Negotiation Skills Training Workshops

Our public Negotiation workshops and in house Negotiations workshops are enlightening, educational, measurable and fun. Negotiation training workshops can be scheduled at your offices or through our open enrollment workshops. We do offer negotiation skills training workshops to the general public.

Contact us today to discuss your specific Negotiation training needs or to sign up for one of our public negotiations workshops. 

Participants in the Win- Win Negotiations workshop will learn to:

• Develop an effective plan and strategy for any negotiation
  
• Know when and when not to negotiate
  
• Negotiate face-to-face, on the phone, and through e-mail
  
• Learn to become a more persuasive negotiator
  
• Develop a common negotiating language with the other parties
  
• Use negotiation techniques that pull information from the other parties
  
• Read client and employee behaviors styles to maximize closure
  
• Recognize interests and issues and avoid unnecessary positions
  
• Neutralize manipulative negotiation tactics
  
• Minimize negotiation conflicts and deadlocks both internally and externally
  
• Coordinate negotiations within client organization
  
• Meet business objectives by focusing on planning rather than on tactics

 

Question: Internal negotiations with interdepartmental rivals can be rancorous. Unfortunately previous history both between departments and between personnel is not good.

When (at least) one participant is resistant to the point of running antagonisms with other staff, how can the questions be framed to either work with, slow down or even shut down the resistant party(s)?

Any strategies would be appreciated.

- Perplexed PM in Houston

Dear Perplexed,

Dealing with a difficult negotiator - anyone you may be trying to influence or persuade - takes on different meaning, and challenge, with internal negotiations, when that person works in the same company. Often a person who is consistently agonistic has been taught, somehow, that this gets results. Therefore this person may be unwilling or unable to change behaviors until it is clear that only a new, less antagonistic approach to internal negotiations will get them what they want. There are several approaches you might try to address the behavior you describe, which fall into three categories:

1.Set boundaries outside of which certain behavior will not be tolerated;

2.De-legitimize the behavior so that person cannot reasonably continue their actions; and

3.Confront the behavior directly to stop it, in the moment and in the long run.

1.Set Boundaries

Boundaries often come in the form of group expectations for acceptable and unacceptable behavior. One approach to dealing with a difficult or antagonistic negotiator is to establish Ground Rules. Ground Rules can be used to set expectations, in essence, for conversational etiquette in internal negotiations. They may include things like "only one person speaks at a time," or "before challenging someone else’s view, use active listening to be sure you understand it." More important than the Ground Rules themselves, however, is the fact that they provide the whole group with a yardstick to point to when any one person’s behavior does not measure up.

A step beyond Ground Rules is a Procedural Agreement. This next step focuses on more than the conversations individuals or groups may have "at the table;" it sets behavioral expectations for the working relationships in general. A table of contents for a Procedural Agreement might include: Communication, Decision Making, or Dealing with Conflict. For each of these, all parties can and should participate in developing the Procedural Agreement and, just as with the Ground Rules, the entire group has the responsibility to hold any one individual to the behavioral expectations of the Procedural Agreement.

Remember, both of these strategies are only as successful as the group is willing to commit to them - to creating them early, and maintaining them throughout the internal negotiations or the decision-making process.

2. De-legitimize

Two behaviors often arise when one person tries to disrupt internal negotiations: either they refuse to cooperate with a decision-making process in an attempt to hoard power, or they participate, but work through back channels to undermine the group’s progress. In both cases, it is essential to make it clear that by not actively participating in the negotiating or decision-making, this person forfeits his or her legitimate say in the outcome. To this end, two strategies may help:

The first strategy is to continue to invite a no-show to the table. At every opportunity, make it clear that his or her opinion, input and presence is desired. At the same time, publicize, to whatever extent necessary, the presence of those who do participate. In most organizations, a list of attendees to important decisions or internal negotiations speaks volumes about who has the opportunity to affect outcomes; absences from the list will say just as much. By remaining consistently absent, any one person who seeks to undermine a group’s authority to negotiate or make a decision will lose - in the group’s eyes and the eyes of the organization - any legitimate claim to criticize the process or the outcome.

The second strategy is to shut down "triangulation" - the behavior that Sam displays as he tries to criticize, undermine or influence Jane by speaking to Phil. Always counterproductive to effective working relationships, triangulation is even more deadly in internal negotiations and decision making. If Sam attempts to "get at" Jane through triangulation, the effective way to de-legitimize the behavior is for any member of the group to tell Sam: "I can see that you have a problem with Jane. You are going to have to speak with her directly; I will not be placed in the middle." Only a clear, consistent message will shut down this behavior.

3. Confront

There is, in the end, no guarantee that these strategies will be successful. Often a belligerent or antagonistic person insists on disrupting a group’s internal negotiations process, and refuses to modify his or her behavior. This person needs to be addressed, gently (so as not to escalate the issue) but firmly (in order to stop it).

It requires great presence of mind, and patience, and fortitude to make statements like this -particularly inside an organization. In my experience, individuals in a group need to know they will have the support of the group to confront the behavior, so they will not feel "alone" in an attempt to stop it. If there is support for a gentle but firm confrontation, some approaches might include: "Jack, I cannot hear you when you are yelling. Please take a moment to collect your thoughts, and we will listen to what you have to say." "Sandra, stop. I know you feel strongly about this, but until you can present your case without attacking others, we’re not going to be able to hear you out."

Finally, if necessary, there should be institutional means in your workplace - and may be legal means, depending on the behavior - to deal with a hostile person. This may include involving superiors, or HR, or others who can influence the antagonistic person, and show him or her that the behavior will not be tolerated. It is bad enough to deal with unreasonable people across the negotiating table, from other organizations; no one should have to work with and endure a threatening person in internal negotiations their own workplace.

Richard Morse: link

Notes: Internal Negotiations

More Negotiations Training Tips