Professor Susskind talks negotiation obstacles

Q&A with Professor Susskind, MIT’s Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning, and Vice Chair of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School

Q: You’ve taught for years about overcoming organizational obstacles. What are the most common roadblocks to effective negotiations?

Typically, obstacles occur at all four stages of the negotiation process. First is the preparation stage. Frequently, people under-prepare, even when the value of the deal or negotiation is very high. A host of forces make it hard, sometimes impossible, to effectively prepare. Often, organizations don’t provide adequate support. Negotiation should involve the whole organization, and not be based on what one individual thinks. It’s pretty simple; if you can’t get the support, information, and assistance you need – you can’t prepare.

Second is the opening stage, which is when value is created through cooperation. Many people inadvertently shut the door to value-creating possibilities by failing to engage in cooperative behaviors, because they fear it makes them look weak. Instead, they start out with competitive behaviors, not realizing that you can’t go back.

Third is the closing stage, which is when you take the value and distribute it. When this occurs, people are so concerned about who gets what, and making sure that they get a big share of “the pie,” that they say and do things that undermine the long-term relationship with the other party—all for the sake of a short-term victory.

The fourth stage is follow through. What happens when people don’t live up to their promises? Failure to take account or make agreements that are not self-enforcing can create problems later. The time to discuss how to handle disputes is when an agreement is written, but too often, people don’t do it, because they think it makes it look as if they don’t trust the other side.

Avoid conflict and broken trust

While negotiations are inherently risky, there are proven ways to reduce risk and improve your odds of success. To do so, you must focus on the very basis of your relationship with the other party: trust.

Think about a time when you lost trust in a fellow negotiator. Did you try to renegotiate the terms of the relationship, or did you ignore the problem and hope it would go away? Did you adjust the extent to which you trusted him? We often enter into negotiations with an assumption of trust—an assumption we carry through our relationship with the other party. When things go wrong, as they often do, we are typically unwilling to renegotiate the terms of the relationship for fear of destroying the very basis of trust. After all, when you communicate a loss of trust, the other side is unlikely to take this change in stride. The resulting anger and hurt feelings can leave you worse off than if you had not trusted at all.

As Nobel Prize–winning professor Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University and the late Amos Tversky of Stanford University showed, people generally dislike departures from the status quo. In contrast, when negotiators build trust incrementally, a healthy skepticism signals merely a lack of trust, not a betrayal signaled by loss of trust.

When you begin talks with someone new, it’s important to discuss ground rules—including the basic beliefs about trust that you both bring to the table. Rather than assuming mutual trust, explain that you are a conservative risk taker who prefers to build trust slowly over the course of a relationship.

Communicating your preference for building trust over time avoids the need to signal mistrust later on. Consider that many patients find it hard to tell their longtime doctor they want a second opinion, fearing the doctor will be offended and perhaps even give them inferior care in the future. But if you tell a doctor during your first checkup that you value second opinions and make them standard procedure, you will avoid this uncomfortable situation.

Adapted from “How Much Should You Trust?” by Iris Bohnet (professor, Harvard Kennedy School) and Stephan Meier (professor, Columbia Business School), first published in the Negotiation newsletter, March 2006.

Negotiation as the Art of Interaction

“Negotiation as the Art of Interaction”

A workshop with

Professor Alisher Faizullaev

Visiting Fulbright Scholar, Tufts University


When: Friday, December 9

Time: 12:00 — 1:30 p.m.

Where: Pound Hall, Room 334, Harvard Law School Campus

Please bring your lunch. Drinks and desserts provided.

No negotiation happens without interaction between negotiators, but there are many concepts, ways and forms of organizing and executing interaction. In this workshop, participants will examine interactional aspects of bilateral and multilateral negotiations. Particular attention will be paid to body language and negotiation geometry (spatial frames), sensuality, physicality and dynamics of interactions.

About the Presenter:

Professor Alisher Faizullaev, D.Sc., Ph.D.,  is a Fulbright Scholar at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, and Director of the Negotiation Laboratory, University of World Economy and Diplomacy, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

Dr. William Ury and Dr. Gary Slutkin speak at the PON screening of The Interrupters

The Program on Negotiation Film Series recently screened The Interrupters, a documentary film that follows three “violence interrupters” as they work to prevent violence in Chicago’s neighborhoods. The interrupters are outreach workers who were once notorious for their past gang-related experience, but who now work for an organization called CeaseFire, an initiative of the Chicago Project for Violence Prevention.

CeaseFire was founded by epidemiologist Gary Slutkin, who implements a public health model for the treatment of violence, just as he would with any epidemic disease, such as AIDS or Tuberculosis. The treatment, Dr. Slutkin believes, should address the root of the infection, where the violence begins. Thus, to help their communities, “the interrupters detect and interrupt events and block one event from leading to another and so on.”

Slutkin’s approach to stopping violence also involves encouraging the interrupters to be involved in the community and to work with people who are at risk for participating in violent acts. This both prevents future outbreaks of violence and helps remediate those who were previously involved with violence.

