Transcript Slide 1

Leadership in the Trial Courts/District Court
Maximizing Interests
Through
Negotiation
Philip L. Lee
Results Leadership Group, LLC
www.ResultsLeadership.org
& University of Maryland School of Public Policy
Key Elements of Interest-Based Negotiation
1. Identify Interests
Team
Conversation
2. Generate Options
to maximize
interests
3. Apply Criteria
where needed
From Getting to Yes, by Fischer, et. al., and materials developed by Conflict Management Group, Inc
What is a Successful Negotiation?
(Elements of Interest-Based Negotiation)
The agreement or result achieved:
1) Identifies and satisfies interests:
 Ours, well
 Theirs, acceptably
 Others, tolerably
2) Leaves no joint gains on the table: is among the best of
many options (i.e., maximizes interests)
3) Is legitimate -- parties view the outcome as fair and
sensible as measured by criteria
From Getting to Yes, by Fischer, et. al., and materials developed by Conflict Management Group, Inc.
Key Elements of Interest-Based Negotiation
Desired
Relationships
Efficient
Communication
1. Identify Interests
Team
Conversation
2. Generate Options
to maximize
interests
3. Apply Criteria
where needed
BATNA
Commitment
From Getting to Yes, by Fischer, et. al., and materials developed by Conflict Management Group, Inc
What is a Successful Negotiation?
(The Seven Elements of Interest-Based Negotiation)
(continued)
The agreement or result achieved:
4) Includes commitments that are well planned, realistic, and
operational
5) Is better than our BATNA - Our Best Alternative to a
Negotiated Agreement
6) The process is efficient – there is effective communication
7) The process helps build the kind of relationship we want
From Getting to Yes, by Fischer, et. al., and materials developed by Conflict Management Group, Inc.
Key Elements of Interest-Based Negotiation
Desired
Relationships
Efficient
Communication
1. Identify Interests
Team
Conversation
2. Generate Options
to maximize
interests
3. Apply Criteria
where needed
BATNA
Commitment
From Getting to Yes, by Fischer, et. al., and materials developed by Conflict Management Group, Inc
Positions vs. Interests
Position: One party’s solution to an issue
Interest: One party’s concern about an issue
Issue: Plans for Friday evening.
Person A’s position: I want to go to Chez Pierre
Restaurant and then go see the movie Rocky VI I.
Person A’s interests: ____________________
Person B’s position: I want to have your roast lamb for
dinner and watch the Terps play basketball on T.V.
Person B’s interests: ____________________
Positions vs. Interests
Position: One party’s solution to an issue
Interest: One party’s concern about an issue
Issue: Time for weekly administrative meeting.
Person A’s position: I have changed the time of our
weekly meeting to 8:00 a.m.
Person A’s interests: ____________________
Person B’s position: You cannot require me to come to
work before 9:00 a.m.
Person B’s interests: ____________________
Court Administrative Team:
Maximizing Interests (Option 1)
1. Identify issues that you might want to
address
2. For one issue, identify the interests of
(a) each team member and
(b) any other significant parties/stakeholders
3. Generate options to maximize/better
satisfy those interests
4. Bonus step: For other stakeholders, what is
their BATNA?
Court Administrative Team:
Maximizing Interests (Option 2)
1.
Identify an interest or interests (individual or
shared) you would like to maximize or better
satisfy
2. Generate options to maximize/better satisfy the
interest(s)
3. As you consider each option, identify any other
parties/stakeholders who have interests that are
in possible conflict with the option. Where you
identify conflicting interests, generate another
option that will acceptably satisfy that conflicting
interest.
4. Bonus step: For each other party/stakeholder,
what is the party/stakeholder’s BATNA?
Negotiation Analysis
Party
Interests
Options
(connect to interests)
BATNA
Negotiation Analysis
Party
Interests
Options
(connect to interests)
BATNA
Interests
Element
Description
Guidelines
•Underlie positions
Clarify Interests, not
positions:
•What are our
interests?
The agreement
satisfies interests:
•Ask why? Why Not?
•What are their
interests?
Ours, well
•Agreement is better to
the extent it meets the
interests of the parties
•Look for interests that are
shared
Options
•Capitalize on different
interests
•The full range of
possibilities
Invent Options for mutual
gain:
•Can agreement be
better for one party
without being worse for
another?
