two main participants. There are several theoretical concepts that model the negotiation process. V. Mastenbroek presents negotiations as a combination of two factors, namely - own interests and dependence on the opponent. He pays special attention to the processes of containing emotions and the processes of controlled release of emotions. But one of the most famous was the Harvard approach (R. Fischer, W. Ury), who tried to get away from the idea of a struggle to win, where the gain of one side automatically means the loss of the other. In the Western world it is considered to be a more effective and successful negotiation model. The program system of this model included four basic points:
- separation of participants and subject of negotiations;
- concentration on interests rather than on the positions of negotiators;
- development of beneficial options for each party;
- use of objective criteria in the negotiation process. Negotiators face the important challenge of effective, successful communication. In order to achieve a goal, people must strive to remove all obstacles that hinder them.
- people often speak incomprehensibly;
- often do not pay attention to the words of negotiation partners;
- Often they do not understand what was actually said.
Professional communicators have the ability to successfully work with difficult interlocutors such as terrorists. All specialized negotiators, as U. Ury writes, can, for example, fly from America to Munich to enter into negotiations when a major businessman is captured there. In this case, one of the main tasks becomes penetration into the spiritual world of another person in order to communicatively force him to release the hostages.
Article on the topic Profession negotiator]]>
Today's statesmen already quite easily operate with such a term as "negotiator"
Negotiators have become a fairly common feature in films where hostage situations take place. They are negotiating to prevent human casualties.
The negotiator is called upon to:
a) switch to your opponent’s language,
b) demonstrate respect for his demands,
c) propose a solution to the problem that takes into account the interests of the opponent.
Only this way can bring successful results. But negotiations are a process extended in time and space (by the way, one’s own place, rather than someone else’s, is considered more advantageous for conducting successful negotiations).
M. Lebedeva divides the negotiation process into three stages (Lebedeva M.M. Political settlement of conflicts. - M., 1997. - P. 186):
Pre-negotiation stage - preparation for negotiations;
The interaction stage is the process of conducting them and reaching agreements if the negotiations ended with their signing;
Implementation - analysis of the results of negotiations and implementation of the agreements reached.
M. Lebedeva also emphasizes that signals rather than negotiations are often chosen to resolve a conflict, while the presence or absence of communication channels between them does not matter: “In October 1973, there were such channels between the USA and the USSR, but the USSR preferred to withdraw its personnel from Syria and Egypt to “signal" that they do not intend to directly participate in the development of the conflict in the Middle East. Sometimes participants choose signals rather than negotiations as the path of least risk and least commitment: it is later easier to refer to the fact that the signals were misunderstood" (Op. op. - p. 187).
Such behavior is not constructive; in it, the opponent is not only not ready to make concessions, but does not even want to listen to the other side. Constructive behavior is different. J. Hodgson proposes four stages of real constructiveness (Hodgson J. Negotiations on equal terms. - Minsk, 1998. - P.40-41):
Stage 1 - Remember the positive goals that brought you to the negotiating table.
Stage 2 - Clearly demonstrate to your partner your willingness to jointly search for a solution acceptable to everyone.
Stage 3 - Involve your partner in the process of developing a solution.
Stage 4 - Express your willingness to acknowledge your opponent's point of view.
Here, in all four stages, recognition of the negotiating partner runs through all four stages. If he is accepted as a given, then one has to come to terms with the fact that his interests may be different. Recognizing the interests of the partner, one has to admit that they also have the right to exist. The whole difficulty of negotiations lies in this transition to recognizing the opponent’s right to a different point of view. However, there is no other option given.
There is also a theory of negotiation cycles, where in each of them equivalence or non-equivalence predominates:
Start of negotiations
At the beginning of negotiations, it is typical to be unequivalent in response to the other party's proposals. They respond to rigidity with moderate demands, and to compliance - they demand a lot. An imbalance is created.
Mid-negotiation
This is the longest period; here equivalence can prevail: rigidity is responded to with rigidity, and compliance is responded to with compliance. What is characteristic here is the desire for a balance of interests.
End of negotiations
Here again an inequivalence arises associated with the pressure of time, with the need to necessarily end the negotiations with some kind of agreement. In a confrontation with a tough partner, ambivalence arises associated with the need to complete negotiations.
Most effective tactics For negotiations, this model involves overestimating demands at the beginning, then gradually changing their demands in response to concessions from the other side. But the initially high bar will not allow you to fall too low in this case.
Negotiations are an intellectually complex process, which is reflected in serious preparation for it. The more prepared this process is, the higher the likelihood of achieving success. The winner is the one who sufficiently takes into account the work with the opponent. This is the generation of information in a dialogical mode, rather than a monologue, to which any power structures are accustomed.
Negotiations are becoming an increasingly important component of the life of a modern person. They arise not in a situation of hierarchical dependence (such as in the army), but when it is necessary to achieve agreement among two autonomous participants. Negotiations are a combination of two factors: self-interest and dependence on the opponent.
The most successful negotiation model was proposed by the Harvard Negotiation Project. The above-mentioned system of the Harvard program included four basic points; everything else is an extension of them:
1. Make a distinction between the participants and the subject of negotiations.
2. Focus on interests, not positions.
3. Develop win-win options.
4. Insist on using objective criteria.
The program itself grew out of an attempt to get away from the idea of a struggle for winning, in which the victory of one of the parties automatically means the loss of the other. The second side, naturally, will also struggle to win and the conflict will turn into a protracted crisis. But at the same time, a softer approach, where we only retreat, is not an alternative. A psychologically soft approach is very difficult to sustain. Therefore, in this case, we will again not come to a solution that is necessary for both.