Following the screening, world-renowned mediator William L. Ury joined Dr. Slutkin for a discussion of the film. Dr. Ury shared his appreciation for the work of CeaseFire and agreed that the best mediators are often those closest to the community. “People can exercise the power of being peers, coming from common ground, in many negotiations,” said Dr. Ury.

The CeaseFire program is gaining strength throughout other cities across the nation. Dr. Slutkin’s hope is that we are moving towards a future in which the epidemic of violence is arrested and more neighborhoods will become safe and violence-free.

To see the trailer to the movie, click here.

To read more about Gary Slutkin, please visit his website.

For more information about upcoming film screenings of the Program on Negotiation Film Series, please visit our website.

How comparisons affect satisfaction

Social comparisons are a critical factor in guiding negotiator satisfaction, Maurice E. Schweitzer of the University of Pennsylvania and Yale psychologist Nathan Novemsky have found in their research. Not only do negotiators compare their profit from a deal with the profit they imagine their counterpart earned, but they also compare their profit with the profits of other negotiators who were in a similar situation. For example, a car buyer is likely not only to assess how much the dealership made off of him but also to compare his price with the deal his neighbor got. If the buyer’s neighbor bought the same model car for a higher price, he is likely to be more satisfied with his purchase than if his neighbor got a better deal.

Social comparisons can drastically skew our perceptions of a particular outcome. Unfortunately, our ability to make comprehensive and accurate social comparisons is limited. We typically compare our own outcomes with those who are close to us—neighbors, coworkers, and family members. In addition, individuals or organizations sometimes actively limit our access to information that could improve the accuracy of our social comparisons; for example, many companies discourage employees from disclosing their salaries to one another. Similarly, your brother-in-law may choose to tell you only  about the stocks he purchased that increased in value.

As a negotiator, you need to recognize the limitations you face in developing a complete and accurate social comparison set. In addition, you should seek to guide the comparisons that your counterpart selects. When engaged in labor negotiations, for instance, a management team might highlight recent labor contracts in which other unions received less advantageous terms than the union desires.

Adapted from “Is Your Counterpart Satisfied?” by Maurice E. Schweitzer (professor, University of Pennsylvania), first published in the Negotiation newsletter, April 2006.

Making threats strategically

In negotiation, the time, energy, and resources that you devote to reaching agreement can suggest that you’re desperate for a deal—any deal. The greater your investment in the negotiation, the less credible the threat of walking away becomes.

In such instances, one way to make this threat more credible is to find someone else to take your place. You might delegate authority to finalize the deal to someone who has less riding on the outcome. Threats become most credible when the authority to carry through on them is delegated to whoever is most willing to do so.

If you feel you’re too invested in the negotiation, you might announce, after making a threat, that your boss is filling in for you. “I’d hate to see the deal fall apart,” you could explain, “but he makes the final decision and has less at stake than I do.” You might also suggest that your substitute is a harder bargainer than you are: “I don’t want to walk away from this deal, but he’s in charge and is not happy with the offer on the table.” In both cases, you’ve assigned the decision of whether to follow through on the threat to someone with greater power.

This dynamic often plays out in corporate hiring decisions. In many companies, new recruits must negotiate their compensation with the human resources (HR) department rather than with the hiring department. When a hiring manager is anxious to bring someone onboard, he will have a harder time refusing the recruit’s demands. Because the HR department has less to lose if the recruit walks away, its own threats (such as “This is the most we can offer”) are more credible.

Adapted from “Making Threats Credible,” by Deepak Malhotra (professor, Harvard Business School), first published in the Negotiation newsletter, March 2005.

 

“Let’s All Feel Superior,” Max H. Bazerman quoted in The New York Times

Max H. Bazerman (Program on Negotiation Executive Committee member and professor at the Harvard Business School) recently was quoted in an op-ed in The New York Times entitled, “Let’s All Feel Superior.”

In this piece, columnist David Brooks explains how some people have difficulty processing horrific events.  Our natural tendencies to self-deceive come into play and cause many of us to look the other way.

In the case of the alleged sexual abuse scandal involving Jerry Sandusky, former defensive coordinator for Penn State’s football team, many onlookers could not understand why those who knew of the allegations against Sandusky did not report them to the police. Brooks explains that there is more going on than simply ignoring the situation. In fact, this reaction could be caused by a number of different psychological biases.

Professor Bazerman and co-author Ann E. Tenbrunsel were quoted from their book, Blind Spots, in saying,  “When it comes time to make a decision, our thoughts are dominated by thoughts of how we want to behave; thoughts of how we should behave disappear.”

Click here to read the full article.

Professor Max H. Bazerman is a Program on Negotiation Executive Committee member and will be teaching at the next Program on Negotiation for Senior Executives in December.  Professor Bazerman, along with Iris Bohnet, will also be leading a one-day author session on March 22, 2012, based on his book, Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, 7th Edition.  For information on our three-day Program on Negotiation for Senior Executives or on attending Professor Bazerman’s course, please visit our website.

 

 

Are you taking too much credit?

Many years ago, researchers Michael Ross and Fiore Sicoly of the University of Waterloo asked husbands and wives to estimate the percentage of the household work they did. On average, the total amount of work claimed by each couple far exceeded 100%. The husbands and wives felt they were contributing more than was actually the case—and that their spouses weren’t carrying their weight.

