Like any dialogue, a negotiation involves an exchange of ideas.
Even where a final agreement cannot be reached, both sides have a great deal to gain from such an exchange.
Several specific guidelines can be offered relating to the exchange of ideas between negotiators.
Specifically, a buyer negotiating on behalf of a municipality should:
- Be sure of the assumptions that serve as the basis for his or her municipality’s bargaining position, along with the grounds on which those assumptions are based. The assumptions should be subject on a reality check before proceeding to negotiation.
Assumptions need not (and in many cases, should not) be disclosed to the other party. However, it is vital to listen to what is being said by the other party (and to the other sources of information as well) while negotiations proceed. Assumptions may be reasonable when first made, but subsequently become unrealistic as additional information is acquired. If contrary evidence comes forward, the entire approach towards negotiation may need revision.
- Be sure of his or her municipality’s goals and understand why they are desired goals. The relative priority of each goal also needs to be understood. If the organization has goals A, B and C, would it be would it be prepared to give up C, in order to get A and B alone; or are A and B valueless without C? Thus, the interrelationship between the goals needs to be understood.
- During the course of negotiations, attempt to verify all beliefs that are held concerning the assumptions made by the other party. Often this can be done by asking questions and analyzing the answers given. It is also essential to clarify specifically what the other party is seeking. If this is not done, there is a serious risk of confusion.
- Learn as much as possible about the other side by listening carefully to the answers that are given by the other party, paying as much attention to what is not said as to what is said. A negotiator should prepare in advance the answers that he or she expects to receive from the other side. Those answers should then be compared to the answers that are actually received.
Consideration should be given as to why the two answers are different. One area of specific concern is whether the answer actually received suggests the assumptions that a party has made are untrue. However, while the possibility of such a mistake should not be ignored, neither should it be too readily adopted: the possibility that one’s opponent will jump to such a conclusion is the psychological premise that underlies the poker bluff.
- From the last point concerning the risk of a bluff, one might draw a more general rule: avoid quick reaction. If the other side is seeking to annoy a negotiator, then quick reaction merely plays into their hands. If there is no such indication, a more deliberative approach should prevent the situation from deteriorating. If one side moves too quickly, the other side may also do so in response, with a consequent degrading the process of negotiation.
- Do not negotiate alone. Such an approach is dangerous. It gives rise to a greater risk concerning what each party has actually said. Also, it is advantageous to have someone to make notes and observe what is happening on the other side of the table; a negotiator should try to understand what the opponent believes is true. Each member of the team should keep separate notes, so that impressions can later be compared.
There is an old saying that nothing succeeds like success. The more one can create the impression that negotiations are moving ahead, the more likely all parties are to remain involved in the negotiations. The more issues that are resolved, the greater the chance of resolving the remaining issues.
Stephen Bauld is a government procurement expert and can be reached at [email protected]. Some of his columns may contain excerpts from The Municipal Procurement Handbook published by Butterworths.