The Harvard Project views both options for positional negotiations—soft and hard—as uninteresting. A special option is proposed, based on the above basic principles of the two approaches. It gets the name - principled negotiations.
Negotiators face the challenge of effective communication. Moving towards the goal, we must strive to remove all the obstacles that hinder us. Therefore, three such “interfering” problems were discovered in communication:
1. People often speak incomprehensibly.
Explanation: Negotiators may try to trap the interlocutor, they may try to make a certain impression. If everyone is playing to the crowd, effective communication between parties is completely impossible.
2. People often don't pay attention to what you say.
Explanation: You may be thinking about your speech and not really listening to your opponent. But if you can't hear what the other side is saying, there is no communication.
3. People often misunderstand what was actually said.
Explanation: In Persian, the meaning of the word "middleman" is to define him as an uninvited and importunate person. When UN Secretary-General Karl Waldheim arrived in 1980 to negotiate the hostage situation of US embassy staff in Tehran, he said he came as a mediator to work out a compromise. An hour after the TV broadcast, his car was stoned by angry Iranians.
One of the most important components of negotiation theory is the communicative component. Everything is aimed at moving conflict communication onto a new track. This is where specialization comes from negotiations with terrorists. Specialists of this profile take on most of the load in this difficult situation. Among their rules are the following: it is necessary to knock down the first demands of the terrorists, so as not to follow their script in the future. But we must try to satisfy the last requirement, then it will be psychologically easier for the terrorist to give up.
In negotiations, not only the speaker, but also the listener takes an active position. Otherwise, the negotiation process will certainly begin to stall. An effective negotiator is a good listener, and his main job is often listening.
Having resolved the problem of effective communication during negotiations, you can move on to the next phase, on which the decision depends - the analysis of existing interests. Positions are strictly formulated conditions from which, due to their fixed nature, it is no longer possible to move away. But behind each position there are certain interests. Moreover, your opponent may sometimes not know about your interests, so they should be formulated and shown their importance to you. Without this, your interests will not be satisfied. Working at the level of interests, rather than positions, is also more effective because: firstly, each interest can be satisfied based on several possible positions, which immediately increases the number of options; secondly, opposing positions contain much more coinciding interests than those that are in direct conflict.
We see that the principled negotiations proposed by the Harvard School are interesting because of this combination of hardness and softness, which was not present in other implementations. One of the rules even puts this aspect first: Be firm when talking about the problem, but gentle with people.
The firmness that so appeals to each participant is present in this version of the negotiations, but this firmness is concentrated only on the most important areas. All other components of conflict communication, on the contrary, get rid of the signs of conflict in all possible ways.
We talked about coordinating interests, but at the same time we should think about the fact that, in principle, simply common interests are possible. Harvardians in this case emphasize three points:
1) there are common interests in any negotiations;
2) common interests are a real possibility, not a chance;
3) emphasizing the presence of common goals makes negotiations smoother and more friendly.
And the last parameter is the use of objective criteria. This immediately reduces the time for disputes, because such criteria are independent of us, and it is not for us to change them.
In his book, U. Yuri (Yuri U. Overcoming “no”, or negotiations with difficult people. - M., 1993) develops in detail the strategy of negotiations with a difficult opponent. There is nothing terrible in the presence of such an opponent, he believes. U. Ury names five possible barriers to cooperation: Your reaction, Their emotions, Their position, Their dissatisfaction, Their strength. Please note that only one of these barriers concerns yourself. This is a certain human emotionality that we talked about above. The other four barriers relate to your partner. And it is precisely these barriers that you need to help your opponent fight, even when he does not notice them. U. Yuri calls these ways to overcome them: Take their side, Reframe, Build a golden bridge, Use the power to educate. Let's try to dwell in more detail on some of his methods for overcoming such barriers. To attract a partner to your side, you should pay genuine attention to him and his interests. By the way, a fake game in this regard often comes to light. So try to be sincere. What parameters can help us?
1) Active listening.
Active listening occurs both at the verbal (asking again, confirmation, etc.) and at the non-verbal level;
2) Validate your partner's point of view.
You must confirm that you understand what you heard, even if you do not agree with the proposed position. This does not mean agreement, it is simply about the effectiveness of communication, where understanding of what was heard should be demonstrated.
3) Express empathy for their feelings. You must express understanding of their feelings. This is disarming and attractive, and then you can expect the same in return.
4) Offer an apology option.
An apology often creates very good conditions for subsequent constructive resolution of the dispute.
An important parameter for a successful conversation is showing your consent where possible. W. Ury cites as an example one of the American senators, who demanded that his staff speak with voters only on those problems on which he agreed with his electorate.
Even if this constitutes only one percent of the problems, we can only talk about them.
During a conversation, you should use a variety of “yes” as often as possible, which tend to disarm your partner: “Yes, here you are right,” “Yes, here we should agree with you.” This same “yes” must be present in non-verbal form.
Attention to your interlocutor also means that you recognize him as a person. This should not depend on the subject of the conversation. Even if you do not agree with your opponent's position, this does not diminish your respect for him.
The next barrier is “their dissatisfaction,” which U. Yuri proposes to remove by “reformulation.” By creating a friendly context for negotiations, you can try to change the rules of the game, the task of which is to divert the opponent from defending his positions to satisfying his interests. Reframing allows you to direct the opponent towards interests, to use new creative possibilities, to discuss fair standards.
