All of the images in the book were created
by Pierre-Yann Lallaizon (https://rectoverso.studio/realisations/).

Cover: Pierre-André Gualino
Internal design: Yves Tremblay
Translated from French by Louise Bongiovanni

Page layout: Belle Page

Image credits
Beginning Ch. 1 : Dragan Boskovic / Adobe Stock ; 6 EmmepiPhoto / Shutterstock
Beginning Ch. 2 : alice_photo / Adobe Stock ; 24 © ADN group/ADN Kids ! ; 26 Joseph Sohm / Shutterstock ; 32 © ADN Group - William Beaucardet – 2018 ; 41 Popperfoto / Getty images ; 51 ventdusud / Shutterstock ; 54 © Clearwater International ; 58 Eliana Aponte / Reuters / Adobe Stock ; 64 Nong Mars / Shutterstock ; 69 © ADN Group - William Beaucardet – 2018
Beginning Ch. 3 : frankie’s / Shutterstock ; 82 Nejron Photo / Shutterstock ; 96 © Government of Denmark/DR ; 101 © ADN Group - William Beaucardet – 2018 ; 108 Tero Vesalainen / Shutterstock ; 128 LuapVision / Shutterstock ;
Beginning Ch 4 : Lars Hallstrom / Shutterstock ; 151 pixinoo / Shutterstock ; 152 BigTunaOnline / Shutterstock ; 176 Zholobov Vadim / Shutterstock ; 178 Imilian / Shutterstock ; 202 sondem / Shutterstock ; 212 koya979 / Shutterstock ; 215 spaxiax / Adobe Stock
Beginning Ch. 5 : Farknot Architect / Adobe Stock ; 229 Brandon Bourdages / Shutterstock ; 251 WAYHOME studio / Shutterstock ; 259 ilcianotico / Adobe Stock ; 263 STUDIO GRAND WEB / Adobe Stock ; 268 Kochneva Tetyana / Shutterstock ; 285 thodonal88 / Shutterstock ; 292 @ADN Group - William Beaucardet – 2018 ; 300 rangizzz / Shutterstock
Beginning Ch. 6 : Varina Patel / Adobe Stock ; 312 © CBS/© Global/© TF1 / DR ; 324 Brian A Jackson / Shutterstock ; 329 © Mosesian ; 334 © ADN Group ; 339 © ADN Group ; 342 © ADN group ; 344 Andrey_Popov / Shutterstock ; 349 © ADN Group - William Beaucardet – 2018 ; 351 Ivanko80 / Shutterstock ; 353 Obak / Shutterstock ; 358h tsyhun / Shutterstock ; 358b © ADN Group - William Beaucardet – 2018 ;
Beginning Ch. 7 : Lightspring / Shutterstock ; 375 Historical / Getty images ; 406 Akiko Nuru / Shutterstock ; 409 Antonio Guillem / Shutterstock ; 424 Rawpixel.com / Shutterstock ; 427 TierneyMJ / Shutterstock ; 443 pathdoc / Shutterstock ; 453 Tom Kuest – Fotograf / Shutterstock ; 454 Pixooz / Shutterstock ; 458 Willrow Hood / Shutterstock ; 473 Johanna Goodyear / Shutterstock ; 477 Ljupco Smokovski / Shutterstock
Beginning Ch. 8 : BillionPhotos.com / Adobe Stock ; 492 Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock ; 502 © ADN Group - William Beaucardet – 2018 ; 512 Freedomz / Shutterstock ; 516 ADragan / Shutterstock ; 532 2jenn / Shutterstock ; 538 Noiel / Shutterstock ; 546 Thomas Imo / Getty Images
Beginning Ch. 9 : Romolo Tavani / Adobe Stock ; 559 Tero Vesalainen / Shutterstock ; 568 Mopic / Adobe Stock ; 572 MichaelJayBerlin / Shutterstock ; 576 patpitchaya / Adobe Stock ; 585 file404 / Shutterstock ; 588 hikdaigaku86 / Adobe Stock
Beginning Ch. 10 : Bess Hamiti / Adobe Stock ; 592 © CPN ; 594 © ADN group ; 601 © Dreammaker - Eugénie Michel – 2017 ; 602 Kurhan / Adobe Stock ; 609 stuar / Shutterstock ; 610 Mr.Whiskey / Shutterstock ; 620 freshidea / Adobe Stock

For the English translation © Dunod, 2021
11 rue Paul Bert, 92240 Malakoff
www.dunod.com

ISBN: 978-2-10-082346-8

This book was first published under the title Négociator, © Dunod, 2019

Introduction

Negotiations have never been so central to companies and organisations and even in all of our daily lives–wage discussions, trade agreements, diplomatic negotiations, commercial agreements, regional disputes, reforms of states and institutions, and conflicts in everyday life. Negotiations are everywhere, at all levels and include everyone. Everyone tries to negotiate as best they can with varying levels of success and shorter or longer-lived triumphs. Although learning through experience has long been the rule, some methods have been developed over the last twenty years. However, none of them have tackled negotiations in the way the PACIFICAT© standard does.

In an environment where everyone agrees that complexity and uncertainty govern interactions, leaders, decision-makers, teachers and managers have become aware of several clear-cut facts:

• Negotiation is not just a soft skill*, the privilege of a chosen few born with this talent, but a key skill that must be learned, worked on and developed, practically every day. This skill must be taught as early as possible, in professional schools and universities, but also in secondary schools.

• Negotiation isn’t something you can just learn in books. While knowledge learned in school and books is important–and we hope this book will contribute to yours–negotiation is a ‘working’ skill that is learned and perfected in practice and on the ground.

• Negotiation can’t be based on pre-established procedures, chiefly because its main ingredient is the human element, with its varieties, diversities and uncertainties. The best negotiators don’t have good answers, they just have good questions, and a very high level of expertise and experience.

• Negotiation is a school of life: every student, parent, manager, leader, individual, is faced with dozens of mediation or negotiation situations every day. They will only be able to remain in charge of and master the situations through their ability to create value from conflict or to master situations that have deteriorated too much.

The PACIFICAT© standard, the negotiation bible, is based on the practices of professional negotiators and mediators, proven by hundreds of successful negotiations. The aim of this book is to address complex negotiation key issues, providing the skills to prepare, conduct and debrief all types of negotiations, whether they concern everyday situations or the future of the world.

Before we start…

The examples

Negotiations are generally surrounded by discretion and secrecy. For some, if not the majority, confidentiality is written into the contract. Therefore, to give the reader the benefit of the many concrete cases encountered by the authors or members of the ADN Group, all examples used in this book have been made anonymous, except when they have already been published in the press or books published for the general public.

Vocabulary

We use the term ‘the negotiator’ or ‘a negotiator’ or ‘they’ or ‘their’ in its generic sense and to simplify reading. It includes both male and female negotiators.

A glossary is provided at the end of the book with useful definitions. The terms explained in the glossary are identified by an ‘*’ in the text.

The ADN Insider Negotiator Profile Test

Our advice

Please take the time to take the ADN Insider test at www.adninsider.com before starting this book.

ADN Group (the Agency of Professional Negotiators) is an agency of professional negotiators founded by us. We travel the world conducting hundreds of negotiations every year, in many fields (finance, diplomacy, patient relationships, crisis, commercial, social). Drawing insights from our different, yet complementary backgrounds, we offer our services to companies and government organisations as speakers and trainers, sharing our experiences and expertise both in France and abroad. As part of our many activities, we have developed several negotiation tests, including the ADN Insider negotiator profile test.

The ADN Insider test is made up of around 50 questions focusing on key topics that are based on our experience from hundreds of negotiations. In 8 minutes, each reader will be able to assess their profile, identifying affinities and points for improvement concerning the 10 key negotiator skills.

Throughout the book, wherever the STOP Insider logo appears, the reader will find feedback from the ADN test and they will be able to compare the analyses with their own personal results. This is why we strongly recommend that you take the ADN Insider test at www.adninsider.com before you start reading.

The PACIFICAT© standard, all rights reserved

PACIFICAT© is a standard that we have created; the fruit of our proven experience from hundreds of negotiations. As a registered trademark, it benefits from intellectual property protection. The name PACIFICAT may therefore not be used or reproduced for commercial purposes or distribution without our permission.

This also applies to the methods and tools that we have developed as part of the standard: ADN Insider©, POS©, SCO©, Socioplan©, Combalbert-Mery Classification©, RapFor©, Mandascan©, MOOL©, TOTAC©, NSTAA©, TLS© (Tactical Listening Skills), Listening TLS©, Questioning TLS©, Relational brakes©, PORPA©, PORSA© and PACIFICAT Network©. We thank you for your understanding and hope you enjoy reading.

Acknowledgements

This work is the fruit of forty years of accumulated experience–many successes, a few failures, and always the same passion for the extraordinary profession that is negotiation. We would not have been able to write this book without the help of all the negotiators who have crossed our paths since our beginnings–our friends, our colleagues, our clients, without whom we wouldn’t have had the same motivation to write this book and to reveal our ‘secrets’.

Thank you to the teams at ADN Group, ADN Talents and ADN Research for providing us non-stop with the questions, experiences, debriefings and case studies that make this book so interesting.

Thank you to our mentors, Michel Marie, Paul Ekman, Gary Noesner, Patrick Audebert, who placed their trust in us and built part of who we are today.

We would like to thank those who actively participated in the revision of this book; Julie Crouzillac, Stéphanie Furtos and Julien Morel for their patience, attention to detail and precision. We would also like to thank Odile Marion, Chloé Schiltz, Yaël Aouizrat Marchalot and François Bachelot of Éditions Dunod who, through their commitment and professionalism, made this book possible.

Thank you to Pierre-Yann Lallaizon for the creation of the figures, graphs and tables in this book, who was able to translate our ideas and concepts with a few pencil strokes. His work can be seen at https://rectoverso.studio/realisations/.

Laurent Combalbert and Marwan Mery

Chapter
1

Complex negotiations

We live in a complex world. We are not aware of this, or perhaps prefer not to be. The belief that our environment is extremely complicated, but just complicated, is actually reassuring–in a complicated environment, hundreds of factors interact with each other. But all of their interactions are predictable and can be anticipated. The clockwork mechanism of a watch with ‘complications’ is the best example of this. This type of mechanism contains more than 1,500 components, but their extremely precise interactions lead to a result that is always the same–the exact time. There is no uncertainty in this system, as we know in advance what the result will be when the mechanism runs smoothly. In such a universe, procedures reign supreme, because everything can be thought out in advance. Unfortunately, or fortunately some would say, our environment is not complicated–it is complex. Unpredictable human factors, fluctuating economic rhythms, hidden objectives, stock market crashes and bubbles, adverse weather events, industrial organisational psychology etc.–so many unpredictable elements that throw a fundamental ingredient into the heart of procedures: uncertainty. Negotiations taking place in such environments, contributing to their smooth-running and the permanent adaptation of organisations in them, are called ‘complex negotiations’.

Chapter contents

Section 1 Introduction to complex negotiations

Section 2 The PACIFICAT standard

SECTION 1

Introduction to complex negotiations

‘Complex negotiations’ is a recent term. It was used for the first time in 2001 in a lecture by Laurent Combalbert upon the invitation of the late Professor Patrick Audebert before an audience of executives at HEC Paris. The addition of the term ‘complex’ to that of ‘negotiation’ followed a meeting with Edgar Morin a few days earlier, during which the topic of the complexity of the world was discussed. We concluded with the observation that companies now needed a new form of negotiation, both in terms of techniques and philosophy. And so the concept of ‘complex negotiation’ was born.

1 An increasingly complex environment

“ Forecasting is difficult, especially when it comes to the future!”

Pierre DAC

a. The inescapable complexity of the economic environment

The economy does not like complexity–it is synonymous with unpredictability and uncertainty, both of which are extremely detrimental to confidence and overall economic activity. The first economists to broach the subject were Knight and Keynes. Initially rejected by ‘traditional’ economists who wanted their speciality to be a ‘hard’ science, they are now taught in schools and their theories are integrated into economic analyses or are the subject of works dedicated to economic uncertainty2.

Probability is often used to transform uncertainty* into risk and enable companies or governments to make choices based on the probability of something happening and its impact. However, it is impossible to dismiss the complexity of the economy by implementing complicated analytical processes. During the subprime crisis in 2007, no one was able to predict the chain of consequences that unfolded for more than five years.

Example

The subprime crisis

illustration In 2005, the rise in the U.S. Federal Reserve’s key interest rates pushed up the cost of repaying U.S. home loans, and the default rate on these loans exceeded 15% in 2007. Property prices also fell unpredictably for the first time since 1945, leading to the bankruptcy of many banks, unable to sell the mortgaged properties (whose prices had fallen dramatically) to compensate for the losses from their customers’ repayment defaults. The ‘securitisation’ of these debts created a contagion effect in banks around the world, some of them holding ‘toxic’ securities. The loss of confidence led to a halt in interbank lending and triggered a major crisis whose outcome no one could have envisaged until it stabilised in 2012.

Recognising the importance of uncertainty in the economy profoundly challenges traditional analytical and forecasting tools. Associated activities, such as trade negotiations, are impacted by this inherent complexity*.

b. The globalisation of trade

Economic liberalisation and the acceleration of global trade in goods and services have completely changed the traditional negotiating references. The gradual removal of regulatory obstacles, first within the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and then the WTO (World Trade Organization) at the end of the 1990s, has reshuffled the cards. We have moved from a culture of supervised negotiation, a kind of ‘gentlemen’s’ negotiation, interacting in a known world, to a fabric of complex relations governed by specific cultural codes and new rules, creating a new and evolving playing field.