Since then, overclaiming of credit has been uncovered among academic authors, MBA team members, and a host of other groups. Research provides compelling evidence that people automatically and unconsciously interpret data in a self-serving manner and then arrive at moral judgments based on these implicit thought processes.

Similarly, division heads may attempt to overclaim credit when scarce resources are being negotiated within an organization. What may appear to be selfish behavior may actually be ordinary unethical behavior that lies outside the negotiator’s conscious awareness. So, before arguing that your division deserves 60% of the credit for your corporation’s recent success, take a cold, hard look at the numbers. You may be contributing less than you think you are—and others may be contributing more.

Adapted from “When Good People (Seem to) Negotiate in Bad Faith,” by Max H. Bazerman (professor, Harvard Business School), Dolly Chugh (professor, New York University), and Mahzarin R. Banaji (professor, Harvard University), October 2005.

Address your negotiation jitters

The prospect of negotiating often sparks anxiety, especially if substantive or emotional stakes are high. The mere thought of failing can be self-fulfilling. In sports, it’s called choking. While negotiators don’t have to worry about fans’ reaction to dropping the ball in a packed stadium, critical voices can come from within. The negotiation process is an ideal environment for breeding self-doubt: Have I demanded too much or too little? Am I being naive about the other person’s intentions or too suspicious? Have I won his respect or his contempt? Such questions rarely have clear answers, yet we must proceed nonetheless.

An effective opening to a negotiation requires maintaining a fine balance between solid preparation and remaining open to surprise. As athletes and actors well know, a moderate amount of anxiety may spark our energy and focus our attention. Too much, of course, can be distracting, even paralyzing.

To quell prenegotiation jitters, follow this advice:

1. Compose yourself. It’s amazing how many people seem to think that they can multitask without missing a beat. They may be deeply immersed in a project, but when the phone rings, they’ll pick it right up and start negotiating without a pause. This is a mistake. Take a deep breath and let the phone ring a few times to give yourself enough focus to get off on the right foot.

2. Build on past success. Surely there have been plenty of times when you’ve felt centered and in command. When you enter a negotiation, hold such memories and images in your head. The goal is to be both relaxed and alert. You’ve done this before, and you can do it again.

3. Maintain perspective. Remember the answer to the old riddle, “How do you eat an elephant?” The answer applies to negotiation: one bite at a time. You should have a simple goal: getting off to a decent start. Don’t expect to accomplish all your goals in the opening minutes.

Adapted from “Overcoming Stage Fright: How to Prepare for a Negotiation,” by Michael Wheeler (professor, Harvard Business School), first published in the Negotiation newsletter, August 2004.

PON Film Series presents “The Interrupters”

The PON Film Series presents

 

 

“The Interrupters”

followed by a post-screening discussion with

William Ury, co-author of Getting to YES &
Gary Slutkin, Executive Director of Chicago’s Ceasefire

Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Time: 6:30 PM

Location: Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall, Harvard Law School Campus

The Interrupters tells the moving and surprising stories of three Violence Interrupters who try to protect their Chicago communities from the violence they once employed. From acclaimed director Steve James and bestselling author Alex Kotlowitz, this film is an unusually intimate journey into the stubborn persistence of violence in our cities.

Co-sponsored by the Harvard Law Documentary Studio.

Admission is free and open to the public.

Pizza, popcorn, and drinks will be served.

Click here for a campus map.

About the Film

The Interrupters captures a period in Chicago when it became a national symbol for the violence in our cities. During that period, the city was besieged by high-profile incidents, most notably the brutal beating of Derrion Albert, a Chicago High School student, whose death was caught on videotape.

The film’s main subjects, Ameena, Cobe, and Eddie, work for an innovative organization, CeaseFire. It was founded by an epidemiologist, Gary Slutkin, who believes that the spread of violence mimics the spread of infectious diseases, and so the treatment should be similar: go after the most infected, and stop the infection at its source. One of the cornerstones of the organization is the “Violence Interrupters” program, created by Tio Hardiman, who heads the program. The Interrupters — who have credibility on the streets because of their own personal histories — intervene in conflicts before they explode into violence.

The Interrupters follows Ameena, Cobe and Eddie as they go about their work, and while doing so reveals their own inspired journeys of hope and redemption. The film attempts to make sense of what CeaseFire’s Tio Hardiman calls, simply, “the madness”.

About the Speakers

William L. Ury co-founded Harvard’s Program on Negotiation and is currently a Senior Fellow of the Harvard Negotiation Project. He is the author of The Power of a Positive No: How to Say No & Still Get to Yes (2007) and co-author (with Roger Fisher) of Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, an eight-million-copy bestseller translated into over thirty languages. Ury is also author of the award-winning Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People and Getting To Peace.

Dr. Gary Slutkin is a physician trained in medicine, infectious disease control and reversing epidemics. He received his M.D. from the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, and did his internship and residency at San Francisco General Hospital , where he was also Chief Resident in medicine. He is now the Executive Director of Cease Fire, a program that uses a public health model to stop shootings and killings.