•Separate inventing from
deciding
•Generate options through
brainstorming
- No evaluation
- No commitment
- No attribution
Preparation
•What is their
Currently Perceived
Choice? A problem
or an answer?
•Can we invent more
possible
agreements?
•Can we change
their choice?
•Can we separate
inventing from
deciding?
From Getting to Yes, by Fischer, et. al., and materials developed by Conflict Management Group, Inc
Success
Theirs, acceptably
Others, tolerably
The agreement
leaves no joint
gains on the table: it
is the best among
many options
Element
Description
Criteria (Legitimacy)
Alternatives
•If agreement is not reached
•Self-help: Does not require
the agreement of the other
party
•Agreement should exceed
BATNA
Guidelines
Know your Best
Alternative To a
Negotiated Agreement
(BATNA):
•Evaluate their BATNA?
•Reality-Test both
BATNAs
Preparation
Success
•What’s our BATNA?
The agreement is
better than our
BATNA
•Can we improve it?
•What is theirs?
•Can we worsen it?
Legitimately?
•Fair as measured by
external benchmark
Use Objective Criteria
to help evaluate options:
•Are we using
objective criteria?
•Criterion or principle
beyond the simple will of
either party
•Ask Why is it fair?
•Criteria that will
appeal to them?
•Such external standards of
fairness include intl. law,
precedent, standards, or
principles, i.e. reciprocity
•Use the test of
reciprocity
•Look to fair procedures
•To third parties?
From Getting to Yes, by Fischer, et. al., and materials developed by Conflict Management Group, Inc
The agreement is
legitimate - parties
view the outcome
as fair and sensible
as measured by
criteria
Communication
Relationship
Element
Description
Guidelines
Preparation
•Parties have improved Separate people from the
their ability to work
problem:
together rather than
•Deal with the Relationship
damage it
& the substance, each on
•Ability to deal with
their own merits
differences
•Attack the problem, not the
people
•Are the parties
better/worse to deal
with future differences
•Can we improve the
interaction?
•Outcome reached
efficiently without
waste of time or effort
Facilitate good two-way
Communication:
•Are we listening?
•Effective two-way
communication
•Balance advocacy with
inquiry: explain our
reasoning
-Inquire into theirs
•Listen
•More concerned/softer
on the people?
Success
The process
helps build the
kind of
relationship we
want
•More rigorous/harder on
the problem?
•Should we consult before
deciding?
•Are we open to
persuasion? (Or not?)
•Do they know it?
•Frame what we say in light
of what they say
From Getting to Yes, by Fischer, et. al., and materials developed by Conflict Management Group, Inc
The process is
efficient - there is
effective
communication
Commitments
Element
Description
Guidelines
•Agreements between Make Commitments at the
the parties as to
end of the process:
actions they are to take
•Talk first, decide later
over time
•Think of how, as well as
what
Preparation
Success
•What realistic
commitments come next?
The
agreement
includes
commitments
that are planned,
realistic, and
operational
•Are they credible?
•Yesable?
•Compliance-prone?
•No commitments until
interests and options are
fully explored
From Getting to Yes, by Fischer, et. al., and materials developed by Conflict Management Group, Inc
The “Soft or Hard” Dilemma
Soft on Everything Hard on Everything
Consider
Have to talk
Don’t have to talk
Evaluate in terms of
BATNAs in each case
Insist on maintaining
relationship
Insist on acceptance of our
position
Deal with relationship &
substance, but separately
(soft on people, hard on
problem)
Open with a reasonable
position
Open with an extreme
position
Don’t focus on positions,
clarify interests
Concede generously
Concede stubbornly
Separate brainstorming from
decision-making
Focus on what we will
do; make offers
Clarify what we won’t do;
make threats
Maximize legitimacy; seek
criteria persuasive to them
From Getting to Yes, by Fischer, et. al., and materials developed by Conflict Management Group, Inc
Books on
Interest Based Negotiation
• Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher and William Ury
(1981)
• Getting Together, Roger Fisher and Scott Brown
(1988)
• Getting Past No, William Ury (1991)
• Difficult Conversations, Douglas Stone, Bruce
Patton, and Sheila Heen (1991)
• Getting Ready to Negotiate, Roger Fisher and
Danny Ertel (1995)
• Getting It Done: How to Lead When You’re Not in
Charge, Fisher and Sharp, 1999