Example

Culture shock

illustration An Italian company sends several of its employees to China to present a technical product, the result of their research and development work. The Italian sales representatives, aware of their technical superiority, prepare a presentation of their product and give a spectacular demonstration. But seeing the puzzled expressions of their Chinese counterparts, they realise that something isn’t right. They then increase their efforts to highlight the advantages of their product, but the Chinese reaction doesn’t improve. After two hours, the meeting ends, and the Italian company’s potential customer doesn’t follow up. The Italian sales reps ignored a crucial phase in Chinese culture: preliminary talks. In negotiation, they allow us to get to know each other, to identify common interests and motivations. By being too direct and assertive, the Italians were perceived to be aggressive and unworthy of interest by the Chinese. The latter are ‘long-distance’ negotiators and never in a hurry to get to the heart of the matter.

Paradoxically, the emergence of the competition following new rules–which should have motivated companies to focus on their negotiating skills to maintain their margins–has instead inhibited many negotiators by pushing them to yield much more quickly than before–give in rather than lose. The arrival of new players, many of whom come from cultures where relationships are viewed differently, and the pressure from management to seek performance at all costs, have pushed many negotiators to the limits of their skills.

c. The limitations of traditional negotiation methods

In the face of this complexity, traditional negotiation methods have lost their effectiveness. Based on a reasoned analysis of the situation and the environment, they have been slow to take into account the uncertainty factors that are now unavoidable in any negotiation:

• The human factor in general: the human element is the main ingredient of negotiation, both in the definition of the strategy* (CEO, executive committee) as well as at the tactical* implementation level (sales, HR, negotiators in the field). However, it isn’t possible to enter the human factor into equations and structure it into procedures listing typical answers learned by rote.

The shortening of strategic visions: some companies have favoured ‘hits’, short-term and highly profitable deals, sometimes carried out using aggressive or even unfair strategies, to the detriment of trust and long-term commitment.

• Intercultural factors: the concept of negotiation itself isn’t the same in different cultures. As a result, methods providing ready-made answers, theoretically useful in one culture, may not work in different cultures.

• Dishonest manoeuvres*: in the face of increased competition and constant pressure for financial performance, there are no holds barred. Threats, ultimatums, sales at a loss, lies–all practices that are harmful to lasting negotiations, but which have become acceptable, justified by the fierce competition.

Figure 1.1   Complexity causes in negotiation11

2 Negotiation, a fundamental skill in a complex environment

In an ever-changing, uncertain and unpredictable world, interpersonal and inter-organisational conflicts and blockages abound. To address this and turn obstacles into advantages, the only skill needed is negotiation.

Negotiation* is the way to reach an agreement in a conflict situation between two or more stakeholders with differing positions, objectives or stakes, so that each party can obtain what they feel is fair for them.

EXPERT POINT OF VIEW

Michel Rocard, negotiator

Alain Bauer, Professor of Criminology at the National Conservatory of Arts and Crafts, New York and Shanghai; former advisor to Michel Rocard, French Prime Minister

We are used to opposing war with peace–as if there is no middle ground.

Negotiation is an art made up of subtleties, tactics, adaptation, versatility, firmness, flexibility. Michel Rocard would no doubt have said that it was the art of the possible; even beyond politics. An uncompromising witness in Algeria; a constructor capable of manoeuvring his way through all the complexities of the left, from the PSU (Unified Socialist Party) to the PS (Socialist Party); Prime Minister campaigning for peace in New Caledonia and the war in Iraq; a passionate negotiator for the defence of the biodiversity of the North and South poles–Rocard was a true peacemaker who knew how to use his words, his pen and his sword.

His experience and his words have meant a great deal in the public and private missions I have carried out over the last thirty years–building the anti-terrorist service of the New York Police Department after September 11; the CSFRS (Conseil supérieur de la formation et de la recherche stratégiques–French High Council for Strategic Education and Research), the centre of the reform of support for strategic thinking in France; modernising the intelligence services; creating the CNAPS (Conseil national des activités privées de sécurité–National Council of Private Security Activities); overhauling private security; and finally teaching criminology and intelligence in France.

This is why negotiation needs to be taught and with real skilled negotiators to make it a success.

Negotiation, used as a significant solution for getting something positive out of disagreements, is not just a soft skill*. It is a key skill that needs to be developed on a daily basis in companies, not only for HR or sales teams, but for every member of the organisation, regardless of their place in the system.

a. The appetite for conflict

Etymologically, the origin of the word ‘conflict’ comes from the Latin conflictus, meaning ‘clash’ and confligere, meaning ‘to collide’. A conflict therefore implies an opposition between two positions that clash and collide. The term ‘conflict’ is generally used negatively, often as a synonym for ‘war’. In this book we use the term ‘conflict’ in a broader sense; as a disagreement between several parties, constituting the genesis of the conflict, seen not as an end but instead as an origin, with negotiation being one of the solutions for settling the conflict.

The word ‘conflict*’ generally suggests negative ideas–confrontation, aggression, even war. Yet it has these negative connotations only because we want it to. If we decided to add value to this notion, for example by teaching children in schools that conflict, in the sense of positively expressed disagreement, brings added value, we might be able to change the world.

The appetite for conflict is anything but natural. In a conference or training session, when asked about this topic, less than 5% of participants consider conflict to be a factor creating added value. It is therefore difficult to deal positively with disagreements and blockages if the perception of them is negative, to begin with.

b. The appetite for uncertainty

Our advice

The appetite for uncertainty develops through practice in complex and crisis situations. Volunteer to be involved in your organisation’s crisis measures, participate in exercises and training sessions on this topic.

Nobody likes uncertainty–it generates insecurity, stress, tension and discomfort. This fear is innate, which explains why it is difficult to convince a person who is resistant to change that new can be good. There are multiple reasons for this basic fear:

• Instinct: our instinct is to reject anything we can’t control. Thousands of years of evolution have led us to consider that behind an unknown or uncertain situation, there may be a predator or life-threatening danger.

• Culture: most children’s stories encourage children not to take risks. Take Hansel and Gretel, Goldilocks and the Three Bears for example. These stories are told to children when they are unable to understand the danger for themselves. So it is natural for them to consider that taking risks is dangerous.

• Education: some parents never put their children at risk by reducing the uncertainties around them and strictly supervising their activities. This has the advantage of providing maximum protection for children but reduces their desire to take risks and live with uncertainty in the long run. On the contrary, other parents encourage risk-taking in their offspring, which has the effect of developing their appetite for risk and uncertainty.

• Training: some training courses, for so-called ‘hard skills*’ such as scientific training, reduce the appetite for uncertainty. The answer for a mathematical equation isn’t random, there is no uncertainty. On the other hand, other training, in so-called ‘hazy skills*, such as legal studies, increases an appetite for uncertainty. In law, legal texts are always subject to the judge’s interpretation and the weight of case law.

• Life experiences: all of us go through life either taking risks or not. This may be related to the reasons previously stated (culture, education), or to negative experiences. The way we perceive our environment allows us to develop what we call the appetite for insecurity*.

Figure 1.2   Make-up of the appetite for insecurity

The development of the appetite for insecurity, i.e. the desire for uncertainty–and therefore its follow-on, a taste for improvisation–is a significant issue in negotiator training and the bolstering of the person’s self-confidence. To adapt to the counterpart and to a complex environment, the uncertainty of any negotiation needs to be appreciated.

FOCUS

Thrill-seeking

Be careful not to fall into the trap of pursuing too much uncertainty. Some people enjoy thrills too much and only live to experience them over and over. Exceeding the confidence threshold can lead to inappropriate challenge-seeking and risk-taking that is detrimental to good negotiations.

c. Value creation through disagreement

Creativity isn’t possible without disagreement. The confrontation of ideas, points of view and different concepts makes construction, innovation and invention possible. Unspoken disagreements generate frustration. But disagreements which are voiced, but not defended by the person expressing them, also generate frustration. Negotiating is not just debating, i.e. discussing a subject; but each person defending a point of view that creates added value. Negotiating is not manipulation, submission or forcefulness either–the confrontation of ideas and their assertive defence makes it possible, through negotiation, to find an outcome or an idea that brings value to all stakeholders (Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.3   Value creation through disagreement

EXPERT POINT OF VIEW

Conditions necessary for dialogue to be possible

Raphaël Enthoven, Professor of Philosophy

We are working on the conditions for dialogue to be possible in a democratic space. The paradox is that our democracy has never had so many forums for dialogue, yet there has never been so little dialogue. People believe that all they have to do to talk to each other is to state their opinion after one another. There is no exchange, no interaction, no learning from each other. In The Essays in Book 3, Chapter 8 (on the art of conversation), Montaigne states that he feels stronger (or prouder) of the victory he obtains over himself when he bows to the arguments of a powerful opponent, than of the victory he gets over the other through the other’s weakness.

The conditions necessary for dialogue to be possible need to be strong enough to change someone’s mind (i.e. to open oneself up sufficiently to other people’s arguments to genuinely receive them without seeing them as aggression or hostility). But there is no room for modesty in a world of strong opinions–it is seen as a weakness. It is rare for people to be able to talk to each other, to make enough concessions to be able to hear words other than their own–people who don’t stifle their conversations with their prior beliefs are like diamonds in a mountain of coal. It is they, though, who are the winners, even when they are defeated. If their opponent hits them below the belt in arguments, it is the opponent who loses. Dialogue is about awarding someone who would like to be your enemy the dignity of being your adversary.

SECTION 2

The PACIFICAT standard

In the face of this growing uncertainty and to carry out these new types of negotiations, we have designed a reference guide dedicated to complex negotiations. Initially intended for negotiators and mediators, it is now used worldwide, in all types of negotiations.

1 A standard based on practice

a. A standard created by professional negotiators

In organisations of professional negotiators, the team’s major asset is also its main challenge–the diversity of negotiators and their profiles. To be able to operate in diverse cultural and economic environments, it is essential to use local negotiators who are fluent in the language, networks, customs and traditions. So how can negotiators with cultural differences work together? By adopting a negotiation standard* that doesn’t impose any right answers, just the right questions (Figure 1.4).

Figure 1.4   The nine steps of the PACIFICAT standard

EXPERT POINT OF VIEW

The PACIFICAT standard

Julien Morel, former Nespresso Commercial Director, Global Head of Supply Chain Rimowa (LVMH)

The PACIFICAT negotiation model has brought about a real cultural change within the Nespresso executive committee. First of all, it has enabled us to develop both our individual and collective intelligence in complex negotiations. For example, the necessity of giving our teams clear mandates before sending them to negotiations has become a reflex, a routine.

The PACIFICAT standard has also made it possible to understand the importance and even the need for confrontation to create value, between ourselves and with others–not to run away from it, but on the contrary to take a liking to it, to identify the shared common goals¹ and build value-added solutions together.

The PACIFICAT standard, used worldwide by professional negotiators and mediators, has many features that have made it the global standard for complex negotiations.

• A universal standard: translated into more than 10 languages, PACIFICAT is used in more than 40 countries around the world.

• A flexible core: the standard doesn’t impose any techniques, just the use of each of the nine steps in order.

• A series of key questions: no right answers, just key questions to which each user gives the most relevant answer for the situation.

• An evolving level of technicality: regardless of the level of training (Initiation, Essentials, Advanced, Expert), the standard is the same; it is just the tools which evolve.

• Practical and powerful tools: PACIFICAT’s tools, methods and techniques are backed up by hundreds of negotiations and as many debriefings and feedback.

b. A continuous improvement

Used worldwide, the PACIFICAT standard is being improved continuously by users. This method is built and strengthened through feedback and debriefings from the negotiators who practice it. Every year, several hundred debriefings are organised to solidify the tools used, improve them, or open up avenues of research on new techniques or methods likely to enrich the standard. The improvements are being steered by the PACIFICAT international committee, which brings together leading international mediation and negotiation experts.

c. The validation of tools through practice

There is no magic negotiation method. If you use techniques that work in your negotiations, it means they are good for you. So keep them and just come and position them at the right level in the standard.

EXPERT POINT OF VIEW

Adapting to different types of negotiations

Jean-Marc Janaillac, former CEO of the Air France-KLM group, former CEO of Transdev, former CEO of Maeva

From my first negotiation in a professional capacity at the Prefecture of Finistère in 1980, where, in the absence of the Prefect, as a very young director of the Prefect’s cabinet, I led discussions with a group of anti-nuclear activists opposed to the Plogoff power plant project, which had taken the departmental directorate of the Communist Party hostage, to the most recent at Air France-KLM where I supervised negotiations with a group of unions demanding an unreasonable pay increase, I was able to experience a large number of different types of negotiation.

Among these negotiations, we think of social negotiations first of all, particularly in France; because strike action is used more quickly than elsewhere to ensure maximum and very often highly publicised pressure. But they are no less comfortable in countries where powerful trade unions are keener to find a solution–which does not mean having any less fighting spirit. Negotiations are incredibly difficult when the cost of a conflict is very high compared to the value of the demands made by the trade unions. This is particularly true of transport companies, especially air transport, which firmly pushes the management of these companies to make the rational short-term choice to give in by comparing the respective costs of a strike and of giving in to demands–which, however, when combined over the medium term, put a strain on the company’s profitability.

Among the most difficult negotiations are those with a supplier that has a monopoly on the service or product it provides. As CEO of Maeva, which managed thousands of beds in mountain resorts such as Les Arcs or La Plagne, I had to negotiate with the Compagnie des Alpes, which operates the ski lifts, to buy thousands of season tickets sold as a package to the tenants of our apartments every year. And when there is no possibility of calling on another supplier in the face of too significant a price increase, the leverage points in negotiation are extremely reduced. Having failed to find win-win partnership solutions, all that remains is the lose-lose threat, i.e. shooting oneself in the foot by threatening to close down residences in the resorts concerned, thus reducing the activity of the ski lifts, in the hope of being able to make up for some of the losses in other resorts.