What else can you do? You can ask “why” questions to get to the root of the problem. You can formulate a solution to the situation yourself using “what if so” constructions. People don't like to express their opinions, but they really like to criticize other people's. In this way, one can reach basic interests, the satisfaction of which will become the next goal.
By building the "golden bridge" U. Yuri is trying to solve the problem of dissatisfaction. He gives the example of director Spielberg, who as a child was mercilessly beaten by one of the rowdy teenagers. Over time, Spielberg invited this man to star in his film as the main character. After the film they became friends. This young hooligan solved the problem of attention and self-respect not by beating him, but by his appearance in the film.
Thus, it is necessary to constantly search and find the interests of people that lie at the basis of negotiations.
Even such a question as “saving the face of the enemy” needs separate consideration. After all, very often people do not make concessions, fearing to appear like losers. U. Yuri offers the following life-saving behavior options:
show that circumstances have changed: in the previous situation, such a position was correct, but in the new conditions it needs to be changed;
point out a fair standard: It's not easy to get offended by objective things, so an objective standard can save the day. And the last version of the barrier is a force one. They are playing a power game against you. You try to respond in kind, but as a result the situation escalates. This means that this is not the best scenario. You should look for another one. What do Harvard people offer?
They believe that one should warn the enemy rather than threaten him. If the threat is confrontational, then the warning can be expressed respectfully. You can demonstrate your other alternatives. You can ask for help from a third party, because it is always better to be on the side of the coalition rather than fighting alone.
And in conclusion, U. Ury emphasizes that you should not strive for victory at any cost, you must look for ways of mutual satisfaction. This is the only way that opponents can become partners. Be generous at the end of the journey, like professional negotiators with terrorists: in the end you have to be soft, and you can give in some things.
At the same time, there is an opinion that this dominant Harvard paradigm is too simplistic. It rests on the exaggeration that participants only look after their own interests, ignoring the role of social norms, relationships between negotiators, and the behavior of third participants. Of the principled negotiations between Fischer and Urey, the authors write: "Our analysis suggests that such a strategy will promote agreement (which may be in someone's favor) If the other party accepts the proposed principles and the proposed interpretations thereof, and If There is objective information that allows this principle to be applied unequivocally. But these are big “ifs” (Fisher R., Yuri U. The path to agreement, or negotiations without defeat. - M., 1990. - P. 125). The authors include the following among their own principles that socially normalize negotiations. Fostering friendship and solidarity, which as a result makes you think about the condition of other participants. Social pressure to conform to norms. System of sanctions in case of evasion of norms.
The authors find that another missing component of negotiations in the Harvard paradigm is the relationship between the participants. Here they consider parameters such as power and trust, positive and negative relationships.
In general, it should be concluded that there are undoubtedly several possible theoretical paradigms that model the negotiation process. The Harvard approach has become one of the most common, but, of course, it should not be treated as the only possible and correct one.
The problem of terrorism is very serious for all countries. At the same time, it should be noted that negotiations with terrorists are purely communication process. In this case, they interest us as the process of establishing contact and convincing a person under extreme conditions. It seems to us that they are possible only thanks to references to a certain symbolism, both on the part of the terrorist and on the part of the negotiator. From the perspective of our topic, negotiations with terrorists can be presented as an attempt forcefully change the symbolic world terrorist, because at the same time we are trying to force him to fulfill conditions that are alien to him. The symbolic component is also identified as essential for interethnic conflicts: the fear of being subjugated becomes stronger than any material calculations. And as a reaction to it, there arises a desire to create certain symbols of the entire group’s legitimacy and security. Such symbols are the territory and the surrounding natural environment.
To negotiate, you need to find out the type of terrorist: paranoid personality, depressive personality, antisocial personality, inadequate personality. A paranoid person has a disturbed psyche. He is out of contact with reality. Paranoids have above average intelligence, so don't try to deceive them. In order to establish communication and seek a solution to the problem, one must avoid disputes over his ideas and fantasies. Paranoid people often follow someone else's orders. Depressed individuals can also be out of contact with reality. The risk of suicide and hostage murder is very high. Often such people have a developed feeling of guilt and uselessness in this world. During the negotiation process, you need to convince the person of his value. For an inadequate personality, taking hostages is proof to someone that he can do “that.” The most typical terrorist is an antisocial personality. She has no morals, no value orientations, no sense of guilt. He is very impulsive. You cannot promise him the impossible. It is necessary to maintain constant contact with him so that he does not switch to hostages.
The problem of communication contact, establishing the necessary level of trust on the part of terrorists is a difficult job. For physical contact, the following rules can be suggested:
Agree that no harm will come to you;
Don't say if you are being held at gunpoint, insist that the weapon be lowered;
Face-to-face can be spoken after some time has passed, when contact has been established and trust has been achieved;
Never have face-to-face conversations with more than one terrorist;
Always have a rescue plan;
Never turn your back;
Watch the space; the level of pressure depends on your approach to the interlocutor.
Establishing contact is the desire to speak with the terrorist in his language. We must pretend that the problem is being solved the way the terrorist wants.
Negotiators penetrate into the symbolic world of another person in order to communicatively force him to release the hostages.
Today's statesmen already use the term “negotiator” quite easily. For example, former Russian Deputy Prime Minister Yu. Maslyukov could say with complete certainty: “We have experienced negotiators.” This reflects an understanding of at least two things. On the one hand, the existence of another side with its own interests is allowed, which cannot be ordered, but compromises should be sought, conceding in some way to oneself. On the other hand, it is a certain recognition of the existence of a separate professional field, which is given preference when addressing certain issues.
