Post #7: When an angry public wants to be heard + Mental errors

When an angry public wants to be heard?

Anger is a really powerful emotion. It can absolutely destroy relationship between two parties who after a moment seem to forget everything they know about finding joint gain. Confronted with negative publicity, negotiators become so focused on controlling public relations and managing the crisis that they forget to work for their own best interests. So, the given article gives some advice for negotiators dealing with an angry public. I will quote some of them:

• Encourage joint fact-finding—basically this process is about finding a set of respected experts (third party people) with different views and disciplinary backgrounds who take a neutral side in negotiation and so help to reach a consensus between two parties easier and a more effectively. 

• Accept responsibility, admit mistakes, and share power—this is exactly what angry public craves most of all especially because they do not want mistakes to be repeated. It is always easier to blame someone rather than to take responsibility and admit mistakes. However, it is necessary to reach a better result and relationship. 

• Focus on building long-term relationships—in order to create a strong relationship we are always concerned about the future of this relationship. Even if both parties are at odds, they should think of interests if dealing together. 

To conclude I will say that, in my opinion, the primary goal in negotiations is to search for tradeoffs that will lead to a mutually beneficial agreement in order to create value together. The two sides would never begin to negotiate if they both did not need each other. 

 Mental Errors

The next chapiter is dedicated to mental errors that parties commit during the negotiation process and was particularly interesting for me. There are some common errors mentioned in the article and that I personally found interesting to discuss: 

• Irrational Escalation—a human behavior pattern in which a negotiator facing increasingly negative outcomes from some decision, action, or investment nevertheless continues the same behavior rather than alter course which is very irrational. One of the reasons for this behavior may be a high ego, or unwillingness to be seen coming home empty-handed from a negotiation. People used to get everything they want are more likely to make this mistake. Personally I have never experienced this but I witnessed how people, losing their sanity, were ready to do everything to get what they want. 

• Irrational expectations—very common error in terms of negotiations. Sometimes we want something and we expect that it is easy to get. Unfortunately, most of the time this expectation follows disappointment. Negotiations have always wanted a strategic analysis and thoughtful actions. So we have to take off pink glasses and to be more realistic.

• Overconfidence—confidence itself is a very good thing which gives us courage to take risk and to tackle difficult and uncertain ventures. However, overconfidence encourages us to overestimate our own strengths and underestimate those of our rivals. Basically overconfidence can blindside you to dangers and opportunities. It is also related to mental errors known as groupthink. The last one is about making irrational decisions within a group of people desiring more to get harmony inside the group without any critical evolution. Personally it does not concern me because I am rather unconfident in making decisions. 

Post #6: Frequently Asked Tactical Questions

Frequently Asked Tactical Questions

Let’s continue the conversation about business negotiation. In my previous posts I have already mentioned that it was very important to ask right questions before and during negotiation. Thus, there are some FAQs about negotiating tactics which can be organized in three broad categories: price, processes and people. I will talk about only few of those, which I consider the most interesting to tackle.

Concerning the FAQs about price it was useful to know how to react to an incredibly unreasonable price opened by the other side. The most important is to stay neutral and not to get lost. We should come back to talking about interests, explaining our perspective on the deal. We should remember that we do not have to refer to the initial price or proposal of the opponent. This is quite difficult for me, because in most cases after realizing that the price offered by my negotiator is much higher than I expected I throw away the negotiation. 

Concerning the FAQs about process I was always wondering if we could bluff during negotiation. Indeed, when we imitate negotiations during play roles in the class we tend to lie not thinking about the consequences. In real life, we get it more seriously and lying about material fact is almost certainly grounds for legal actions. However, we do not need to reveal all the circumstances that make us willing to conclude a deal. We can so keep some details under scratch. 

Concerning the FAQs about people’s problems, I was most interested by the question on some means we use during negotiation. Indeed, by which way it would be better to communicate, over the telephone, via mail or face-to-face meeting? Personally, I prefer the last two ones. Mail communication may have a greater tendency to result in disputes and impasses. The person who receives an e-mail may interpret a comment negatively when the sender did not intend it that way. On the other hand, mail communication is devoid of emotions. We are more rational and carefully try to look for “right words”. Negotiating over the telephone, we are more likely to lie, because it is more difficult to understand the emotions of a person across the line. I prefer face-to-face communication, where I can see the reaction and observe reactions of my negotiator. I feel more confident. 

Post #5 Roleplay Sally Soprano + Game Theory "Win As Much As You Can"

Roleplay Sally Soprano

 

On behalf of my client Sally Soprano I had a meeting with Lyrica Opera’s Business Manager in order to get a title role for Sally in upcoming production of Bellini’s Norma. After losing her reputation and not having played in any opera performances, Sally Soprano was very eager to have this role that would probably lead to many other singing opportunities. So it would be her comeback opportunity. 

Therefore, my negotiation strategy was, of course, focused on my client’s experience in this role. Then, her household name and experience would require minimal preparation for the Norma’s production that is less than one month away. There are some of key arguments I used during the meeting:

1. Popularity and household name would draw an audience;

2. The performance is in less than one month;

3. She would not need much training because of her rich experience;

4. She has not played this role before, but performed it at Lyric Opera, so she has much more prepared and experienced for now than before. 

However, I knew that my negotiator has prepared his strategy which I guessed. Th major Lyrica’s Manager’s argument was that my Sally Soprano was not at her peak and might not generate enough ticket sales on her name. Moreover, she is no longer young which was not a strong point for her candidature. But the time was more important for Lyric because they did not have much time to look at other younger profiles. 

Our negotiation was quite balanced and showed an excellent vehicle for comparing principled negotiation and positional bargaining. We both felt that we had a need in each other, but each side has her strong position and interests. Anyway, there was not a matter of life and death. 

Another aspect of our bargaining was money even though we decided it quite fast. Thus, I planned to get partnership with Lyrica Opera, because it was very first time I was working with Operas. So, it could be great for my personal career to continue dealing with it. Well, we stopped on an amount of $31,000 (my reservation price was $30,000) for the role for Sally Soprano. As the result, she got her role at Norma’s production and I got my partnership with Lyrica Opera. Great deal! 

Game Theory: Win as Much as You Can

I will never forget this game, not just because it was very interesting, but because I did not understand at all what was going on. Our class was split into groups. We were each asked to prepare 2 sheets of paper one of which we had to mark with an X and the other with a Y. For 10 successive rounds my partners and I had to choose either an X or a Y. Moreover, we were not to confer with the members inside the groups. Such non-verbal communication was applied during the game. Each round payoff depended on the pattern of choices made in the cluster, so each group must agree upon a single choice for each round. There were 3 rounds (out of 10) in which we c would speak. After each round we were asked to write our results in the score sheet.

Basically, the sense of this game was held on trust. It has to be very competitive activity that would show the impact of various win-lose situations on groups where we needed to make decisions compete with each other and on other instances co-operate with each other in order to win as much as possible. The game dramatizes the merits of both, competitive and collaborative models within context of intragroup and intergroup relations. 

Unfortunately, my group and I understood that after the game has already been finished. We were not playing in win-lose game by bluffing to our partners. On the contrary, we thought of each member of the group and wanted each to gain a penny. We did not even pay attention to the title “win as much as you can”. So that game was the most awkward among all that we have done. Honestly, I do not think that if we really understood the rules of the game, we would not have acted like we had done, playing on altruism or so on. If I could start that game again, I would have completely changed my strategy and would have thought of my personal profit.