The complexity of a negotiation can also result from the magnitude of the stakes, the number of stakeholders and the media coverage. In this respect, the SNCM case (a company providing maritime links between mainland France and Corsica, a subsidiary of Transdev, of which I was the CEO), ticked all the boxes. Plagued by a lack of competitiveness caused in part by huge overstaffing, leading to significant chronic deficits in the face of effective competition, SNCM was continually losing market shares and, moreover, was faced with an order from the European Commission at the end of 2013 to repay 440 million euros of undue aid, which would inevitably have led to its collapse with its 1,500 employees and would have risked seriously jeopardising the parent company, Transdev–which largely financed the deficits of its subsidiary. Faced with this prospect, the only solution was to cause the company to file for bankruptcy, thus erasing the debt and making it easier for a new shareholder to take over the business. It took two years of all-out negotiations to implement this solution. SNCM filed for bankruptcy at our initiative at the end of 2014, and in November 2015 it was taken over by the Marseille Commercial Court. The fact that today Corsica Linea is growing by having taken over two-thirds of the former employees of SNCM is thanks to the decisions taken despite all opposition.

Faced with this variety of situations, is there a single negotiation strategy to be followed? I don’t think so, because apart from these different situations, negotiation isn’t the same if it is done to obtain something or to avoid something.

For me, the rules consist in Analysing, Anticipating, Adapting, a basic approach that can be made more sophisticated and deepened according to the importance of the case or its stakes, which may mean that it is useful to call on external specialists, which is what I have sometimes done.

Understanding the position of your ‘opponent’ and their expectations, deciphering the environment and the play of the secondary players, being clear about your own objectives and the limits you set for yourself is essential before starting the negotiation process.

As in all areas of action, anticipating by having an overview of the follow-up exchanges based on hypotheses of the responses of each of the actors is a plus. All of this with one risk to be avoided–that of ‘negotiating against oneself’, i.e. making sure you take into account the position of the opposite party in your proposals.

Finally, being able to move away from predefined positions and adapting to changes in the negotiation process, or even showing imagination to find an innovative solution, are decisive assets.

All of this combines both the objective of analytical reasoning and the affective aspect of human relationships and is, therefore, one of the most complete and exciting activities that professional life offers.

“In negotiation, there are no good answers, just good questions.”

Laurent Combalbert

2 A series of key questions

a. 70% preparation and 30% enlightened improvisation

Complex negotiation is made up of a multitude of random factors, at the heart of which is the human factor. To negotiate in complex situations, one must therefore be able to improvise to continually adapt to the counterpart. As specialists in theatrical improvisation would say, ‘improvisation is something that has to be prepared’.

The first five steps of the PACIFICAT standard are preparatory phases for negotiation:

• Power and leadership: what are the decision-making rules, who decides on the mandate?

• Analyse the context: what is the common goal, the stakeholders’ motivations?

• Chart the actors: who are the stakeholders, what connections do they have with each other?

• Identify the strategy: what is the balance of power, what is the best strategy to adopt?

• Form the team: what is the negotiator’s profile and how is the team organised?

Our advice

The aim of the standard is to simplify the preparation of negotiations by linking the key questions. Start with two or three steps from the standard in your next negotiation to integrate the set of tools gradually.

The next two steps set out the negotiation in practice:

• Influence and relationship: how to make the counterpart change to come to a favourable agreement for everyone?

• Close the negotiation: when to stop and how to add value to the common agreement?

The last two steps conclude the standard by preparing for the upcoming negotiations:

• Acquire from experience: how to give value to the experience to learn from successes and failures?

• Transmit knowledge: what should be remembered to add to the training of future negotiators?

Figure 1.5   Five preparation stages, two practice stages, two preparation stages

b. Personal tailoring to each negotiator

Through the nine steps of the standard, each negotiator is free to use the tools that seem most relevant to them, based on their activity and experience. A negotiation student or a beginner negotiator will learn the basic tools, considered the ‘essentials’ of negotiation. On the other hand, an experienced negotiator will use ‘advanced’ tools to improve their practice or to prepare the management of negotiations at a higher level.

c. Used in all sectors of activity

The PACIFICAT standard can be adapted to all negotiation situations. By not giving good answers but simply good questions, it is possible to deal with all types of negotiations, be they commercial, social, diplomatic or in any other sector of activity.

Figure 1.6   The PACIFICAT standard fields of activity

KEY POINTS TO REMEMBER

Introduction to complex negotiations

• In a complex world, procedures lose their effectiveness.

• The appetite for uncertainty has become a key skill for companies and organisations.

• Conflict is a factor creating added value for those who know how to manage it through negotiation.

The PACIFICAT standard

• In negotiation, there are no good answers, just good questions.

• Negotiation skills are acquired through practice and in the field.

• Negotiation is 70% preparation and 30% enlightened improvisation.

1. Nathalie Moureau and Dorothée Rivaud-Danset, L’incertitude dans les analyses économiques, Paris, La Découverte, 2004.

2. Source: ‘Complex Negotiations’ survey conducted in N by the PACIFICAT Network (multiple choice questions).

Part
1

Preparing for negotiation

The great sports coaches usually say that matches are won in the training sessions. The same applies to negotiation–its success is determined in the preparation phase. You’ve already read, and will often read in this book, that good negotiation is 70% preparation and 30% enlightened improvisation. This phrase is meant to be both educational and easy to remember. The combined experience of this book’s authors and all the experts who contributed to it show just how right this ratio is, and how preparation is essential for a successful negotiation. This first part of this book is about knowing how to ask yourself the right questions before you even start talking.

Part 1 contents

Chapter 2 Power and leadership

Chapter 3 Analyse the context

Chapter 4 Chart the actors

Chapter 5 Identify the strategy

Chapter 6 Form the team

Chapter
2

Power and leadership

Power and negotiation have long been linked, with negotiation generally being seen as a means of peacefully taking or keeping power. International negotiators, diplomats or commissioners working in entities such as the European Commission or the United Nations implement negotiation strategies and techniques on a daily basis. Their sole purpose is to enable their respective governments or the organisations they represent to establish their power or assert their rights.

Negotiation needs power, not as an end, but as a means–without power, a negotiator has no value and cannot achieve anything. They must establish their leadership to be recognised by the other party, ensuring their legitimacy through their ability to ‘take control’ of the relationship without divesting the other party of its own authority.

Chapter contents

Section 1 Leadership in negotiation

Section 2 Decision-maker vs. negotiator

Section 3 Power to negotiate

Section 4 The negotiator’s mandate

Section 5 The negotiator’s leadership skills in stressful situations

SECTION 1

Leadership in negotiation

The art of leadership can be practiced both within a team and at the negotiating table. It is based on the same principles and is prepared before contact is made.

1 Being an active part of the negotiation

The feeling of being an active part of a negotiation is not as easy as it might seem. It means being able to stay highly committed when in the middle of a conflict situation, and not everyone is prepared for this in the same way.

a. Making conflict a generator of value

Conflict adds high value, in the sense that it brings different ideas face to face with each other. It isn’t conflicting ideas that contribute to value creation, but the ways of managing the conflict to bring about a mutual gain that is greater than just adding individual positions to each other.

Georg Simmel, a German sociologist and philosopher, studied conflict in its many forms. He placed it at the heart of social systems and termed it a driving force in the evolution of organisations. For him, there could be no disagreement without subscribing to the very principle of disagreement. Therefore, conflict can lead to association rather than dissociation. ‘Society, as it exists, is the result of both categories of interaction, which appear entirely positive for both2‘.

Example

ADN Kids!

illustration The ADN Kids! association trains children to negotiate at school against bullying and violence. The initiative organises an exercise with primary school pupils. A large poster with a ‘6’ written on it is placed in the middle of the classroom. The pupils are divided into two groups and stand at either side of the poster. Some see a ‘6’ and others see a ‘9’. Each group of students is asked to convince the other group that what they see is the truth–a ‘6’ for some and a ‘9’ for others. After a minute, arguments break out between the two groups, each side trying to convince the other that they’re right. At this point, the game is stopped and the groups swap places. Both sides then realise that it’s not a 6 or a 9 but a 6 and a 9. By accepting each other’s point of view, the children created added value by seeing two numbers on the poster instead of just one.

The negotiator’s particular perception of the situation will influence the way they manage the conflict–whether they use it as a creator of added value, and how to steer it in a certain direction to get out of the situation.

Figure 2.1   The different ways of managing conflict

• The wait-and-see attitude: rather than facing the conflict head-on and trying to resolve it, it is ‘swept under the rug’. The hope is that it will go away by itself or fix itself. This practice is unfortunately widely used in the corporate world when conflict is seen as something negative: it is better to let a situation deteriorate, allowing the higher authorities to believe that everything is fine, rather than highlighting a difficulty, with the risk of looking like a bad manager.

Example

Notre-Dame-des-Landes

illustration The construction project for the Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport in the Nantes region in France was cancelled in 2018 by the French government. Initiated in 1963, it is the oldest environmental conflict in France, with more than 55 years of wait-and-see attitudes and postponements. The project was originally launched to build an airport in Western France, yet the conflict has been the thorn in the side of several generations of politicians. From defence associations, reports of all kinds, legal stalemate to popular referendums–anything and everything was used as a pretext to postpone a firm decision that didn’t come until 2018 after the election of President Emmanuel Macron.

Our advice

When you have a very favourable balance of power, and it might be easy to impose your point of view on the other party, always ask yourself whether you want maximum gain but a short-term relationship, or perhaps a slightly lower gain but a long-term relationship.

• Forcing through: this is a ‘bad negotiator’s’ solution because it isn’t negotiation! There are two main ways of dealing with conflict using force–imposition and manipulation*. If you impose your point of view on someone, you risk two reactions. One is that the other party submits, so you have an instant victory, but any long-term relationship is destroyed. The second is that the other party hits back, either in opposition or in retaliation. In both cases, using imposition to force something through will be destructive in the long run. Through manipulation, which is using force in disguise, the other party is made to believe that the proposed solution is attractive to them until they realise that they have been manipulated. In this case, too, forcing something through using manipulation is destructive over time.

Example

Unilateral taxation

illustration In February 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump made a protectionist decision by taxing steel imports by 25% and aluminium imports by 10%. It was a unilateral decision that put the United States’ trading partners up against the wall. Only Canada, the United States’ largest trading partner and leading steel supplier was temporarily exempted, as well as Mexico. The brutality of the decision surprised the business world and countries such as Brazil and China reacted with retaliation, threatening retaliatory measures in U.S. relations.

U.S. President Donald Trump

FOCUS

Forceful negotiation or walking away?

When trying to come to a negotiated agreement, the use of force should be avoided, so the value is not destroyed. However, in certain situations, it is preferable not to negotiate. Such as when the other party’s demands are unacceptable or when they infringe on non-negotiable values. It is possible to decide not to let the other party think that they might get something for a matter where there is no possible negotiation.

• Submission: for some, the best way to end conflicts is to give in and accept the demands of the other party. This form of avoidance is damaging because it makes the other side think that they will always win and get what they want. The day you stop giving in can be a day of great frustration and violent reactions.

• Delegation: this solution consists of calling on a third party to resolve the conflict. While delegation is not necessarily a negative way of ending a disagreement, it does raise the problem of a loss of legitimacy for the side which uses it. If part of their assignment is to negotiate the conflict that they delegate, they may eventually lose credibility in their ability to perform their duties.

Example

N and N+1

illustration An Argentinian director in charge of a production site on the outskirts of Buenos Aires was faced with a difficult social conflict and a strike at his factory. He tried to negotiate to reopen production lines, but after failing he asked one of his associates to lead the discussions. This person quickly managed to get work up and running again. A few weeks later, there was another strike, another unsuccessful attempt by the director, and another call on his associate who resolved the problem in a few hours. At the end of the year, the director was dismissed by his employer because of multiple strikes that he was unable to avoid and was replaced…by his associate.

• Use of the law: the solution for legal disputes. Judges are entrusted with the task of ruling on the dispute, with all of the difficulties this brings with it–legal costs, unpredictable delays, and the subjective nature of judges’ decisions and case law reversals.

FOCUS

A sometimes necessary route

Certain disputes must be brought before the court because of their serious or clearly illegal nature. Failing to resort to legal proceedings when faced with an obvious illegal situation runs the risk of you becoming an accomplice to the crime.

SITUATION SETTING

A shady accountant

The board of directors of a British company had just learned that its chief financial officer had embezzled several million pounds in just under three years. Stunned, the executive committee members discussed what to do. Some wanted the company to take the case to court to charge the person who stole the money. Others, fearing that disclosing the fraud could damage the company’s reputation, preferred to consider negotiating with the thief to get him to leave the company discreetly, after returning the misappropriated funds.

What decision to make?

There is no right choice. The most effective solution would be to negotiate the fraudster’s departure to recover the funds and avoid affecting the company’s reputation. However, by not reporting such a serious offence, the members of the executive committee run the risk of being prosecuted for failing to report an offence at best, and for being an accessory to the misappropriation of funds at worst.

If we follow the law, the CFO must be immediately reported to the police and arrested. However, there is a risk of not recovering the funds, and the impact on the company’s reputation could be very significant.

A complex dilemma–follow the law or negotiate? What would you have chosen?

• Negotiation: the solution bringing the most value. The parties enter into discussions to end the conflict together and to find an agreement that satisfies everyone. Although it seems to be the natural solution to a conflict, because it is more honourable than the others, negotiation is not the main solution used in open disagreements. You need to be very determined to stand firm as a negotiator.

METHOD

How do you develop an appetite for confl ict?

The appetite for conflict needs to be developed from an early age, and then throughout all stages of life, to make it something that creates added value and not blocking and opposition.

Figure 2.2   Developing an appetite for conflict

Positive education

Frame disagreement positively for children by downplaying the word ‘conflict’ and going back to its original meaning, i.e. two positions of disagreement that enable value to be given to different opinions.

Positive interpretations of conflict

Explain the conflict situations by showing the positive points they have brought or could have brought.