Negotiators have become a fairly common feature in films where a capture takes place.
hostages. They are negotiating to prevent human casualties. And even in
in the film "The Fifth Element", when Bruce Willis's hero, as a negotiator, flies into the room and suddenly shoots at the commander of the opposite side, there are still no human casualties, since aliens are acting against him.
In the negotiations between the leaders of the two superpowers there was a maximum
voltage. It was first possible to film it during Khrushchev’s trip to the USA, where his
meeting with Eisenhower. As they write today: “The main result of Camp David is, of course, the psychological shift achieved there. The relationship between the two super-enemies was
the usual human foundations of behavior were laid, the seeds of trust were sown, even if they sprouted several decades later. Perhaps for the first time, the desire was born to use the negotiating table not for squabbling, but for solving
pressing international problems - German, disarmament, nuclear tests"*.
Such a change in relationships is often associated with the manifestation of basic interest in each other.
to friend. As N. SLeonov writes: “A normal person always treats with increased attention those who show interest in his views, judgments, and works”**.
However, experiments show that a change in the relationship between contacting
representatives does not change stereotypical attitudes towards the entire group. "Research
demonstrate that even if positive attitudes are formed in relation to a group member with whom contact occurs, these relations cannot be generalized in relation to the entire group, and group stereotypes are preserved"***.
The negotiator is called upon to:
a) switch to your opponent’s language,
b) demonstrate respect for his demands,
c) propose a solution to the problem that satisfies the interests of
opponent.
Only this way can bring successful results.
But negotiations are a process extended in time and space (by the way, more
one’s own place, not someone else’s, is considered advantageous for successful negotiations). M. Lebedev divides the negotiation process into three stages****:
Preparation for negotiations (pre-negotiation stage);
The process of conducting them and reaching agreements if the negotiations ended with their signing (interaction stage);
Analysis of the results of negotiations and implementation of the agreements reached
(implementation).
M. Lebedeva also emphasizes that they are often elected to resolve conflicts
signals, not negotiations, and the presence or absence of communication channels between them does not matter: “In October 1973, there were such channels between the USA and the USSR, but the USSR preferred to “signal” by withdrawing its personnel from Syria and Egypt that he does not intend to directly participate in the development of the conflict in the Middle East. Sometimes participants choose signals rather than negotiations as the path of least risk and least commitment: it is later easier to refer to the fact that the signals were misunderstood" (p. 187).
Such behavior is not constructive; in it, the opponent is not only not ready to make concessions, but does not even want to listen to the other side. Constructive behavior
other. J. Hodgson suggests four stages of real constructiveness*:
Remember the positive goals that brought you to the negotiating table.
Clearly demonstrate to your partner your willingness to jointly search for a solution acceptable to everyone.
Involve your partner in the process of developing a solution.
Express your willingness to acknowledge your opponent's point of view.
Here, in all four stages, recognition of a partner runs through the red thread.
negotiations. If it is accepted as a given, then one has to come to terms with the fact that it
interests may be different. Recognizing the interests of the partner, one has to admit that they also have the right to exist. The whole difficulty of negotiations lies in this transition to recognizing the opponent’s right to a different point of view. However, there is no other option given. There is also a theory of negotiation cycles, where in each of them equivalence or non-equivalence prevails**:
Start of negotiations
At the beginning of negotiations, it is typical to be unequivalent in response to the other party's proposals. They respond to rigidity with moderate demands, and to compliance - they demand a lot. An imbalance is created.
Mid-negotiation
This is the longest period; here equivalence can prevail: rigidity is responded to with rigidity, and compliance is responded to with compliance. What is characteristic here is the desire for a balance of interests.
End of negotiations
Here again a non-equivalence arises associated with the pressure of time, with
the need to necessarily conclude negotiations with some kind of agreement. In a confrontation with a tough partner, ambivalence arises associated with the need to complete negotiations.
The most effective tactics for negotiating using this model
there is an overestimation of demands at the beginning, then in response to concessions from the other side of gradual change and their demands. But the initially high bar will not allow you to fall too low in this case.
Negotiations are an intellectually complex process, which is reflected in
serious preparation for it. The more prepared this process is, the higher the likelihood of achieving success. The winner is the one who sufficiently takes into account the work with the opponent. This is the generation of information in a dialogical mode, rather than a monologue, to which any power structures are accustomed.
20. Negotiation theory
Negotiations are becoming an increasingly important component of modern life.
person. They arise not in a situation of hierarchical dependence (such as in the army), but when it is necessary to achieve agreement among two autonomous participants. V. Mastenbroek defines negotiations as a combination of two factors - one’s own interests and dependence on the opponent*. The problem of negotiations in the Western world is felt to be more important in comparison, for example, with Ukraine, since there is a serious problem of coordinating the behavior of various social groups and interests. We are accustomed to living (and probably continue to do so) within the framework of a hierarchical word, when the opinion of the one occupying the “command chair” is recognized as the only possible and indisputable. Our further movement towards a democratic society will increasingly require the ability to harmonize the interests of heterogeneous sections of society, various organizations, and cooperation at the international level, where, as we know, there is no unity of command and the only method of achieving agreement is negotiations.
The most successful negotiation model was proposed within the framework of the Harvard
project for negotiations**.
