stressed to listen to the other party’s detailed communication • Lack of trust because of prior hostile relationship

13. For parties that didn’t come to agreement • Framed it as a moral dilemma: between x & y– which cause is worth more? • Deception/lying prevented optimal agreement in that the person who lied had to compromise in the end • Both parties tried to exercise leverage on each other – moral vs. information leverage • Some parties did not compromise because they felt they had a ‘legal/moral’ right (e.g., I’m from X) • Time pressure prevented agreement