Acceptance of the confrontation of ideas

Accept that the confrontation of ideas is valued in exchanges and interpersonal relationships.

Development of self-confidence

Develop self-confidence and assertiveness* to dare to express disagreements and not keep the frustration of a hidden disagreement inside.

The right to fail in the face of conflict

Accept that you cannot always get your point of view accepted. You can’t settle a disagreement peacefully every time.

Learning a method

Learn a method of conflict management through negotiation to boost your self-confidence and your effectiveness.

FOCUS

Conflict as a means or as an end?

Conflict can be perceived and/or used in two different ways–as a means or as an end.

In conflict as a means, the participants’ aim is to use disagreement and the confrontation of ideas to come up with a solution acceptable to both parties. Once a solution has been reached, the situation goes back to normal (Figure 2.3, Case 1).

In conflict as an end, one of the parties uses the conflict as an end in itself. Without conflict, they have the feeling that they don’t exist or can’t assert themselves properly. In this case, the conflicts are endless. When a solution to a disagreement is found, another problem is raised, and so on (Figure 2.3, case 2).

Figure 2.3   Conflict as a means or as an end

b. Preparing for enlightened improvisation

Deciding to choose negotiation as a way of dealing with conflict requires the negotiator to feel prepared and confident. Otherwise, they will be inclined to opt for an easy solution, such as waiting to see what happens or using force. But preparation is not simply about reciting ready-made answers, nor is it about systematically applying techniques learned by rote in the classroom. The best negotiators demonstrate a significant skill when at work: improvisation. This ability to improvise allows them to adapt to the individual negotiation and to the other party without ever losing sight of their objective.

Improvisation is the act of creating and accomplishing at the same time.

In complex negotiations, we talk about enlightened improvisation*, i.e. the ability to ‘invent’ the contents of the negotiation while applying a structured process. Disordered or overly disorganised improvisation runs the risk of the negotiator leaving the framework and losing sight of their objective.

Example

An ill-prepared HR director

illustration An experienced HR director, Joao-Paolo was used to managing social relationships. He had conducted dozens of salary negotiations and as many disputes with employees. He felt that he’d reached such a high level of expertise that it was no longer necessary for him to prepare his negotiations. In charge of restructuring a factory in southern Brazil, Joao-Paolo began initial discussions with employee representatives. Barely off the plane, he was assertive and firm, just like usual through improvising. But his total improvisation was to cost him dear. Joao-Paolo hadn’t inquired about the communities his employees represented, or even about their usual negotiation practices. No sooner had he finished his introductory speech than he was taken to task by the staff, physically ‘shaken’ and locked in an office. Joao-Paolo was held prisoner for 48 hours before a team of professional negotiators came to free him. Next time, Joao-Paolo will likely improvise less and prepare his negotiation by researching more beforehand.

illustration A ‘flexible’ structuring of the negotiation process is essential, a frame of reference that is solid enough to help prepare and conduct the negotiation, serving as a backbone, but flexible enough not to constrict the negotiators. Too much structure prevents the negotiator from being able to adapt to the situation or may inhibit risk-taking.

Example

Crisis negotiator training

illustration As part of his basic training, Bayani, a crisis negotiator from an Asian country, took part in two weeks of training at the National Police Academy. He mainly received theoretical training on methods and techniques for negotiating with hostage-takers or individuals barricaded in somewhere. As an experienced police officer, he was used to managing everyday crises, without necessarily being familiar with the theories taught to him at the Academy. During an exercise at the end of his training, he was confronted with a situation he had already experienced several times–a drunk individual had taken refuge in a shop and refused to come out, threatening to kill a customer if the police came in. Bayani decided to position himself in front of the shop door to establish voice contact with the barricaded individual. He was immediately stopped by his instructor, who told him not to try to make direct spoken contact but to use the telephone, as indicated in the procedure. Bayani told him that, for a drunk man who was probably frightened by the situation he had set off, talking directly to the police officer was more reassuring, especially since he might not want to pick up the phone. The instructor then told him that he was undoubtedly correct in reality but that in the exercise he had to keep to the procedure. When questioned by Bayani, who was surprised by the fact that the instructor favoured procedure over common sense on the ground, the instructor retorted, ‘I know that the procedure isn’t adapted to this type of situation, but if you take the risk of not following the procedure and you don’t succeed, you will be held entirely responsible.’ So for the instructor, it was better to apply an ineffective procedure rather than take the risk of stepping outside the framework. Nothing more likely to inhibit risk-taking and the negotiator’s improvisational skills.

In negotiations, it is essential to adapt to the other party. Understanding fundamental elements such as the other party’s motivations, stakes and psychology enables you to build an effective and lasting relationship. However, these are complex elements because they are linked to human factors, and the other party is not always even aware of them. So improvising to adapt to the other party is essential for negotiations to be effective. This phase of adaptation requires a structuring frame of reference from which risks can be taken. This is what we call enlightened improvisation.

c. The negotiator’s involvement: mediation vs. negotiation

The negotiator needs to be heavily involved to feel that they are an active participant in the negotiation. This involvement makes them a non-neutral party to the negotiation, and this is the major difference between negotiation and mediation.

Our advice

The PACIFICAT standard is also a mediation methodology used in international mediations. It is the position of the mediator that differs from that of the negotiator, not the method or the tools.

Mediation is the external intervention of a neutral and objective third party in a conflict to reach an agreement between the parties involved.

Unlike a mediator, who must be neutral and a third party to the conflict, a negotiator is differentiated by their commitment to one of the parties. They defend the stakes of their company, organisation or client, and their motivation contributes to their assertiveness13.

However, the negotiator’s involvement must not undermine their objectivity in the relationship. Too much emphasis on defending one’s point of view sometimes leads to forgetting that the aim of negotiation is not to impose one’s position on the other but to create added value by integrating all of the different parties’ points of view. Excessive involvement may be seen as arrogance by the other party or lead to short-sightedness by the negotiator, which is detrimental to the success of the relationship.

Example

An overly involved negotiator

illustration In the United States, a trade unionist is in discussions with his management as part of a social negotiation. He defends the stakes of the members of his organisation and strongly believes in the ideas he brings. Management disagrees with him on some points, but agreement seems to be emerging on the main discussion points. The trade unionist is extremely passionate about all of the points he is defending, particularly details which he considers to be matters of principle. Overly committed to his quest for 100% satisfaction of the demands, he refuses to sign agreements that satisfy the vast majority of the employees’ requests. Blinded by excessive involvement, the trade union representative harms the relationship and prevents the signing of an agreement which is accepted by most employees.

EXPERT POINT OF VIEW

The keys to mediation

Dominic Geodjenian, Lawyer and Mediator

The key to mediation is the position of the mediator. The PACIFICAT standard, used in complex negotiations, has also been adapted to mediation. It is implemented at every stage of the process and is a method that is perfectly suited to the mediator’s role in conflict resolution.

The first principle of this methodology is ‘Power and leadership’. This is where the mediator must understand, establish and then use their power base and four powers of influence¹ to help achieve a result that is satisfactory for all parties.

For example, the mediator can use their institutional power¹, via procedural power, to control the time and pace of the mediation. From the outset of the mediation, time is a valuable resource, and it is the mediator who must use it effectively throughout the process. If discussions are blocked, they can also use this power to set a deadline for resolving an issue or impose a break in the discussions so that the parties can gather their ideas together. The mediator is then in control and decides on the flexibility or rigidity of the process by adapting it to each situation, which is unique according to the stakes and needs of the parties.

The mediator can also use their situational power¹, through their access to information to move discussions forward. It is the mediator who changes the parties’ perceptions and influences them accordingly by possessing, bringing up and reframing available information. The mediator may also decide to eliminate the emotional elements of the conflict at the beginning of the procedure by asking questions about each party’s motivations, fears and wishes. They can also use this information later in the process when projecting the parties towards a future where the conflict is resolved.

Finally, the mediator can use their situational8 power, through their expertise, to advise and guide stakeholders throughout the conflict resolution process.

However, the mediator must understand that their power is dynamic and that the sphere of influence is continually changing. They must be able to adapt as the mediation process evolves and the dimension of the relationship changes to make effective use of each of their four powers in turn. Whether playing an active or passive role, they must assert their position and power to contribute to the resolution of the conflict, as they are the person the parties have agreed to work with, rather than trying to find a solution on their own.

2 Working on your leadership skills

Good negotiators usually have strong leadership skills. They influence others, impress them, leave their mark. Leadership skills, like negotiation skills, can be worked on.

Leadership is a person’s ability to influence those around them and to demonstrate natural authority over others.

Unlike the word ‘leader’ used to mean a ‘boss’ or ‘head’, the term ‘leadership’ as we use it in negotiation is not about status (being a leader), but about an attitude and impact one has on others (influencer).

a. Confidence, charisma and self-esteem

Self-confidence is a crucial element of the negotiator’s work on their leadership skills and their natural ability to influence others. This influence is generally referred to as charisma. Of Greek origin, the word ‘charisma’ was first used in theology to describe a favour, a grace granted by God to a person. It was in 1912 that the sociologist Ernst Troeltsch4 gave it the meaning we use today, i.e. a natural authority to influence and lead a group.

The great negotiators often strike others by their charisma. Their self-confidence seems to enable them to move mountains. According to all those who were lucky enough to have rubbed shoulders with him, Nelson Mandela had an incredible amount of self-confidence that allowed him to approach all the negotiations he had to conduct with serenity.

Part of charisma, self-esteem is the foundation of everyone’s personal confidence. It is the judgement that each person makes about their personal value and its alignment with the values that are unique to them or that seem important to them. It is therefore understandable how important it is for everyone’s work on their self-confidence–misjudging oneself is a way of not trusting oneself.

Building self-esteem begins at an early age. For example, the criteria chosen by our parents to give us an image of who we are have a lasting impact on us, ‘If you don’t get good grades, you won’t do anything with your life.’ Poor grades therefore lower a child’s self-esteem, not because of the fear of doing nothing with their life, but because they feel that they are disappointing their parents. It isn’t the poor grades that diminish self-esteem, but the use that is made of them as a tool to evaluate and compare. And this system is harmful. Low self-esteem sometimes justifies having bad grades or failing. This generates persistent dysfunctional thoughts, such as over-generalisations (‘every time I do something, I fail’), minimisation of success (‘I’m told I should be proud of what I do, but it doesn’t matter what I do’) or unrealistic feelings (‘I doubt anyone would care what I achieve’).

Example

Self-esteem

illustration A trade negotiator coming out of an important meeting, proud to have reached an agreement within the highest limits of his mandate, reports to his superior on the success of his negotiation. His direct boss, after listening to him list the points obtained, said to him, ‘You seem satisfied with that. I think we could have gotten a lot more.’ Nothing better to undermine the self-esteem of his negotiator, who took several days to recover from that destructive sentence. If his boss thought it was possible to do better, he should have given him a bolder mandate. If the objectives not desired by the boss are not achieved, the fault lies with the boss, not the negotiator.

Our advice

If you coach teams of negotiators, be very careful how you evaluate them. Always value technical progress or improvements, rather than always pointing out defects or difficulties.

The criteria against which we evaluate ourselves are crucial for working on our self-esteem. The same applies to the criteria we use to evaluate our teams. High self-esteem considerably increases a negotiator’s impact. If they see themselves positively, they are more likely to be assertive, i.e. to defend their opinions while accepting those of the other person. On the contrary, a negotiator who has low self-esteem will tend to act defensively*, even passively. Low self-esteem can also lead to wanting to force a way out of deadlocks because the person is not confident of their ability to use negotiation to deal with conflict. In the end, it can lead to excessive self-criticism, permanent pessimism and a loss of belief in oneself.

b. The elements generating confidence in negotiation

The elements generating confidence in a negotiation are part of what is called ‘personal power5’. There are many elements, but three of the main ones are training, research and preparation.

1. Training is learning the skills necessary to carry out a specific activity or technique. This is the foundation of all professions, and negotiation is no exception. There is a body of theory that each negotiator must master to have a minimum level of expertise that will enable them to reach an agreement. These skills are generally taught on three levels:

• Basic tools: these include, for example, tools for identifying the common objective, active listening to build a stable relationship, counterpart theories, game theory.

• Advanced tools: they complement the basic tools by reinforcing the methods already acquired: further motivations, influencing techniques, tools for drawing up a mandate, etc.

• Professional tools: they bring together the ‘disruptive’ methods and techniques that enable negotiators to make a difference in difficult situations: behavioural observation, lie detection, threat or ultimatum neutralisation, etc.

Learning and progressive use of skills allow negotiators to build up a reliable toolkit that can be used in all situations. Surprisingly, there is little training in negotiation in universities. Apart from a few highly specialised courses on sales or trade, the number of hours students are taught this fundamental subject remains low. This topic will be discussed in detail in Chapter 10.

Our advice

Keep up your level of negotiation skills through self-study. Listen to conferences, read books, participate in exchanges between negotiators so you can continually acquire new techniques and skills.

2. Research is the second element which helps build confidence for negotiators needing to establish their leadership. Even if the development of an appetite for uncertainty is necessary for leading complex negotiations, we won’t deny we don’t like unknown situations. Research makes it possible to avoid this problem. By finding out about the other side, the negotiating context and the balance of power, we reduce uncertainty and strengthen our confidence in our ability to deal with the situation. All of this will be further developed in Chapter 4.

3. Preparation is the cornerstone of the negotiator’s confidence. As we said in the introduction, successful negotiation is 70% preparation and 30% enlightened improvisation. This is where the PACIFICAT standard comes in. It is the tool par excellence for preparing negotiations. Following the fundamental questions of the first five stages ensures that nothing is left out in the preparatory phase before contact.

c. Working on your confidence as a negotiator

Keeping up your confidence and continually developing it is achieved through regular training. If learning is about acquiring knowledge, training is about using this knowledge in varied, new and unexpected situations.

