NEGOTIATION CONSULTING:
A 10-ELEMENT TOOLBOX FOR MANAGERS
Noam Ebner & Yael Efron
Noam Ebner is an assistant professor at the Werner Institute at Creighton University's
School of Law, where he chairs the online masters program in Negotiation and Dispute
Resolution. He has consulted on many negotiation processes across a wide number of
issues and industries, and specializes in negotiation process conducted online.
NoamEbner@Creighton.edu.
Yael Efron is assistant to the Dean of the Safed College School of Law. She is at the
forefront of dispute resolution in Israel, having consulted to the Ministry of Justice,
private mediation initiatives, and community mediation centers, in addition to her own
private practice as an attorney and a mediator.
yaele.law@gmail.com.
NEGOTIATION CONSULTING:
This is a pre-print version of a book chapter appearing in The
2013 Pfeiffer Annual of Consulting.
Cite as: Ebner, N. & Efron, Y. (2013). Negotiation consulting: A 10 element
toolbox for managers. In E. Biech (Ed.), The 2013 Pfeiffer Annual of Consulting.
San Francisco: Pfeiffer
A 10-ELEMENT TOOLBOX FOR MANAGERS
Over the past couple of decades, a clear niche has been cleared in the consulting industry
for professionals offering organizations and managers their negotiation expertise – as
consultants, coaches and trainers. Focusing on the role of the consultant, the rise of the
external expert has not changed one fundamental fact: Most intra- and interorganizational
negotiation processes are carried out without the assistance of external
experts. Some high-level or high-profile negotiations might be seen to warrant a contract
with an external consultant. Still, the great majority of negotiation processes (at least –
volume-wise) are carried out, as they always have been – by line-employees and lowlevel
managers, working without the benefit of a consultant guiding them.
That is not to say that negotiators do not seek assistance in mapping, planning,
conducting and debriefing their negotiation processes. However, it is not the external
expert to whom they turn for help. Instead, they continue to turn –as they have always
turned – to their peers to share their experience, and to their managers to provide wisdom
and guidance.
The manager plays the role of an internal negotiation consultant, all the time. If a
salesperson runs into difficulty in closing a deal – in general or in a specific instance –
their manager has always been their source of guidance. Call center employees often
consult with their superiors – and not only as a result of “I want to speak with your boss”.
Junior car salespeople ask their boss’ advice not just as a ruse – but in order to improve
their own performance. Line employees’ perception of their manager is often that he or
she has risen to where they are as a result of having been there, and done that, in the
trenches, successfully – and as a result, they see their managers as a source of valuable
input.
Is the manager, in fact, equipped to play this role? The answer is, of course, ‘sometimes’.
This depends not only on whether the manager is, in reality, skillful at negotiation – but
also on how talented they are at breaking down just why they are successful, at naming
the elements and dynamics playing out in their subordinate’s negotiation process, and at
making astute and empowering suggestions aimed at improving their performance.
These are not simple challenges. Managers, skilled as they may be at negotiating their
own deals, may not be able to articulate the thought and action processes that bring this
success about. Negotiation often seems to be, a blur of many things happening at once;
the key to a negotiation’s success or failure, though, lie in a negotiator’s ability to
identify and name discrete elements needing attending to, reinforcement or fixing. Only
after these critical elements have been identified, can managers apply their own
experience and knowledge in making suggestions on addressing them – and require a
language for helping their employee work through ideas that might be helpful in doing
so.
The model presented below aims to help managers with this process. It provides a list of
elements that are at play in every negotiation process, no matter what is on the table: a
million-dollar deal, relations between two employees or the type of coffee purchased for
the office. This list of elements should inform the structure of a consultation between a
negotiator and his or her manager. In addition to providing an agenda for the
conversation, the model provides a language thorough which the manager can discuss the
negotiation with the employee. It provides a list of questions which managers can
employ, in their attempts to help their negotiator work describe, analyze and work
through the negotiation under discussion.
Of course, their manager’s knowledge and skills notwithstanding, any employee faces
three major obstacles along the road to consulting with their manager: Corporate culture,
manager accessibility, and the employee’s own image management, all affect the degree
to which the manager is viewed, and utilized, as a source of negotiation input. Having a
useful and structured model in their toolbox can help managers feel more confident in,
and comfortable with, conducting consultation conversations – to the degree that they
will be inviting towards them, or even initiate them. This will affect corporate culture,
demonstrate their availability and willingness to engage with subordinates on this issue
and decrease any stigma related to an employee needing help from the boss.