The above-mentioned system of the Harvard program included four basic
point, everything else is, as it were, their extension:
1. Make a distinction between the participants and the subject of negotiations.
2. Focus on interests, not positions.
3. Develop win-win options.
4. Insist on using objective criteria.
The program itself grew out of an attempt to get away from the idea of a struggle to win, in which
A win for one side automatically means a loss for the other. The second side, naturally, will also struggle to win and the conflict will turn into a protracted crisis. But at the same time, a softer approach, where we only retreat, is not an alternative. A psychologically soft approach is very difficult to sustain. Therefore, in this case, we will again not come to a solution that is necessary for both. A comparison of these two approaches can be seen in the following table***:
The Harvard Project considers both options for positional negotiations - soft and
hard - as uninteresting. A special option is proposed, based on the above basic principles of the two approaches. It is called principled negotiations.
Negotiators face the challenge of effective communication. Moving towards the goal, we
We must strive to remove all obstacles that hinder us. Therefore, three such “interfering” problems were discovered in communication:
1. People often speak incomprehensibly.
Explanation: Negotiators may try to trap their interlocutor, they may
try to make a certain impression. "If everyone plays to the crowd,
effective communication between the parties is completely impossible"*
2. People often don't pay attention to what you say.
Explanation: You may be thinking about your speech and not really listening to your opponent. “But if you can’t hear what the other side is saying, there is no communication.”**
3. People often misunderstand what was actually said.
Explanation: Fischer and Ury give this example: in Persian the meaning
The word "mediator" is to define him as an uninvited and annoying person. When UN Secretary-General Karl Waldheim arrived in 1980 to negotiate the hostage situation of US embassy staff in Tehran, he said he came as a mediator to work out a compromise. An hour after the TV broadcast, his car was stoned by angry Iranians.
One of the most important components of negotiation theory is communicative
component. Everything is aimed at moving conflict communication onto a new track. This is where such specialization as negotiations with terrorists arises. Specialists of this profile take on most of the load in this difficult situation. Among their rules are the following: it is necessary to knock down the first demands of the terrorists, so as not to follow their script in the future. But we must try to satisfy the last requirement, then it will be psychologically easier for the terrorist to give up.
In negotiations, not only the speaker, but also the listener takes an active position. IN
Otherwise, the negotiation process will inevitably begin to stall. Ef-
An effective negotiator is a good listener, and his main job is often listening. R. Fischer and W. Urey note: “Unless you show that you understand well what they are saying and demonstrating, they may not believe that you heard them. Otherwise, when you try to justify a different approach, they will assume that you didn't understand what they meant*.
Having resolved the problem of effective communication during negotiations, you can move on to the next phase, on which the decision depends - the analysis of existing interests. Positions are strictly formulated conditions from which, due to their fixed nature, it is no longer possible to move away. But behind each position there are certain interests. Moreover
your opponent may sometimes not know about your interests, so they should
articulate and show their importance to you. Without this, your interests will not be satisfied.
let go. Working at the level of interests, rather than positions, is also more effective because:
1) each interest can be satisfied based on several possible positions,
which immediately increases the number of options;
2) opposite positions contain much more coinciding
interests than those that came into direct conflict.
We see that the principled negotiations proposed by the Harvard School
interesting for this combination of hardness and softness, which was not present in other implementations.
One of the rules even puts this aspect first:
Be firm when talking about the problem, but gentle with people.
The firmness that so impresses every participant is present in this version
negotiations, but this firmness is concentrated only on fundamental areas. All other components of conflict communication, on the contrary, get rid of the signs of conflict in all possible ways.
We talked about coordinating interests, but at the same time we should also think about
that, in principle, simply common interests are possible. Harvardians in this case emphasize
three points:
1) there are common interests in any negotiations;
2) common interests are a real possibility, not an accident;
3) emphasizing the presence of common goals makes negotiations smoother and
friendly.
And the last parameter is the use of objective criteria. This immediately reduces
time for debate, because such criteria are independent of us, and it is not for us to change them.
In his book, U. Ury* develops in detail a strategy for negotiating with difficult
enemy. There is nothing terrible in the presence of such an opponent, he believes. U. Yuri names five possible barriers to cooperation: Your reaction, Their emotions, Their
position, Their dissatisfaction, x strength. Please note that only one of these barriers concerns yourself. This is a certain human emotionality that we talked about above. The other four barriers relate to your partner. And it is precisely these barriers that you need to help your opponent fight, even when he does not notice them. U. Yuri calls these ways to overcome them: Take their side, Reformulate, Build a golden bridge, Use force to educate. Let's try to dwell in more detail on some of his methods for overcoming such barriers.
To win over your partner, you need to pay genuine attention to him.
and his interests. By the way, a fake game in this regard often comes to light. So try to be sincere. What parameters can help us?
1) Active listening.
Active listening occurs both at the verbal (asking again, confirmation, etc.) and at the non-verbal level;
2) Validate your partner's point of view.
You must confirm that you understand what you heard, even if you disagree with it.
proposed position. This does not mean agreement, it is simply about the effectiveness of communication, where understanding of what was heard should be demonstrated.
3) Express empathy for their feelings.
You must express understanding of their feelings. This is disarming and attractive, and then you can expect the same in return.
4) Offer an apology option.
An apology often creates very good conditions for subsequent constructive
dispute resolution.
An important parameter for a successful conversation is demonstrating your agreement.
where possible. W. Ury cites as an example one of the American senators, who demanded that his staff speak with voters only on those problems on which he agreed with his electorate.
Even if this constitutes only one percent of the problems, we can only talk about them. You should use a variety of “yes” as often as possible during a conversation, which
have the ability to disarm a partner: “Yes, here you are right”, “Yes, here you should
agree." This "yes" must also be present in non-verbal form.