• Variety: to cover a wide range of situations, the negotiator will need to practice in different cases. One day it might be an exercise in relationship building, another day managing a simmering conflict; another, a complex profile identification exercise. The more varied the training exercises, the more confident the negotiator will feel.

• Newness: thinking outside the box is important to avoid ‘path dependence’. If you always train in the same way, you become very strong in one type of situation, but powerless when the situation changes.

Example

Automatic training

illustration In a southern U.S. state, a man enters a bank branch with a gun and threatens the staff. Alerted by one of the bank’s employees, the police send an officer to the scene. The policeman, who quickly arrives at the scene, enters the bank and finds himself face to face with the assailant who holds a weapon to his head. The latter runs for cover in an office at the back of the bank. The policeman, threatened, pulls out his gun, fires five shots (he has a six-shot revolver), then stops shooting, empties his cylinder on the ground and stoops to pick up the five fired casings and the unfired ammunition. At that moment, the robber comes out of his hiding place, approaches the policeman who has put his empty gun in his holster, shoots him in the chest and runs away. Fortunately, the policeman is wearing a bulletproof vest. He is knocked out by the shock but only slightly injured. When they arrive at the scene, the police reinforcements don’t understand the policeman’s actions. He fired five shots, missed his target five times, emptied his weapon while he still had some ammunition left, and picked up the empty casings that had fallen to the ground. When the scene was described, one of his colleagues understood immediately what had happened. In training, the shooting instructions are to shoot five times only, so that those with revolvers (six shots) and automatic pistols (fifteen shots) shoot the same number of times and won’t be tempted to go and change their target when the others haven’t finished. And as training is always with a fixed target, the officer missed his five shots because he had never trained on a moving target. Finally, he picked up his casings because it is one of the shooting range instructions, so you don’t step on them and slip over. Under stress, the police officer applied automatic reflexes learned in training but which were entirely unsuitable to the situation. Training that is always done in the same way doesn’t build confidence.

Our advice

Use varied situations. Ask negotiators from outside your company to create training sessions or case studies that go beyond your typical situations.

The interest in having varied situations lies in the fact that it forces you to leave your comfort zone and face new or unknown situations. It’s a great way to add value to your training.

To train negotiators to deal with new situations, it is interesting to use discrepancy–give sales staff a social negotiation exercise, or task force negotiators a financial negotiation exercise. By stepping out of their comfort zone, trainees will experience positive stress that they will be able to manage if something similar happens again in the future.

• Surprise: training needs to be surprising. Effective training is an exercise where participants don’t know what they are going to work on or the case they are going to be faced with beforehand. By getting negotiators used to dealing with uncertainty and surprise, their potential and self-confidence are raised.

FOCUS

Beware of overconfidence

Some negotiators think they’ve seen it all, experienced it all and done it all in their careers. They are arrogant and overconfident. It might look like they are very charismatic and have strong leadership skills, but it can also backfire when they find themselves destabilised by a new situation. In negotiation, as in many other professions, you never stop learning, and overconfidence is never an advantage.

The negotiation training phase will be the subject of a specific section in Chapter 9 of this book.

d. Ego and negotiation

We often say, ‘A good negotiator doesn’t have an ego.’ Managing your ego is an important part of confidence because while the ego is an excellent servant, it is a very bad master.

Ego has been defined in many different ways, whether by Kant, who saw it as a subject thinking as a synthetic unit, based on perceptions or experiences; or by Sartre who saw it as a being of the world, outside of consciousness. To simplify the place of the ego in leadership development, we will define it as self-image and the desire to exist.

The ego is self-image and the desire to exist.

Our ego is a performance driver in the sense that it pushes us to assert ourselves and to seek the satisfaction of success. But an inaccurate self-image, especially by overvaluing oneself, can lead to selfishness and frustration if we feel that we are not being challenged as much as we think we should be.

Our advice

Work on your ego to make it a performance aid, while mastering it so that it does not become an obstacle to your development as a negotiator.

Figure 2.4   The ego in negotiation

Being seen as legitimate in negotiations

To be an effective actor in negotiation, you need to be seen as legitimate by the other party. Without this legitimacy, we may very well be the best in our field, but it will be very difficult to influence the course of the discussions.

“ Building yourself up too much as a negotiator is not always the best quality for negotiation. ”

Cardinal de Retz

Example

Mining strike

illustration In a labour dispute in a West African country, several hundred workers go on strike at a mining site. They call for wage rises and a bonus to reward everyone’s efforts to keep the site profitable. Faced with the management’s refusal to give in, the miners threaten to use explosives to cause the tunnels to collapse and halt the work of the mine for several months. The operating company decides to send a mediator, chosen for his great wisdom, his universally recognised humanity and his experience in difficult negotiations. With such a profile, they have all the chances of achieving a favourable solution to the conflict. Unfortunately, the miners never agree to talk to him. He came from a rival community to that of the site’s workers and he was never recognised as a legitimate mediator despite his skills, experience and declared neutrality.

METHOD

Dealing with a blockage

Faced with a refusal or blockage, a negotiator can lose their legitimacy if they keep trying to argue back or justify themselves. To avoid falling into these traps, follow the ‘three-questions technique’.

Figure 2.5   The three-question technique

A closed question that elicits a ‘yes’

When faced with a blockage, start with a priming question to elicit a ‘yes’ from the other side. A ‘yes’ brings a positive feeling to the discussion.

Example:

‘At this stage of our discussions, am I right in thinking you don’t want to go any further until we’ve created more trust between us?’

An open investigative question

Follow up with an open opportunity question to launch discussions on the point of blockage by the other party.

Example:

‘What would be the gesture you would expect us to make to get that trust going?’

Then let the other side give you the answers that will allow you to bounce back with the third question.

A closed question that elicits a ‘yes’

Confirm with a closed validating question to elicit a ‘yes’ and bypass the point of blockage.

Example:

‘If I succeed in giving you the gesture you are asking me to make, can we consider that we’ve established enough trust to go further in our talks?’

a. The positive discussion partner

A good negotiator is someone who knows how to get the other party to see them positively. This recognition can be based on several things.

• Prior knowledge: the parties have already had to negotiate together and think of each other as ‘partners’.

• Recognition of competence: the negotiator has an indispensable skill in the discussion that justifies their place at the negotiating table.

• The creation of added value: the negotiator is likely to create added value for the stakeholders.

However, it can happen that, even when they are seen as a positive discussion partner, the negotiator might be overwhelmed by their status as a negotiator rather than a decision-maker. This situation is shown in the example scenario, which follows.

b. Being accepted by the other party

Being accepted as a positive discussion partner does not, however, imply full acceptance by the parties involved in the negotiation. Acceptance is essentially based on two criteria–the negotiator’s legitimacy and their credibility*.

• Legitimacy: the negotiator is deemed capable due to their position or status, skills and experience, or because of representing the party they are going to negotiate for. This legitimacy can be due to membership of an institution (HR director of a company, diplomat of a country), community membership (interfaith negotiator) or from the strength of the mandate given by the party they represent (lawyer, estate agent).

• Credibility: the negotiator is capable of honouring the commitments they make to the other party or making sure that the party they are negotiating for honours its commitments. The negotiator’s reliability is a precious asset which needs to be cultivated over time. Their discussion partners will not accept someone who is known to be unreliable.

SITUATION SETTING

I want to talk to the decision-maker

Wage negotiations had been going rather well in the company where Mike is the HR director, and we are approaching the closing of the annual agreements. The union delegates had fought hard, but the decision phase was underway. That’s when Mike was put under pressure by Paul, the delegate from the most powerful union:

‘Mike, we want to talk to the decision-maker now. We know that you’re not the one deciding, as you’re the management’s negotiator and not the decision-maker. Now we want to talk to the boss so he can decide.’

Mike might be able to justify himself by saying, ‘I’ve been sent by management to represent them’ or ‘I’m here to be the middleman between you and management.’ Point lost–justifying oneself is tantamount to giving credence to the other party’s request.

Mike could also come back with, ‘The decision-maker doesn’t have time to come all the way down here’ or ‘It’s much better if you talk to me, I can defend your positions to the boss’.

The risk is to create a backlash–‘So he doesn’t have time to come–does that mean he doesn’t think our discussions are important?’ or ‘We’ll defend our positions to him ourselves.’ Arguing back fuels the fire and leads to unproductive discussions between the parties.

What should we do?

Use the three-question technique: a closed question that elicits a ‘yes’, an open-ended investigative question, and a closed question that elicits a ‘yes’.

Mike: ‘You want to talk to management because you want a decision to be made, is that it?’

Paul: ‘Yes, we want a decision to be made.’

Mike: ‘What are you ready to decide on right now?’

Paul: ‘On the increase in the annual performance bonus.’

Mike: ‘If I show you that I have the mandate to decide on this matter myself, right now, would you agree to conclude?’

Paul can’t say no, because Mike engaged him in this process with a closed ‘yes’ question to trigger a positive opening, an open-ended investigative question to find out what points were ready to be approved, and a final ‘yes’ question to conclude.

SECTION 2

Decision-maker vs. negotiator

Negotiation is an important part of businesses and organisations because it allows conflicts to be resolved through value-added solutions. Like any business activity, it is a matter of strategic and tactical vision, i.e. a general overview provided by the organisation’s decision-making body and practical implementation organised by those on the ground. Negotiation strategy is the prerogative of the decision-maker, and tactics are the responsibility of the negotiator. It is therefore necessary to clearly differentiate between the decision-maker and the negotiator.

1 Protecting the strategic vision

It is important not to mix strategy and tactics because these two visions are not at the same level. The strategic vision must be high, broad and global. It is difficult to get to understand a strategic decision without having a complete overview of the situation, disconnected from the interpretations or biases of those directly in contact. The tactical vision, on the other hand, must be close to the ground and focused on the objective–putting the strategic decision into place according to the realities on the ground, so it is effective and operational.

a. Separating strategic and tactical visions

It is very difficult to have a strategic vision and a tactical vision at the same time. In negotiations, the decision-maker is separated from the negotiator so as not to risk thrusting the decision-maker in charge of strategy into the role of negotiator, responsible for tactics. A mix of roles could lead to the decision-maker losing perspective. They would then lose much of their added value and ability to maintain a global vision.

FOCUS

Decision-maker and actor

Not all decision-makers are aware that it is in their interest to keep a distance from the negotiations to remain able to take the right strategic directions. It is not uncommon for a manager to get involved in direct contact, so they feel like they are part of the action. It is therefore often necessary to start negotiating with the decision-maker before negotiating with the other party.

“ Take a step back, and the ocean and the sky will come into perspective. ”

Confucius

b. Preserving the decision-maker’s global vision

The global vision cannot involve entering into the finer details. Over-focusing, tunnel vision, concentrating on one specific point–all reduce the ability to adhere to a strategic vision. For this reason, the decision-maker should only enter the negotiation phase in the final moments, to close the deal. Until then, they should avoid contact to ensure they don’t lose their global vision.

Example

The Munich Olympics

Hostage situation at the Olympic village

During the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, a history-making hostage crisis took place. Eight Palestinian terrorists in a commando group called Black September took eleven Israeli athletes hostage in the heart of the Olympic village. The terrorists demanded the release of 236 political prisoners. It was an unrealistic request. Golda Meir, the Israeli Prime Minister, announced that she would not release any of the prisoners. The terrorists already knew this would be the case. They would say later that they were only seeking the media coverage of the Olympic Games. Four decision-makers were managing the hostage-taking crisis–Bruno Merk, Bavarian Minister of the Interior, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, West German Minister of the Interior, Manfred Schreiber, Munich’s Chief of Police and Walther Tröger, Mayor of the Munich Olympic village. The four decision-makers, in charge of the strategic vision, would all be involved in negotiations. They all lost their global vision, tried to negotiate the release of the prisoners, but had the wrong objective–the terrorists would have been satisfied with a televised interview. The crisis stalled, and after twenty-one hours, an assault was launched, resulting in the death of all hostages and five of the eight terrorists. The fundamental error, in this case, was that the decision-makers entered into negotiations, effectively losing their ability to see the terrorists’ real objective.

c. Protecting the negotiator’s legitimacy

Separating the decision-maker and the negotiator guarantees that the negotiator maintains their legitimacy. If the decision-maker comes into direct contact with the other party, why would they continue to speak to the negotiator? If they can talk directly to the person who makes the decisions, the negotiator no longer has a place in the discussions.

Example

N and N-1

illustration As part of a labour dispute, the HR director of a Mexican company holds discussions with employees. The dispute concerns the sanctioning of an employee who was accused of professional misconduct. The discussions are tough, with employees threatening to bring the factory, that produces car parts, to a standstill. Any delivery delay of more than twenty-four hours will result in very substantial late delivery penalties. Faced with the slow pace of the discussions in his opinion, the factory manager decides to take over the negotiations. Under pressure, he yields to the demands of the employees by reinstating the employee at fault. From that day on, the HR director loses his legitimacy because every time there is a conflict, the employees ask to speak to the manager directly. A year after this conflict, the HR director resigned.

2 Using the ‘fuse effect’

The ‘fuse effect’ is a negotiator’s term to describe the technique which consists of the negotiator at the point of contact positioning themselves as an aid to decision-making without being the ultimate decision-maker.

a. Delaying decision making

The position of the negotiator as an intermediary between the decision-maker and the other party means the final decision can be delayed, which allows the negotiator to identify the stakes of both parties and to call for trade-offs. If the decision-maker gets involved too quickly, this could make the other party push for a commitment when all avenues of negotiation have not yet been explored.

b. Keeping the scope for discussion open

The separation of decision-maker and negotiator increases the scope for discussion and provides room to justify a refusal.

• Broadening the discussion: pending the final decision, the negotiator may open up the discussion to topics that may not have been addressed thus far.