Let’s take a look at the model, adopting the perspective of the manager-as-negotiationconsultant
role:
The 10 elements of negotiation:
When is this model helpful?
The model is useful for counseling negotiators at all stages of a negotiation process. It
can be used as a preparation tool, as a ‘taking stock’ tool in the middle of a process, for
crisis management when a negotiation seems about to unravel and for post-process
debrief and learning. The toolbox remains the same; only the questions need to adapt
their tense and thrust.
How is this model meant to be applied?
1) Note that this is a toolbox for discussing a negotiation process as a whole, and for
breaking it down into discrete elements. It is not a sequential set of instructions,
laid out as a recipe (‘Start with this, do that, stir it around, wait 45 minutes and
cook’)
2) When using the questions given here as examples try to ask them not only
regarding your negotiator’s point of view but as a tool to understanding where the
other party to the negotiation is coming from – and what it might take to move
them towards you.
What should managers focus on in helping their subordinates tackle negotiation issues?
Below are 10 elements they might look at. Each element is briefly explained, and then
supplemented with a list of questions managers can use to develop discussion around
them. The order in which they are dealt with is not crucial. You may note that they tend
to run from intake (how the negotiation is or appears to be now) to output (how do we
envision and affect the outcome), giving the order they are in now a certain logical and
temporal rationale. However – if a negotiator is drawn to discussing a certain element
right off the bat, you might decide to flow with them, as this might be an indicator of the
critical element in this negotiation.
1) Parties:
Every negotiation includes two or more parties. Understanding the way parties are
comprised, how they affect one another and who is present at the table, is
sometimes the key to understanding a negotiation’s dynamics. Negotiators tend to
get drawn in to focusing on their at-the-table opposite; a consulting manager can
help them consider a bigger picture and cast their net wider.
Who is involved in the negotiation? What do we know about them, on a personal
and professional level? Who are they reporting to – and what do we know about
them?
Who should be involved? Are we talking to the right people? Do our opposites
have decision making authority?
Who is affected by the negotiation, despite their absence from the table? Are they
affecting the way the negotiation is developing? Can they be mobilized and used
to affect our opposite’s considerations?
2) Issues:
People come to negotiation in order to discuss something, or multiple somethings.
They don’t always formulate exactly what this is before hand, and rarely do both
parties arrive at the same formulation. The framing of issues, as well as the
decision on sequencing them in conversation, can be critical. So too can be
awareness to the fact that sometimes those issues that are withheld from the table
are those that are setting the tone for the negotiation around the addressed issues.
Managers can help negotiators consider these issues before arriving at the table,
or identify them as sticking-points in an ongoing process.
What are the negotiated issues? What has each party come to discuss? Are
parties in agreement about the list of issues? Do they frame them in the same way,
or does a difference in wording of framing indicate a disagreement about the
agenda? How might each issue be framed in a way that is most beneficial to our
side, without raising the other party’s ire?
Are all the issues on the table? Are there ‘untouchable’ issues that both parties
are tacitly agreeing not to raise explicitly?
What order are issues being discussed in? Is this conducive to reaching
agreement, or leading to early impasse?
3) Perceptions and expectations
Parties arrive at the table with two sets of impressions, which affect everything
that goes on during the negotiation:
Perceptions – a party’s assumptions regarding the other person and their
character, their own character and justifications, their own power and the other’s.
Expectations – a party’s often unspoken assumptions regarding what the process
will look like and how it will unfold, and what the bottom line will be.
Of course, rarely do parties have the same perceptions and/or expectations in any
given case, and the intrusion of reality when they realize things are not playing
out according to script often leads to escalation spirals. Throughout their
discussion of the negotiation, managers need to help negotiators work through and
recognize expectations and perceptions from objective facts or absolute truths.
How do you perceive the facts? How do you think the other party perceives them?
How do you perceive yourself, and what are your perceptions of the other party?
How do you think they perceive you, and themselves?
What is your estimation of your own power in the situation? How does this
compare with your estimation of the other’s power? How do you think this
estimation might look, conducted on the other side of the table?
What are your expectations regarding the process? Quick, or protracted?
Friendly, or fraught with animosity?
What are your expectations regarding outcome? Do you think agreement will be
reached? Do you expect the other will give in on issues you view as critical?
4) Relationship
Relationship is a huge issue in negotiation, one that is difficult to capture in just a
few lines. However, it is helpful to think of it as an ongoing process in which
there might be past, present and future elements, and parties need to recognize
these, assign them value and prioritize amongst them. At the table, it is easy to
focus on the at-the-table dynamics, or to fall into the trap of sacrificing too much
in order to maintain a vague relationship. A good manager will help their
negotiator do the math in a proactive and clear manner.