Attention to your interlocutor also means that you recognize him as a person. Is not
should depend on the subject of the conversation. Even if you do not agree with your opponent's position, this does not diminish your respect for him.
The next barrier is “their dissatisfaction,” which U. Ury suggests
remove by "reformulation". By creating a friendly context for negotiations, you can try to change the rules of the game, the task of which is to divert the opponent from defending his positions to satisfying his interests. Reformulation allows you to direct your opponent towards interests, to use new creative
opportunities to discuss fair standards. How to do it? U. Ury gives an interesting example. In 1979, before the ratification of the disarmament treaty in the Senate, the Americans decided to make changes to facilitate this process. To Moscow to Gromyko for
They sent one of the senators to explain this situation. And Gromyko in the Western world was known as a “no” man, because he was distinguished by great intransigence and
inflexibility. Naturally, Gromyko said “no” this time too, because, as he put it, we had already made big concessions to the Americans.
And here an interesting development took place in these negotiations. American Senator
agreed with this interpretation, did not argue, but said that he needed to somehow convince senators like Goldwater, for example, and asked for advice on how best to do this. The senator listed the arguments of his opponents, and the experienced Soviet diplomat began to smash them with his iron argument. In the end, after almost
After a four-hour conversation, Gromyko suddenly agreed to the American proposal. U.
Yuri analyzes this situation as follows: instead of rejecting
Gromyko’s position, the senator reformulated the conversation in the direction he needed, and the treaty was ratified. As a result, Gromyko himself began to do his work for the senator and agreed with a position that had previously been out of the question.
What else can you do? You can ask “why?” questions to get to
essence of the problem. You can formulate a solution to the situation yourself using “what if so” constructions. People don't like to express their opinions, but they really like to criticize other people's. In this way, one can reach basic interests, the satisfaction of which will become the next goal.
By building the “golden bridge” U. Yuri is trying to solve the problem
dissatisfaction. He gives the example of director Spielberg, who as a child was mercilessly beaten by one of the rowdy teenagers. Over time, Spielberg invited this man to star in his film as the main character. After the film they became friends. This young hooligan solved the problem of attention and self-respect not by beating him, but by his appearance in the film.
Thus, it is necessary to constantly search and find the interests of people that lie in
basis of negotiations.
Even such a question as “saving the face of the enemy” needs separate consideration. After all, very often people do not make concessions, fearing to appear like losers.
U. Yuri offers the following life-saving behavior options:
Show that circumstances have changed: in the previous situation a similar position was
correct, but in new conditions it needs to be changed;
quite acceptable. The third party can be a mediator, an expert, a common boss, or a mutual friend;
Point out a fair standard: It's not easy to get offended by objective things, so an objective standard can save the day.
And the last version of the barrier is a force one. They are playing a power game against you. You
If you try to respond in kind, the situation will escalate as a result. So it's not
best case scenario. You should look for another one. What do Harvard people offer?
They believe that one should warn the enemy rather than threaten him. If the threat
confrontational, then the warning can be expressed with respect. You can demonstrate your other alternatives. You can ask for help from a third party, because it is always better to be on the side of the coalition rather than fighting alone.
And in conclusion, U. Ury emphasizes that you should not strive to win any
price, it is necessary to look for ways of mutual satisfaction. This is the only way opponents can
become partners. Be generous at the end of the journey, like the professionals
negotiations with terrorists: in the end you should become soft, you can give in on some things.
At the same time, there is an opinion that this dominant Harvard paradigm
is too simplistic. It rests on the exaggeration that participants only look after their own interests, ignoring the role of social norms, relationships between
negotiators, behavior of third parties*. Of the groundbreaking negotiations between Fischer and Urey, the authors write: “Our analysis suggests that such a strategy would
promote agreement (which may be in one's favor) if the other party accepts the proposed principles and the proposed interpretations of them, and if there is objective information that allows the principle to be applied unambiguously. But these are big “ifs” (R. 125). The authors include the following among their own principles that socially normalize negotiations. Fostering friendship and solidarity, which as a result makes you think about the condition of other participants. Social pressure to conform to norms. System of sanctions in case of evasion of norms.
The authors find that another missing component of negotiations in the Harvard paradigm is the relationship between the participants. Here they consider parameters such as power and trust, positive and negative relationships.
In general, it should be concluded that there are undoubtedly several possible theoretical paradigms that model the negotiation process. The Harvard approach has become one of the most common, but, of course, it should not be treated as the only possible AND correct one. For example, V. Mastenbrock’s approach can also be considered as special, within the framework of which special attention is paid to both the processes of restraining emotions and the processes of controlled release of emotions.
One day a wanderer turned to a student of a Zen master:
- I walked 10,000 miles to hear the Master. But I don’t see anything miraculous in his words...
- Don't listen to the words. Get the gist. If you listen only to words, you will become like a person who chews on a cup instead of enjoying the taste of tea...
- But how to do that?
- Grab the sentence that the master will pronounce. Shake it well until all the words fall out. What remains will change you forever...
There is a common misconception many people have about what a professional negotiator is. Thus, it is not uncommon for people to think that a negotiator is some kind of analogue of the humanoid bird talker.
In principle it is logical. Being a negotiator means being a talker. I hasten to disappoint you if you think the same way. There is nothing further from reality than such a belief.
For a deep understanding of the issue, who is a professional negotiator, let's look together at the following myths and facts.
Myth-1. A negotiator knows how to speak better than others and therefore he can convince them or convince anyone of anything.