Script

illustration ‘We have made good progress. Thank you for your proposals. Now, so my director can move into the closing phase, it would be good if we could address the issue of payment terms. This is an important matter for him, and I think to achieve favourable decisions regarding all of our other points, it would be helpful if we discussed it before I informed him of our conclusions.’

• Justifying a refusal: the negotiator can place the responsibility for the refusal of a concession on the decision-maker.

Script

illustration ‘I understand you want a 10% reduction on the price. Let me be clear–there are things I can do, and things I can’t do. 10% on the price will never fly with my boss, that’s something he won’t accept. For him, prices are non-negotiable. We can work on other matters, but unfortunately, we can’t discuss the price, I’m sorry.’

By predicting a refusal from their decision-maker, the negotiator gives the other party a ‘no’ without harming the relationship they have established with them.

c. Asking for a trade-off

The negotiator may tell the other party that they need a trade-off in exchange for a concession they are about to make, otherwise they might not be able to confirm their concession.

Script

illustration ‘I can consider accepting the price and giving you the 10% discount you’re asking for. But to justify that 10%, I have to be able to tell my boss that you made a gesture on your side; otherwise I’m afraid he’ll refuse. What could you offer me?’

The request for a trade-off is justified by the fact that the negotiator will have to defend the other party’s request for a reduction to their decision-maker, and that they need to have something in return to balance the request and come to an agreement.

3  Avoiding narcissistic inflation

a. Managing the other party’s perceptions

If the other party starts talking to the decision-maker, or with whoever they consider to be the decision-maker, too early, they may feel important and ask for more than they originally intended.

Example

Narcissistic inflation

illustration A trade negotiation is nearing its conclusion. The two parties, both Canadian companies, have reached a draft agreement on all issues. The last meeting will therefore be decisive so as to close effectively. But the world sales director of one of the companies wants to come to the last meeting. He wants to be the one to seal the deal that he will then propose to his CEO. Despite the doubts of his trade negotiators about his presence, he goes with them to the other party’s headquarters. Seeing him, the other negotiator exclaims, ‘You’ve come with your world director? So it must mean that this negotiation is really important, and you don’t want to lose us as a client!’ The other party then adds a financial request that was not originally included, and the trade negotiators are forced to accept.

Our advice

Find the right balance when presenting yourself to the other side. By inflating your role too much, you increase the risk of narcissistic inflation for the other side. If you are too modest, you may not be perceived as being worth your true value.

This issue of inflation of demands linked to a sense of importance is called ‘narcissistic inflation’. The leading of the negotiation by a person whom the other party considers to be at their hierarchical, technical or decision-making level makes it possible to manage the perceptions of the other party and to avoid them overestimating their importance.

b. Preserving the egos of decision-makers

The ego, as we have seen, is an important part of self-confidence in negotiation. But a good negotiator doesn’t have an ego! It’s an easier concept for a negotiator to accept than for a decision-maker.

Example

Bruised ego

illustration During a community negotiation in Africa, several teams of negotiators meet to discuss each other’s rights over a herd grazing territory. Discussions are traditionally conducted through a ‘palaver’. Progress is slow but constructive. The leader of one of the disputing communities wishes to come and participate in the talks. So, he joins the team of negotiators for one of the stages of discussion with the other parties. During the discussion, he feels that he is being berated by a negotiator from the other side. He immediately responds by standing up and shaking his fist, ‘Don’t you know who I am?! How can you talk to me like that?’ His ego was bruised; he overreacted to a mild insult, and his attitude blocked the talks for several hours. Fortunately, he left the discussions to let his negotiators smooth over his reaction.

Being tackled by the other party’s negotiators is never pleasant, but it is part of the negotiation ‘game’. A negotiator prepares for it and accepts it, as long as it is within the limits of what is acceptable. But a decision-maker is rarely prepared for this, so it is best for him not to get involved in the heated discussion phases.

c. Gauging the other party’s stakes

No negotiation is the same. Some are very profitable for the company or organisation conducting them; others are just a waste of time. This may be the case in a negotiation with no viable common objective between the parties, or in a pseudo-negotiation organised by another party who simply wants to get information on a product or to have an ‘also ran’ to compete in a tender for which it has already chosen the winner. Sending novice negotiators into this type of negotiation allows us to gauge the real stakes of the other party. If it turns out that there is a real issue to be negotiated, there will always be time to bring in a more experienced negotiator later on.

Example

The ‘also-ran’

illustration A company is asked to negotiate with a distributor about stocking its products in a chain store. In view of the importance of the potential business, the head of the company travels to lead the discussions in person. Unprepared, reckless with euphoria, he gives the distributor huge amounts of information about his product–prices, margins, delivery conditions, etc. After several days without any news, the director calls the negotiator with whom he had talked for several hours. The negotiator tells him that unfortunately, his group is not going to follow up. Frustrated and puzzled, the director makes some enquiries about the change of heart. He then discovers that the distributor was preparing a negotiation with one of their competitors and that they needed information to understand the pricing of the products they wanted to distribute. The leader served as an also-ran. They were never thinking of working with him.

Figure 2.6   Disadvantages of the decision-maker being in contact

4 When the decision-maker is the negotiator

In the ideal situation, there should be a clear distinction between the negotiator and the decision-maker, so that the latter isn’t exposed to the various contaminants mentioned above, in particular the loss of strategic vision.

However, in many cases, the decision-maker may have to conduct the negotiation directly, for many reasons. It might be necessary to set up the best possible conditions to avoid disastrous consequences.

a. The deliberate choice to bring the decision-maker into discussions

It may be perfectly acceptable within the team for the decision-maker to intervene physically and directly in the negotiations. This is voluntary, and the good thing is that everyone is aware of this. The decision-maker lay themselves open to risk, but considers that the objective sought prevails over the risks incurred.

The most frequent cases where this choice is justified are the following.

• Framework definition

In a top-to-top approach, the decision-makers from the parties may agree to meet before the start of the negotiations, to define the framework and the principal axes for each party. It is an exchange where each party shares their global overview and their short, medium or long-term visions, to best prepare the ground for the negotiators. If the other decision-maker ever tries to start negotiations, they should withdraw from discussions and let their negotiators step in.

Example

Chocolates

illustration In September 2017, the sales director of a major chocolate brand met his counterpart, the purchasing director of a leading retailer on the French market. This ‘friendly’ meeting was organised by the sales manager, with the approval of his counterpart, to openly talk about their respective policies for the years to come. The clear aim of the meeting was to define the outline for the negotiations due to start in October. After an hour of constructive discussions, the purchasing manager suddenly said, ‘I won’t accept any price increases this year. Are you ready to commit to cancelling your price increase?’ The sales manager, aware of the situation which he found himself in, answered very calmly, ‘Unless I’m mistaken, this wasn’t on today’s agenda, and in this case, it’s my teams’ responsibility. The purpose of our meeting is to get a general overview of the technical aspects which will be dealt with by our respective teams. I suggest that this subject be addressed in October, in our teams’ first meeting.’

In this particular case, the sales manager didn’t fall into the trap of starting the negotiation and committing himself to anything potentially detrimental to the continuation of the negotiations. If he had openly accepted the stop of the price increase, what room for manoeuvre would his teams have left? None. The sales manager was able to maintain his relationship with his counterpart by reframing the subject of the meeting. Finally, he above all protected and enhanced the role of his negotiators, who would address price-related issues at the next meeting.

• Giving the negotiation some room to breathe

In the natural follow-on of the framework definition, the negotiation can, at times, get stuck, like a piece of machinery in need of oil. Tensions arise and can be detrimental to the rapport built between the parties. Decision-makers can then agree to meet to give their respective teams some room to breathe. The aim isn’t to conduct negotiations at their level but to soften the other side up, without committing themselves, while supporting the negotiators. It is a difficult task that is primarily aimed at nurturing the existing relationship. Usually, following this meeting, the decision-makers can grant their teams an extension of their mandate, justified by the trade-offs that one of the decision-makers was able to entice them with at the meeting.

Example

A breath of fresh air

illustration A Minister of Foreign Affairs calls his diplomats together following a telephone conversation he has just had with his counterpart: ‘The interview went very well. My counterpart is well aware of the negative consequences for both sides if the conflict between us were to get bogged down. He made it clear to me that he wanted to move quickly and was willing to discuss the recognition of one of the communities.’ On the strength of this constructive exchange, the Minister is asking his diplomats to focus negotiations on the community in question and to speed up negotiations, and is giving his teams additional flexibility to find a compromise quickly.

• Highlighting

In some cases, the decision-maker may wish to accompany their negotiators to a meeting to highlight a position or stance. The presence of the decision-maker not only reinforces the teams’ positions but also personifies the institution they represent.

If the other party seeks to enter into negotiations with the decision-maker, the latter must not compromise their teams under any circumstance. Their role is limited to stating the position, and the discussions must be left to the negotiators.

If the tensions come to a head impacting one of the main axes of the mandate*, the decision-maker may enter into negotiations to confirm the team’s position and show that beyond that point the negotiation will not be successful.

• Closing the negotiation

The decision-maker might choose to take the last few steps to the finish line by themselves. In some cases, the negotiators in discussions are aware that the end of the negotiation must be made by the decision-maker. The latter agrees to ‘put his teams on the sideline’ to finalise the negotiation.

To be in the best possible position, it is necessary to state that the next round of negotiations will be the last one. The risk would be for negotiations to resume for an indefinite period of time between the decision-maker and the other party.

FOCUS

Who gives what?

When the decision-maker accompanies their teams to discussions, it is essential to respect the following rule: the decision-maker must never directly concede to the other party, even if they are able to. It is their duty to extend the negotiator’s mandate (which has reached breaking point) so that the negotiator can concede if necessary. The objective is to maintain the relationship between the negotiator and their contacts. If the decision-maker were to concede to the other party in the presence of his teams, that would not only take away all of their teams’ credibility but above all, would show the other party that in any future negotiations, they would be the only person able to close.

FOCUS

Maintaining symmetry

In many negotiations, the other side seeks to remove the decision-maker for obvious power-related reasons. When talking to the decision-maker, the other party is well aware that he has more power to commit his institution, and their expectations may naturally increase.

As explained in the attacking diagram (Figure 2.7), the other side seeks to ‘break the symmetry’ so as to voluntarily escalate* the negotiation. In practice, the other negotiator speaks directly to the decision-maker.

Figure 2.7   Attacking diagram of the other party wanting to involve the decision-maker

If the negotiation needs to be escalated for contextual and issue-specific reasons, then the symmetry needs to be kept by ensuring that the negotiation takes place between your decision-maker and the other decision-maker (defensive diagram, Figure 2.8). Negotiation then bypasses the N-1s in full knowledge, and the decision-makers become negotiators.

Figure 2.8   Defensive diagram involving the other decision-maker

b. Existing situation

While the decision-maker may agree to intervene tactically, there are cases where they are involved in the situation for a variety of reasons. They then naturally and knowingly lay themselves open, sometimes without even realising it.

• Small company

The common denominator of small businesses is the lack of available resources. Therefore, separating the decision-maker from the negotiator is a utopian situation because the decision-maker simply has no one to act as a negotiator. The decision-maker then plays both roles.

Example

The ‘Jack of all trades’

illustration A French small business specialising in electronic components for the metal industry is made up of 17 people. 15 of them do manual work on the production line. The boss, aptly nicknamed ‘The Jack of all trades’, is none other than the CEO, sales manager, logistics manager, purchasing manager and financial manager. His assistant, the 17th person, helps him with administrative tasks. If it is necessary to go and negotiate contracts with his clients, the boss has no choice but to go alone, obviously exposing himself to the risk of not separating the decision-maker from the negotiator.

The decision-maker is then considered to be ‘structurally exposed’.

• Skills deficit

This is a frequently seen case that can push a decision-maker to become involved in the negotiation. Contrary to conventional wisdom, good negotiators are a rare commodity. Since everyone negotiates on a daily basis in their professional or personal life, many people consider that they know how to do it. Add to this the fact that negotiation is often perceived as a soft skill, an intrinsic human quality, and not a hard skill–a technical skill–, each of us is convinced that we are capable of making a difference. The reality is quite different.

Example

Heavyweight backing

illustration An international airline based on the American continent decides to call in a professional negotiator to help it prepare for an incredibly tense negotiation with a pilots’ union. Tensions are very high, and pilots have already started a large-scale strike, followed by the ground and flight personnel. After three days of preparation with the company’s highest authorities, the professional negotiator turns to the entire executive committee and their N-1s to determine which negotiators will take part in the discussions. At that point, everyone looks at their feet. The CEO then appoints four people, but each of them answers, with great humility, that they are not capable of fulfilling this task, particularly given the level of demands placed on them by the professional negotiator. Since the bar is set very high for the success of this negotiation, committed negotiators must be able to make a difference by respecting the strategic, tactical and technical terms that have been defined. The CEO, known for his qualities as a skilled negotiator, decides to become a negotiator, due to the skills deficit. He then knowingly puts himself on the line. Supported by the professional negotiator, the CEO will succeed in bringing an end to the strike, maintaining the relationship with employees and limiting the financial impact for the company.

In this type of case, the decision-maker is considered to be ‘involved due to a skills deficit’.

• Unfavourable legacy

In some cases, the decision-maker may be directly involved out of habit and the good rapport he has with his contacts. Negotiators then play a minor role in the negotiation, simply ensuring the implementation of the agreement. This ‘legacy’ is particularly detrimental to the company, especially when the decision-maker is unaware of the contaminants outlined above (loss of strategic vision, crowding-out of negotiators, sensitive egos, etc.).

Example

Accepting the legacy

illustration Thierry has just been appointed president of a French advertising agency. Formerly managing director of an advertising agency, he is known for his visionary and leadership qualities. As soon as he arrives, many agencies and advertisers call him directly to discuss the commercial conditions of advertising space. Surprised, he turns to his teams for explanations. His employees tell him that his predecessor managed all customers directly! It took a year for the new president to break down this unfavourable legacy.