Do you have a past relationship with the opposite party? If so – how would you
classify it: Is it a good relationship? A bad relationship? A civil relationship? A
working relationship?
How is the present, at-the table relationship? Is the nature of the conversation
businesslike, productive, amiable, or partner-like? Or is it competitive,
contentious, or aggressive? How is this making you feel?
Is there likely to be a future relationship, such as in the case of return clients or
ongoing business relations? How valuable is the future connection? Is it valuable
enough to warrant some degree of concession in the current relationship – or is
that a trap we need to steer clear of?
5) Communication
Another huge issue in negotiation, which might be simplified to a few key issues:
Clarity, information and strategic cues. Communication needs to be clear enough
for us to get our core messages across, and to understand the other’s core
messages. It might be beneficial to have enhanced communication, conducive to
sharing information, discussing ideas and interests openly. Finally, the way
communication is conducted gives insights into the other’s strategic game plan.
Aggressive communication will often be an indicator of a competitive approach,
whereas friendly, open communication might be an indicator of a cooperative
approach or of trustworthiness. Then again – they may not. Being able to consider
these issues with the benefit of a bit of distance from the table is a valuable
service the manager can provide the negotiator with. Sometimes, it might be
possible to bring the manager a bit closer to the table to look at the actual
communication process – such as by showing him or her a recent exchange of
emails.
How is information transferred? Are conversations taking place face-to-face, on
the phone, or by email? Is the medium affecting the process positively, or posing
challenges to it?
Are both parties speaking the same languages, on all levels? How can we
improve understanding?
Are parties sharing information openly, or is there a sense that you are trying to
squeeze water from a rock in order to learn more from the other party?
What is your feeling about the other’s strategic mind-set, based on his or her
communication? Are they out to grind you into the ground, or are they out to
work together with you?
6) Issues and Interests
Two related concepts in negotiations have to do with the relationship between
what we are out to get, and what we are asking the other party for. This is not
meant in the sense of haggling or bargaining (“I’m out to get $500, so I’ll ask for
$1,000 to leave me some wiggle-room”), but rather in the sense that there is
usually a huge difference between our real motivations, and their external
presentations. We ask our opposite for $500 per widget, but our motivations really
lie in other directions: meeting our bottom line, feeling good about ourselves,
announcing dividends, keeping our jobs etc. Receiving $500 per widget might be
one way to do this – it certainly isn’t the only way. Unfortunately, we often lose
track of this – and so does the other. Parties forget to check if the other party
might have something of value that is not included on the $0-500 continuum; they
also sometimes wind up with compromise agreements that seem to be an
achievement – but in reality do not satisfy the real underlying interests that should
have been guiding the negotiator. A manager can help their negotiator keep on
track by constantly keeping their interests clear and in mind, and exploring
whether they and the opposite party may have some interests in common that
might do the negotiation a world of good.
When the negotiation focuses only on positions, such as in a gloves-off, bashingout-a-price
haggling process, managers can help negotiators make real
assessments about the other party’s abilities and ultimatums, leading to better
decision-making that the at-the-table, high-pressure situation allows for.
What do you hope to achieve through this negotiation? Why is it important to you,
and what does achieving your goals allow you to do? What do you think the other
party would answer to these questions?
What demands have you made to the other party? Are you certain that these
demands, if agreed to, would satisfy the needs you described? What demands has
the other made of you?
Based on your understanding of both sides’ interests, might their be some out of
the box solution that does not require either of you to make impossible
concessions from the demands you have made of each other?
Might there be some completely different way to satisfy the needs you detailed?
What about the other’s needs? Might there be some way to satisfy them without
making costly concessions?
7) Options
Options are the spectrum of possible agreements between the parties. They are
those outcomes of this negotiation which rely can manifest if both parties say
‘yes’ to them. There is no possibility of achieving them unilaterally. Managers
can help negotiators identify a wider range of options which satisfy their interests.
They can also help them consider in a more balanced way options proposed by the
other party which while, although they might be at odds with your negotiator’s
expectations and discounted simply because they are the other’s ideas, might
actually satisfy their interests.
What offers have you made to the other party? What offers do you plan to make?
What offers have you received from the other party? Do you expect to receive
different offers?
Have you considered whether the other party’s offers might actually meet your
interests? Can you think of ways in which you might build a counterproposal
upon their own offers, rather than trying to force your own through?