To put it mildly, this is not true at all. Negotiation is not a presentation. And not an actor's monologue. And not even a lawyer’s monologue in the courtroom. Real negotiations are an unremarkable process, not bright and infinitely far from the show.
A professional negotiator can generally be a stutterer and still negotiate successfully. All the work of a professional in this topic is a sober look at the problem, conflict, obstacle to agreement. Seeing the negotiation situation from different sides simultaneously. Ability to change scale.
Perceive the negotiation situation from above. Be able to look at the entire negotiation process through the eyes of your opponent. To achieve this amazing effect, when you enter the head of your counterpart and begin to perceive the world through his eyes, you just need to ask questions and listen carefully, absorb, and perceive your opponent’s answers.
Agree that learning to ask simple questions and listen carefully is not so difficult. As children, we all easily mastered this innate ability of a professional negotiator.
Myth-2. A professional negotiator is a candidate of science or at least a person with two higher educations
And this is not true at all. If the number of diplomas influenced negotiation abilities, then we would live in a world without wars and crises.
All the most terrible massacres on a global scale today are committed by “highly qualified” people. It seems that the captains at the helm of world politics are doing everything so that, God forbid, they fail to agree on something positive.
Turn on the news and you will understand that there is nothing but real, effective negotiations there. It smells of gunpowder, free oil and the suffering of millions of “liberated” workers of the East.
Remember, I wrote a long time ago:
“Peace itself exists only because effective negotiators exist. And peace gives way to war when negotiators make mistakes..."(http://master.site/)
For any questions, write to
The feeling that the level of a diploma is too high is a guarantee of two problems.
Firstly, a lack of curiosity about people and the world around us.
Secondly, often overly overeducated individuals tend to fall into pride and snobbery in relation to the simpler inhabitants of planet Earth.
But a negotiator needs something completely different: a sincere interest in his neighbors on this planet and curiosity about how people see this motley world. And one more thing... A negotiator cannot become a professional without a constant process of self-education.
And this process has no end. When entering the Path, be prepared for calluses on the soles of your feet. Calluses will be the best diplomas and certificates that the Path itself issues to those who follow it. It is not the external education system that is important, but the inner strength of your self-education.
Myth-3. Negotiations begin, take place and end in cozy meeting rooms, with mineral water, cookies and strong coffee
Yes, no matter how it is...
Negotiations begin long before the negotiators are comfortable in their leather chairs, and end long after the actual completion of pure negotiation time.
Negotiation is the path to agreement between different points of view on the same subject. And this path runs between the convolutions of the gray matter of sapiens. At least, let's hope that they are reasonable.
Do you think the people who gather in the meeting room haven’t seen each other for a long time and just want to chat? The answer is negative. People need solutions to their problems. They need concrete results, not endless dialogues.
Many negotiations are the final, summative part of a long process of dozens of unpublicized key meetings and phone calls. Often, the entire negotiation process is like an iceberg - only 10% of its surface is visible to the public.
Myth-4. A professional negotiator is always a smiling, super-positive person
Sort of Mr. Yes. Everyone's favorite and charmer. I do not rule out that the negotiator described above could, in principle, exist on planet Earth.
Don't know. I personally have never met such guys at the negotiating table. The fact is that where serious business issues are being resolved, at the negotiating table, it is not naive children in rose-colored glasses with caramels in their sweaty palms who are sitting.
They've seen everything in their lives. Remember that in business a year goes by in three years. And no one will pour a glass of milk for being harmful.
All these psychological tricks and tricks will not work here. This is not NLP training for you. You will only make people laugh if you try to “charm” your business opponents with your incredible charisma and other antics.
Therefore, you can leave the “smile mask” in the hallway or send it by DHL to Hollywood. Better take my advice: just relax and be yourself. This “trick” will save you a lot of time, money and nerves.
Of course, you will have problems in your career as a negotiator if you live with constant internal conflict and hate people. Therefore, the advice to “be yourself” means, first of all, to be a mentally and psychologically healthy and balanced person.
Myth-5. A professional negotiator is a lone hero
Wizard, Superman and Spider-Man in one bottle. Stir but do not shake. Complete nonsense.
Negotiations are NOT done alone and issues are not resolved. One successful businessman was asked what his most important investment asset was? To the surprise of the journalist, he took out his old notebook and said: “An asset of old, good connections.”
Therefore, the conclusion is: negotiations are a team sport. Even if your team is not even close to the meeting room, this does not mean that it is not there at all. Often, those who order professional negotiation services do not have clarity and understanding on this issue.
So, sometimes some eccentric writes and asks to negotiate with a certain legal entity regarding an agreement on exclusive prices for exclusive things. Why should the manufacturer give these prices to the customer? But, they say, this is why we are turning to you - you are a negotiation pro.
OK! And how do you imagine that? - I ask. They answer me, they say, come up and talk, well, in the sense, negotiate - that’s your job...
Just laughter through tears. They decided that the professional negotiator was Uri Geller crossed with David Copperfield. It passes through walls and bends spoons with its gaze.
Yes, my belief is that there are almost no unsolvable issues. It's all about the resources and time allocated to solve the problem. But don't be naive.
To conduct effective negotiations of a high level of complexity, when the situation seems hopeless and insoluble, you do not need a suspended tongue and magic spells, but a thick notebook, common sense and simple negotiation technologies.
One more thing. Probably the most important of all... You need combinatorial thinking skills. Strategic thinking. It is necessary to see the entire forest, and not just individual trees in the forest. You need to see the entire Go board and even more...
Only panoramic thinking, thinking in 3D style, vision of the entire scope of the negotiation situation separates an amateur negotiator from a professional negotiator...