In this type of case, the decision-maker is considered to be ‘historically involved’.

• Blind decision-maker

This is by far the most frequently observed case that can lead a decision-maker to enter directly into negotiations. They are unaware of contaminants that could alter their clear vision and affect their ability to stand back. Whether they think they are working in the best interests or simply driven by personal stakes, they negotiate, do their best most of the time and don’t realise that they are undermining the credibility of their teams.

In this particular situation, the decision-maker is considered to be ‘involved without being aware’.

c. Limiting contaminants

If the decision-maker is directly involved, the contaminants that could disturb their clear vision and the resolution of the negotiation must be limited.

• Training

Training remains the best possible method to increase awareness. It is necessary to make both the negotiators and the decision-maker aware of the direct consequences of choosing not to separate the two roles.

Example

Start at the top

illustration ADN Group trains on average more than a thousand people per year worldwide. For each team training session, we make sure that the decision-maker is present during the training session or that the decision-makers are trained beforehand or afterwards. This is for the simple reason that if the negotiators take on their role, but management doesn’t take on theirs, the whole team will collapse.

• Learning through experience

Negotiation is first and foremost a profession based on experience in the field. Nothing can replace this experience. Having been confronted with situations where the separation of negotiator and decision-maker was not clear, the negotiator highlights the need to conduct future negotiations differently. This necessary shock is often the stimulus that drives us to act differently and learn from our mistakes.

• External debriefing

For small businesses that frequently expose their decision-makers, there is a way to limit the impact of contaminants–an external debriefing. It is advisable to ask for someone outside the organisation, who is trustworthy and has some negotiating skills and who can, by listening and asking questions, help the decision-maker to have an informed view of the situation.

• 360-degree debriefing

The 360-degree debriefing is particularly useful when the negotiation has moved up to the level of the decision-maker, and the negotiators are no longer in direct contact. At this point, the decision-maker may ask to be debriefed by one or more members of their team, provided the negotiators are mature enough to do so.

• Structural change

This method is particularly good for combatting an unfavourable legacy. The aim is to take negotiations down a notch, i.e. to the level of the negotiators. To do this, it may be wise to inform the other party of a structural change in your organisation that requires rethinking relationships.

Example

Changing the legacy

illustration How did Thierry manage to break this unfavourable legacy? (See the previous example: ‘Accepting the Legacy’ above.) Simply by defining a new organisation chart for the company, changing the titles of some positions and establishing new areas of responsibility for its N-1 and N-2s. The objective was to upgrade their roles and their titles so that they could resume negotiations at their level. On his side, the president decided to stop responding to customer requests, with his assistant redirecting calls to the appropriate teams.

SECTION 3

power to negotiate

The negotiator’s influence on his entourage is based on power levers. There are four different, yet complementary levers and they can be found in all types of negotiations, whether personal or professional, and in all sectors of activity.

1 The notion of ‘power’ in negotiation

If we consider power to be a negotiating tool, it is not gained by force but by credibility and legitimacy, based on the four negotiating powers.

Our advice

Accept that it is not your perception of power influencers that is most important. You might feel that the brand you represent is very important, but if the other party doesn’t share your vision, it is their vision that counts.

a. Power is given by the other party

We don’t take the power of negotiating; the other side gives it to us. This is important because we have to look at the power we have over the other side based on their criteria, not our own.

Example

Golden Boys

illustration Negotiators from a major American bank arrive smiling to the first preparation meeting for a merger and acquisition negotiation. Dressed in expensive, well-tailored suits, self-assured of their strength and backed up by the name of the prestigious bank on their business cards, they feel like they are sure to make a big impression on the lawyer of the company they are considering merging with one of their recent acquisitions. However, the first exchanges with the other side dampen their enthusiasm. ‘Listen up, golden boys. This isn’t Wall Street here. We’re in Minnesota. So, your fancy suits and your shiny bank don’t impress us here!’ Sure of their power because they represented a well-known financial brand, they forgot that it is the other side that provides the power to negotiate.

Wall Street, USA

b. Power is a perception

The power we wield over the other is a perception on their part. They can form a positive or negative image of us that impacts the influence we have over them. We have little influence over this, but we need to try and find out what power the other party accords us and the criteria they base this on so we can use it in our first contact with them.

Example

Confusion

illustration A French negotiator goes to a South Asian country to meet future business partners. Upon his arrival on site, he is surprised to be received with the full honours–the airport authorities welcome him at the bottom of the steps, he goes through all the controls without needing to take out his passport and is taken to the VIP lounge for a refreshment. He doesn’t really understand what’s going on but appreciates his hosts’ hospitality. When he is asked to sign the guest book at the lounge, his astonishment turns into worry. He doesn’t understand anything. And for a good reason. The name in the guest book, above the space where he should write, is ‘Elon Musk, Tesla Chairman’. Our negotiator’s name is François Tesla. He realises that he signed an e-mail sent a few days earlier to a local development agency that he was going to meet with ‘Tesla, Chairman’. The local authorities mistook him for Tesla’s CEO. The story goes that he wrote a few lines and signed Elon Musk, before quickly leaving and resuming his journey, in a more low-key fashion.

c. Legitimacy and credibility

As we have seen, the negotiator’s legitimacy and credibility are important influencing factors. They enable the negotiator to be accepted by the other party in the relationship. They are the result of a combination of the four powers: institutional, situational, personal and relational (Figure 2.9).

Figure 2.9   The four negotiating powers

EXPERT POINT OF VIEW

Leadership

Christian Monjou MPhil (Oxon), Lecturer

Leadership only exists in a relationship with the other party, of which negotiation is an essential form.

Any relationship with the other party requires first and foremost self-awareness, which develops through interacting with the other party. This self-awareness is the result of the leader working out their strengths and weaknesses.

I’m sometimes asked whether this is useful, or even justified, because people say, ‘Aren’t people born leaders?’ I invariably answer, ‘Yes, unfortunately!’

Because a ‘born leader’ may think he doesn’t need to work on his skills, which leads to his so-called ‘natural’ skills becoming increasingly mechanical and repetitive, less and less adapted to the flexible nature of reality.

A true leader is always a leader ‘in the making’. Always aware of his strengths and weaknesses, he will strive to improve the latter without neglecting the former. This effort, made with care and patience, will keep pride and self-hatred at bay while remaining modest. Aware of the work required to turn the obstacle (an innate fragility) into an opportunity (acquired strength), the leader shouldn’t forget the motto of one of the great leaders of the European Renaissance, a woman, Isabelle d’Este–‘Nec Spe, Nec Metu’ (neither too much hope nor too much fear).

But beyond the otherness of the self, there is that of the other party involved in the negotiation and that of the space and time in which this negotiation takes place.

1) Awareness (always the keyword) of this constraint of space and time which affects us just as it does the other negotiator, not that their perspective is necessarily the same.

2) The ability to go beyond oneself and to imagine another way of experiencing this reality will broaden your perspective and give it flexibility.

And then there is the other party, whom we will abstain from overestimating and underestimating. Never get tired of trying to understand, remain ever vigilant so you can keep up with every unexpected event, every turnaround, every flaw in this terrain that is the intelligence, the wishes and above all the emotions of the other party.

Be attentive to all the signs, analysing them out while resisting the temptation to make decisions too quickly without procrastination, then committing it in words and deeds: attention (the ‘natural prayer of the soul,’ as Malebranche said) but also action (bearing in mind Whitman’s paradox of ‘Delaying not, hurrying not’).

And while it is true that a leader is judged by his recruits, the creation of a team is perhaps never as important as it is in negotiations.

In all his books on American presidents’ leaderships, both recent and old, Fred Greenstein points out the importance of the paradoxical dimension of leadership. He formulates it as the necessity for a leader to have a ‘vision’ while simultaneously practising the ‘art of compromise’. And the choice of the word ‘art’ here suggests creativity attentive to reality rather than the mechanical application of formulas. Perhaps there is no place where this alliance of opposites is more necessary than in negotiation.

Haunted as they are by the vision of an outcome, the negotiating leader sees the art of compromise as a path which, far from diverting him from the essential, leads him to it by strategically abandoning secondary elements with the sole objective of attaining the outcome. Thus, once again, Nicholas of Cusa’s intuition seems to be accurate. He considered a legitimate leader to be someone who knows how to enter into dialogue and bring together elements that so many other people see as opposites, his ‘coincidentia oppositorum’. And perhaps negotiation is only the effort, never abandoned, to reconcile opposites.

2 Institutional power

Institutional power is the power conferred by the institution that the negotiator represents or by the institution to which the other party believes the negotiator belongs.

a. Belonging to an ‘institution’

The institution that the negotiator represents contaminates them, positively or negatively, depending on the other party’s perception. Its image, its notoriety, the brand name gives it influence that doesn’t depend on the person or his skills. The business card that the negotiator hands out at the first meeting may be his first argument. If the other party has a positive experience of the brand, the negotiator will be perceived positively. Conversely, if the experience is negative, the negotiator will pay the price.

Example

A great brand

illustration A young Clearwater consultant is preparing for his first meeting with a significant client. He has worked on the dossier, reread the reports by the group’s consultants who worked with this client before him, and he feels ready to see the CEO. When he arrives in his office, he finds him accompanied by two colleagues. All three are mature men, and they are surprised by how young the consultant is. ‘You’re a bit young, aren’t you?’ The young man is taken aback and doesn’t know what to say. But the CEO responds to his colleagues, ‘He’s young, but if Clearwater sends him, then he must be good!’ The consultant, therefore, benefits from the institutional power of Clearwater’s brand, which gave him the legitimacy to be in contact with this client.

b. The job title

The job title one has, or the speciality one represents, influences the other party and gives the person legitimacy, and the possibility to emphasise their leadership skills. The degree one has or the school one comes from also influences the other party’s perception of the negotiator. An alumnus from a prestigious university will be seen positively. Similarly, a person with a fancy title on their business card will have a strong impact on those to whom this might mean a lot.

Example

Business card

illustration At an international car show in Europe, a person introduces himself to a European company manufacturing batteries for electric cars. He is interested in the company’s research and would like to talk to the EMEA (Europe-Middle East-Africa) sales manager. He gives the salesperson his business card, on which is written the name of a major American automobile manufacturer and the title ‘Project Manager’. A little dismissive of this title, the salesperson asks if this person can come back later, with their manager, because the EMEA sales manager is an important person and doesn’t receive project managers. The person smiles, indicates that he will come back with his manager, and an appointment is made an hour later. At the appointed time, the rejected project manager returns to meet the salesperson and their manager for the scheduled appointment. He is alone. The salesperson asks them if their manager could come. The project manager then replies, ‘I’m the manager of electric battery research for the car manufacturer.’ For the salesperson, the title of project manager was pejorative and a sign of a low level in the hierarchy. For the project manager, his title conferred on him the management of all research for the ‘electric batteries’ project. A question of perception…

The perception of the importance of the title is different according to cultures. In Japan, people will pay close attention to the title on your business card, whereas in Italy it is only glanced at briefly.

c. The visible signs of the institution

The saying goes that you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover. In this case, it isn’t always true. The perception of belonging to an institution can also come through external elements–accessories, clothing, and sometimes even physical appearance.

Example

Judging a book by its cover

illustration An individual is armed and barricaded in his apartment on the outskirts of a European capital. The response teams are on-site, and the situation has come to a stand-off. A former prisoner, the man refuses to talk to the police, arguing that he has been subjected to violence in the past. Even the police negotiator, despite his desire for a peaceful resolution, is unable to talk to the man, who refuses all contact with the representatives of any authority. However, he asks to speak to a doctor. The police don’t want to put the health personnel present on site with the fire brigade at risk. So he can make contact, the police negotiator then asks the doctor for his white coat and puts it on before going to the door. The individual, seeing the coat, opens his door and shouts out, ‘Doctor! Finally!’ After 30 minutes of discussion, the individual decides to surrender. By donning the white coat, the police negotiator borrowed the doctor’s institutional power, which enabled him to engage in fruitful discussions and obtain a peaceful surrender.

d. The negotiator’s mandate

The negotiator is not the person who decides, but they hold some of the decision-making power conferred on them by the mandate. The mandate, which will be discussed in detail later in this book, sets out the topics of negotiation to be discussed between the parties, and the limits of negotiation for each of these topics.

The negotiator’s mandate gives them power because it lets them know what can and cannot be given. If the other party understands that, even though they are not the decision-maker, the negotiator can act on some of the issues or is able to influence their decision-maker in their final choice, they will have enhanced institutional power.

3  Situational power

Situational power is the power that comes from the situation, from the context of negotiation. It is linked in particular to knowledge of the subject matter, negotiating skills, experience or previous relationship between the parties.

Every negotiation takes place in a particular context–a sector, a topic, a place, stakeholders, etc. This context influences the negotiator’s power. Negotiating for the first time with an unknown party means having less power than when negotiating for the twentieth time with the same people. Knowing each other already boosts the negotiator’s influence and leadership skills, as they are working with people whose operating methods they already know.

a. Knowledge of the subject

It is sometimes said that good salespeople can sell anything, even when they know nothing about the product they are selling. This is probably because selling is convincing the other person that they need the product. On the other hand, in negotiations, it is very difficult to reach an agreement with the other side in a conflict without having an in-depth knowledge of the subject. This is what has led to the emergence of ‘technical salespeople’, trained in the technical features of a product or service but also in the technical aspects of negotiation.