8) Standards
While there is no law dictating what a party must or must not agree to in
negotiation, there are certain standards, or objective assessments, that carry
weight. These standards help us in our efforts at persuasion. For example, a car
dealership offering your firm vehicles can ask for the sky, but if you ask them
why you should pay more than book value (a standard supported by market
practice and my evaluator credibility) your argument carries persuasive weight.
To a somewhat lesser extent, your follow up argument that they should give you a
bulk discount (a standard that might be based on market practice) also works in
your favor. If they would point out that car dealers never gave a bulk discount for
under thirty vehicles and you were ordering twelve, this, too would also be a
standard-based argument (supported by market practice and precedent), Managers
might be able to help negotiators think of standards working in their favor, and to
avoid them getting misled by incorrect or inexact standards proposed by the other
party (e.g., the opposite might say that nobody gives a discount for under thirty
unit, but the manager knows that another firm was given a discount for fifteen
units).
Can you support what you’re asking for (your position) in terms of an objective
measure?
Is your position supported by an external evaluation of some sort (e.g., book
value, expert assessor, market value and practice, etc.?)
Does the law, or any other form of legal or industry regulation, support your
position?
What standards is the other party raising in order to support their position? How
can you differentiate between the standard and this specific case, in order to
downgrade the compelling power of their standard – in your eyes, and their own?
9) Alternatives
Alternatives are our backup plans – they are those things we can do, on our own,
should the negotiation fail to conclude in agreement. These are things we can do
unilaterally, without our opposite’s consent or agreement. For example: Should
the negotiations for purchasing the vehicles fall through, we can negotiate with a
different dealership, stick with the old cars for another year, but all of our
employees bicycles, etc. It pays to take a good hard look at our best alternative,
and ask ourselves whether this would indeed serve as an acceptable backup plan.
If the answer is yes, then we need to compare it to whatever deal is currently
being offered on the table. If our best alternative seems to be better than the deal
we are being offered, we should either hold out for more, or walk away. We might
also choose to display our alternative and invite our opposites to do better.
Managers can help negotiators in proper assessment of their alternatives. These
have a tendency to look rosy when we want to leave the table, and to look
unappealing when negotiation dynamics have us really wanting to seal a deal at
the table. They can also help negotiators assess whether – and when – to discuss
alternatives they have with the other party. Finally, they can also use the benefit
of distance-from-the-table to help their negotiator realistically consider what the
opposites alternatives might look like, affecting their behavior at the table.
Are you desperate, for any particular reason, to reach agreement? Why?
What will happen to you if agreement is not reached, in this negotiation?
What will you proactively do, should this negotiation end with no agreement?
What alternatives will you pursue?
How attractive are those alternatives, and which of them would seem to be the
most attractive?
Is that best alternative tangible, and can it realistically be obtained? Or is it more
of a pipe-dream which gives you comfort to consider now, as this negotiation
seems to be going down the drain?
Would your best alternative be better for you than whatever is being discussed on
the table now? Do you think that the offers in the negotiation might improve to a
rate that they would be better than the alternative? Or would it be best to end the
negotiation now and invest your effort in making the alternative our main focus
and plan?
Do you think that flashing your alternatives at the other party might make them
improve their offers in order to compete with it? Or – do you think this tactic
might backfire? When do you think would be a good time to do this, and how
might you frame it, in order to achieve concessions on their part, rather than a
walk-out or an ultimatum?
10) Agreement
This is the goal and main product of the negotiation. However, it is not an ends in
itself – it is a means, or an instrument. No deal is better than a bad deal, and there
is often a price to pay for a rushed close.
When moving towards closing, make one last check:
Does this agreement satisfy our interests? Is it better than our alternatives? Might
we be able to come up with some pie-expanding option to make it more beneficial
to us?
Do we think the agreement is sustainable? Will the other comply? What is the
degree of risk involved – and what might be the costs of non-compliance?
Is any particular format necessary for the agreement itself (i.e., oral, written,
court ordered, witnessed, etc.)? Should others be involved in its final formulation
(e.g., higher authority, legal counsel, etc.)?
Conclusion
Managers are a knowledgeable and convenient source of negotiation guidance for their
teams. No matter what the context of the negotiation is, a grasp of negotiation elements
and language to discuss them in is necessary in order to transfer this wisdom to
negotiators. The 10 element toolkit discussed in this piece will hopefully go some of the
distance in bridging between managers’ experience and expertise and their negotiators’
need for guidance.