Systemic issues can only be resolved through a systems approach. Therefore, often such an eccentric customer cannot understand why the negotiator does not want to take and go to the next place tomorrow and bring in his teeth a hot contract with the signatures and seals of all responsible persons.
Yes, and it’s advisable to do it for a couple hundred bucks. It’s okay that the contract talks about a seven-digit number. The job is a piece of cake - to cast a spell on someone and take away the necessary document from him. This is a familiar thing for us, for wizards!
I just want to tell such a client to send me a kilogram of that weed that they smoke in the whole office...
Hey, clients of negotiation services. Why are you looking at the browser as if you don’t understand Russian? I tell you: well, at least sometimes you need to lead a sober lifestyle. Be patient and read up on negotiations. For example, my blog. Look, a more conscious view will appear on many things...
In the end, read some book about our work, about negotiations. Some Herbert Cohen or Jim Camp, or Alexander Kondratovich... By God, like little children...
Of course, these are not the only myths about the image of a professional negotiator. What can you find in the minds of our extraordinary citizens! There are so many miracles and paradoxes crammed in there!
And why? Maybe because something important was forgotten? Fairy tales and parables have been erased from the memory of the matured population... The hemispheres of the brain have dispersed, so to speak, in different directions. Left - to the left. And the right one has completely shrunk...
Well, it’s dashing - it doesn’t matter. I want to tell you a fairy tale. Or maybe not a fairy tale... It depends on how you look at it...
One day a little boy returned home in the evening. Since the morning he stood at the forge. He watched the blacksmith's work with all his eyes. With an important look, he said to his father:
- Dad, now I can work as a blacksmith. I'll start work tomorrow. I know everything how and what to do to become a real blacksmith. There is nothing complicated about forging. I watched the blacksmith at work all day and remembered everything.
The father smiled and offered his son some tea. He poured two cups: one for himself and the other for his son. Then, he pulled the sugar bowl towards him and began to dip pieces of sugar in the tea, and then put them in his mouth, washing it down with the aromatic drink. He didn’t give his son any sugar at all.
After finishing the meal, the father asked his son:
- Well, son, was your tea sweet?
- How sweet will it be? It was you who drank it, not me!
- Wait a minute. But you looked at my sugar, you saw how I ate it. Don't you feel sweet?
“It’s gone, not a bit,” the son answered.
- However! How then were you able to master the profession of a blacksmith just by watching his work?
© 2012 Alexander Kondratovich
Full or partial copying of materials is permitted only with the agreement of the author and an active link to the source.
Dear colleagues!
Who among us has not dreamed of conducting negotiations in such a way that we could then admire their effectiveness, efficiency, and perhaps our skill?! However, the reality of life often turns out to be different. One of the main reasons for this discrepancy is our desire to “get into battle quickly”, without having the proper theoretical and practical preparation. After all, there is often an opinion that anyone can negotiate.
Once upon a time, a similar thesis that “every cook can rule the state” has already had a negative impact on the development of our country. But, unfortunately, we do not always remember and honor the lessons of history. Therefore, some continue to believe that negotiations do not require special training, special knowledge, abilities and skills. The main thing is to go and see it off.
Everything seems to be fine, but what will be the result of such negotiations when neither they nor the negotiator himself are prepared? In fact, negotiations are a great art and a great science. As an art, negotiations require filigree skill, mixed with extensive knowledge of this subject, and incredible precision in actions.
As a science, negotiations have their own laws and patterns, important structural elements and functions. However, negotiations are not only a static phenomenon (structure), but also an amazing and complex process consisting of specific periods, stages and phases.
At the same time, negotiations are so multifaceted that they should be considered as an effective tool for preventing and resolving difficult and conflict situations of interaction. Moreover, consideration of negotiations should occur simultaneously from three angles: as a system (statically), as a process (dynamically) and as an instrument (means). This is the essence of the new structural-process-instrumental (SPI) approach, which is described in detail in my new book “The Negotiator Profession: A New Approach.”
In order for you to more clearly understand this approach, feel and realize all its advantages, see its novelty and uniqueness, we can give a simple metaphor. Let's take a car as a metaphor. Now let’s consider how a motorist (driver) will interact with this car based on three perspectives known to us: structural, procedural and instrumental.
A driver who adheres to a structural approach to a car knows well in theory all its component elements (components and assemblies), where they are located and what they are intended for, and how they are interconnected and affect the operation of the car. The only trouble is that he has very little idea of how to drive this car in practice, and what maximum benefit can be derived from its operation. This is the so-called “theoretical driver”.
The complete opposite is the “practice driver”, who adheres to a process approach to the car. He has good skills in driving a car: from starting it, maneuvering it, to parking it and stopping it. However, its weak point is a complete misunderstanding of the vehicle’s structure, which ultimately leads to frequent breakdowns due to improper operation and the inability to repair even minor faults.
The third type of driver can be described as an “exploitation driver.” He does not attach much importance to knowledge about the structure of a car, and he cannot boast of his skills in driving a vehicle, but he knows perfectly well how to squeeze the maximum benefit out of a car in terms of its operation. For him, a car is a means to achieve various goals: from traveling on vacation to transporting goods and using it as a private taxi.
Each of these drivers is good in its own way and has its own strengths. At the same time, his knowledge, skills, and ideas regarding interaction with the car are limited to only one angle, which ultimately makes each of these motorists ineffective from the point of view of operating the vehicle. With such a one-sided approach, the car will not last long (and maybe the owner himself will not).
Loading...