Example

Put to the test

illustration Newly recruited, Walter, HR manager of a construction company, begins annual negotiations with the workers. These concern salaries, holidays, training, bonuses, etc. Walter’s mission is to reduce salaries and bonuses as the company’s activity has been slow for the last eighteen months. He spent six years as an HR manager in a bank and has dealt with tougher people than construction workers. Negotiations are proceeding according to schedule, but they take much longer than expected. Workers’ representatives go into tiny detail on everything, including unimportant points. The days pass until senior management asks if the agreements have been signed. The construction sites need to be slowed down in the winter, and if the agreements aren’t signed before November 30, they will be automatically renewed. The workers know this, but not Walter, who, despite his experience in banking, has no knowledge of practices in the construction business.

b. Negotiation skills

Negotiation is not only a soft skill. It is a technical skill that requires preparation, training and practice. Proven knowledge backed up by experience can strongly increase situational power. This is based on the acquisition of knowledge and skills through training and the ability to use this knowledge in situations through training.

Example

Knowledge and skills

illustration A professional negotiator is called to help an international transport group. A severe strike is stopping plane departures just before a long weekend. Despite having been in negotiations for several weeks, management has not been able to break the deadlock. The professional negotiator manages to get the stakeholders back to the negotiating table within a few hours. An agreement is reached at the end of the day, reducing the strike to one day instead of the four initially planned, with the union representatives wanting at least one day of standstill ‘as a matter of principle’. The professional negotiator is not, however, a specialist in international transport, nor does he know the staff representatives better than the HR directors or the management. Yet, he is trained and prepared to manage complex negotiations, and it is this skill that has made the difference.

c. Experience

Beyond pure skill, negotiation is based on experience in the field. Tools can be consolidated through practice, to ‘toughen up’ negotiators and provide them with a rich database, gained from experience, from which they can develop their intuition and their ability to adapt. A negotiator with years of practice will be more serene, more agile, and will have greater situational power.

Example

The power of experience

illustration In an English-speaking African country, a territorial negotiation begins between two rival communities. A government team is sent to the scene to draw up an agreement. The head of the delegation is a young diplomat, who graduated from international schools and universities and has a PhD in negotiation. He is accompanied by an older diplomat, from the field, without a prestigious diploma. The two men initiate the discussions, positioning themselves as mediators between the communities in conflict. But the young diplomat is faced with animosity from the community leaders, who will not recognise him as legitimate, because he quotes theoretical concepts that have no connection with the situation. The senior diplomat, on the other hand, can position himself in the middle and enable constructive discussion. An agreement is reached after several days. Upon their return to the capital, the young diplomat is congratulated on his success. He admits that it was his colleague who did all the hard work and that despite his diplomas and his doctorate, he was unable to live up to his colleague, who was undoubtedly less qualified than he is, but who had experience in the field worth more than all the diplomas in the world.

d. Anamnesis

In the Christian liturgy, the anamnesis is the prayer that refers to the Redemption. In psychology, it is the medical history of a patient’s illness. We use this term in negotiation to detail the history of negotiation between several stakeholders. A favourable history brings strong situational power, whereas negative history is a significant disadvantage.

Example

FARC

Manuel Marulanda in a diplomatic summit for peace in 2001.

In 2003, during a kidnapping in Colombia, the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) demanded a large sum of money for the release of a foreign national. A negotiator was sent to the scene to make contact with Manuel Marulanda Velez, one of the longtime FARC leaders. The Colombian authorities were not officially informed of the negotiator’s arrival, but unofficially a local police officer predicted a long and difficult negotiation. Marulanda Velez was not known for his courtesy or kindness. Yet the negotiation only lasted four days. At the first contact, Marulanda fell into the arms of the negotiator. This was already the third time they had negotiated together, and each time they kept their word. This positive case history meant a situation that could have dragged on forever could be quickly resolved.

e. Intelligence

If intelligence has always been the crux of war, it is also the crux of negotiation. Knowing who you are dealing with, having a thorough knowledge of the context, ultimately understanding the way the other party is organised, understanding the issues at the heart of the negotiation; all constitute a huge situational power capital. Intelligence will be the subject of a specific paragraph in Chapter 3.

1 Personal power

Personal power is based on the negotiator’s personality, including his physical and psychological characteristics.

The perception of the physical characteristics of a negotiator is linked to the culture, education and skills of the other party. The impact they have on the negotiator’s leadership skills may be surprising, unfair or outrageous. Still, they must be accounted for to understand the influence we may exert on the other party.

a. Gender

Gender is one of the most visible elements of personal power, and being a man or a woman can change the other party’s perception. We know that some cultures don’t consider women to be on the same level as men, and this is, unfortunately, a fact that must be considered when preparing the negotiation.

Example

Misogynist

illustration In a U.S. merger and acquisition, a negotiation meeting is held between the CEO selling his company, accompanied by his advisors, and a negotiation team led by a lawyer. The parties meet in the law firm’s premises, and the head of the firm is seated in a large and sumptuous meeting room. As the door opens and the lawyer leading the legal team enters the room, the man turns to her and, without getting out of his chair, says, ‘I could use a cup of coffee while I’m waiting for the lawyers to arrive.’ The old-fashioned man immediately likened the lawyer to a secretary. He would later say, without apologising, that he had a hard time ‘trusting a woman for such an important job’!

FOCUS

A question of principle

Choosing a negotiator based on gender rather than skills or experience is unfair and undermines essential values such as gender equality. If this value is vital to the company or organisation sending a negotiator, they should not have to compromise on this point. Either the other party negotiates with her or the negotiation does not take place.

b. Seniority

The age of the negotiator will have an influence on their personal power, depending on the perception of the other party. A younger negotiator may be perceived as less effective by a more senior negotiator, but an older negotiator may be considered old-fashioned by a younger one.

Example

Too young and too pretty

illustration As part of a training course for cancer specialists, a young female oncologist talks to her colleagues about her ‘personal power’. Very competent, a professor of medicine, a recognised specialist in a very rare form of cancer, she travels the world giving classes and consultations. She is young compared to the average age of her colleagues and wears clothes that make her look even younger. Despite her title of professor (institutional power) and her medical competence (situational power), her young age is a daily problem for her. Every time she addresses a patient for the first time, the patient asks her what time the doctor is coming, taking her for a nurse.

c. Morphotype

The morphotype* is defined as the physical characteristics attributed to a person by genetics–ethnic type and skin colour are the most visible characteristics for a negotiator. As with age or gender, their perception by the other party impacts the negotiator’s influence. For a non-white negotiator, negotiating with a racist will take away some of their personal power. This is fundamentally unfair and unacceptable, but it must be considered in the analysis of the situation.

Example

Black doctor

illustration A doctor of African descent, much appreciated for his empathy and competence, is faced with a stubborn patient who refuses his treatment. He tries to understand why the patient is not taking the medication he has prescribed. After a few minutes of discussion, the patient dryly says, ‘I don’t like black people, I don’t trust them.’ The racist patient didn’t want to be treated by a black doctor.

d. Charisma

As we already said, charisma is part of the negotiator’s leadership qualities. It is based on self-confidence, which is the combination of skills, education, training and experience.

In complex negotiations, a negotiator with strong charisma is often a sign that they are highly skilled, or at least this is a general perception. Many charismatic people exert their influence without having to demonstrate their expertise.

FOCUS

Self-confidence and competence

Self-confidence doesn’t necessarily mean competence. You can appear confident in your knowledge and skills without actually having the competence you claim to have. When done on purpose, it is used as manipulation. But more often than not, it is unconscious incompetence: the person doesn’t know that they don’t know how to do something.

e. Personal energy

Physical presence is created by the personal energy that one gives out. A tired negotiator will not have a positive influence on the other party. They won’t be patient, or a very good listener, and won’t be able to talk for too long without having several breaks.

FOCUS

The negotiator’s physical fitness

Sleep and nutrition are fundamental to a negotiator’s physical fitness. Respecting sleep cycles, eating correctly, knowing how to recover after a tiring meeting–all of these can be acquired through training. Thibaut Guiraud, Doctor in Physiology, created the HIP programme, High-Intensity Performance. This training, originally intended for professional negotiators, has now also been developed for business managers and directors.

f. Determination

Believing in your goal and the conviction that it can be achieved gives the negotiator a very strong chance of impacting the other party. We have all experienced a meeting with a salesperson, negotiator or a manager convinced of their mission and determined to get a positive result.

Determination is linked to the negotiator’s motivation to carry out the task, which has multiple sources.

Our advice

Don’t neglect the prior work of building up a negotiator’s motivation. If they believe in what they are doing, this will be reflected in their general attitude, and the other party will be able to feel it.

• Motivation because of the stakes: a negotiator might feel firmly committed because of the importance of what is at stake. This is the case of a hostage situation negotiator, where the issue at stake is saving lives in every negotiation.

• Professional conscience: for many negotiators, doing their job correctly is sufficient motivation to be assertive and committed to their goal.

• Ideological conviction: because of their beliefs, whether political or religious, some negotiators are relentless in the pursuit of their objective. This is especially the case for some union negotiators who are motivated by the ideas they defend.

• A taste for the challenge: the will to win at all costs can be a strong motivation for a negotiator who doesn’t like losing. However, it can turn against them if it blurs their objective vision and pushes them into a useless and unproductive competition.

• The lure of the results: some negotiators are motivated by the financial results of their shares and the bonus they will earn by meeting their target.

Determination is worked out before contact is made. This is one of the fundamental tasks a sales director or manager needs to accomplish in their mission–knowing how to motivate their teams and give them the psychological energy to succeed and assert their leadership skills in any situation.

5 Relational power

Relational power is power based on the negotiator’s capacity for empathy.

Of the four powers of the negotiator, relational power is the most powerful and virtuous one. Without a relationship, no negotiation is possible, and it is essential to be open to the other for the relationship to flourish. The first three powers are more or less fixed (brand awareness, subject knowledge), or even impossible to change (gender, morphotype).

On the contrary, relational power is instantaneous and immediate because it results from an ability to create the most favourable connection possible for the negotiating relationship to work. Awareness of relational states and mastery of empathy-building techniques make it easy to implement this power very quickly (Chapter 7).

There are four relational states in negotiation: apathy, antipathy, empathy and sympathy (Figure 2.10).

Figure 2.10   Relational states in negotiation

a. Apathy

Apathy* (a-pathos, without emotion) is a relational state in which the negotiator doesn’t show any emotion or take into account the emotions of the other party. This state, whether chosen or not, is not conducive to the creation of a relationship as the other party does not feel considered by the other.

Example

Medical conference

illustration At an international medical meeting in Indonesia, a cancer specialist explains to his colleagues at lunchtime how he addresses his patients without showing any trace of emotion. For him, it is vital to keep a cool head in the face of illness, and he feels that showing any emotion would be detrimental to the quality of the treatment. One of his colleagues, sitting next to him, then gives a big smile. As the apathetic doctor leaves the table to go for coffee, his colleague tells the other guests that this doctor is hated by his patients and has one of the highest non-compliance rates out of the entire hospital where he works. Not showing emotion certainly helps to keep a cool head, but it is one of the best ways to avoid creating a relationship with patients, which leads to mistrust and non-compliance with proposed treatments.

The apathetic attitude, also known as impassivity, suggests to those who experience it that the negotiator has no interest in their situation or their demands. It is sometimes used by people who want to protect themselves from their own emotional involvement, and to do so, they deny any emotion in the relationship. It can also be caused by some personality disorders, perhaps characterised by a complete lack of interest in socialrelationships and interactions, which will be discussed in Chapter 4.

b. Antipathy

Antipathy* (anti-pathos, against emotion) is the relational state in which the negotiator denies the emotions of the other party. Unlike apathy, which does not take emotions into account, the negotiator showing antipathy perceives emotions but does not give the other party the right to experience them. This state is not conducive to negotiation, as the other party feels that it has no right to feel what it is feeling.

Example

‘Calm down!’

illustration During legal litigation negotiations, two teams of lawyers are looking for an honourable exit agreement for their respective parties. Discussions have been ongoing for several days, and the successive reversals are increasing the pressure on both sides. Suddenly, one of the lawyers gets carried away and starts shouting in a sudden rage after one of the other party’s lawyers refuses to listen to him on a point. To bring him back to his senses, one of his colleagues looks at him and says firmly, ‘Calm down now, there’s no use in getting angry!’ This sentence doesn’t have any effect on the angry lawyer, other than to increase his emotion, make him raise his voice even more, to the point of leading to a several hour break in the talks. It is a highly unsympathetic sentence. The lawyer is angry, which is a primary emotion, and therefore legitimate for the one who feels it. By denying his legitimate right to be angry, by asking him to calm down, his colleague reinforced his emotion and intensified the anger he felt.

c. Empathy

Empathy* (em-pathos, suffering in the other) is the negotiator’s ability to recognise and accept the other party’s emotion. This is usually expressed verbally, admitting that the other’s emotion is still legitimate, even if it is not legitimate for the negotiator. This is the most effective relational state for the negotiating relationship, with the other party perceiving that the negotiator has identified their emotion and accepts that they sense it.

All basic emotions are legitimate for those who experience them–anger, joy, surprise, fear, sadness, disgust, contempt, are emotions that cannot be prevented. Their purpose is to express to oneself that a situation generates a particular feeling, but also to show others how one feels and that they should adapt their behaviour accordingly.

FOCUS

Empathy and negotiation

It is common to read or hear that empathy is the ability to put oneself in the other person’s shoes. This isn’t true. In negotiation, putting oneself in the other’s place is what we call external consciousness, a term borrowed from neuro-linguistic programming. It is the ability to turn towards others and to understand their frame of reference, consisting of their culture of birth, the culture of the group to which they belong and their psychological profile.

1. Georg Simmel, Sociology: Inquiries into the Construction of Social Forms, Volume 2, Leiden, Brill, [N], N.

2. See Chapter 7 ‘Influence and Relationship’.

3. These concepts will be discussed later in Chapter 2.

4. Ernst Troeltsch, Protestantism and progress, New York, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, N.

5. Concept discussed later on in the chapter.