Negotiation in group : Chestnut Drive Case.
Negotiation in group is the hardest thing. But not for the reason everyone can thought about : the partners' coordination, the speech coordination (it has to be clear and concise), the defense of a common interest and not only an individual one (you can't present the problem only from your point of view of make some personal request that will profit you). During the chestnut case, we were a little committee : some inhabitants and a lawyer. I was one of the inhabitant here and I had to show my discontent about the Chestnut Village project. Indeed, since this project can be a great opportunity for our town, it causes some disagreements to the neighborhood.
We had like an hour to organise our speech and it was very short but I think I am more and more confortable with the terms and the process. It's more natural for me to determine the issues of a negotiation. Now, it takes me way less time to target the requests that I can formulate, the one that i have to avoid/bypass in order not to offer to much. Furthermore I have some reflexes during the negotiation : I tried to control myself, not to be to emotive without being totally inexpressive and subdued to my interlocutors. For my these three hours were not enough ; it was very fun.
I think I could ameliorate a lot of thing like for instance learn to delegate. Indeed for me, it was difficult to let the lawyer make all the work for us. Moreover, I didn't wanted Aline to feel lonely speaking all by herself during 1 hour. So we decided that we should all talk to practice but also to show to our interlocutor that we where all implicated and informed about the procedures, what's possible to do, what's not legal etc. At the beginning we had some time to discuss and to define several points. It was not very difficult to be coordinated because we have the same vision of things : we had to defend the same interest, to formulate common requests in a general way otherwise, we would give up the idea. The negotiation should not profit more to an inhabitant in particular.
We focus our rhetoric on the fact that we lived in a little peaceful town which as been impacted negatively by the construction. We really want to restore peace and quiet. So, our purpose was to in one hand, obtenir compensation for all the damages caused and in the other hand to make sure that the futur work will never be a disagreement/danger.
So we had to define clearly our position : the construction of the chestnut village can be a good thing even if it's under regulation and a strict control. Because it is perturbation a lot the organization of the town. And our interest was to get several compensations and advantages. We had to show to Bunyon Construction company's committee that the project drives a lot of disagreements and can put in danger the life of the chestnut drive inhabitants and their activities.
Indeed we are in favor of the construction insofar as it can allows our town to be more dynamic but it has to respect some rules. However, we will jeopardize the Bunyon Company's projects by talking to the press for instance. We had some shared interest for instance to bring more and more people to Chestnut was the major interest we shared since it will allow the company to sell a lot of apartment and it will bring new clients for the commerce already installed. But it can also be harmful because of the parking question for instance. At the end, we do not agree about everything so we decided to meet again in several weeks in order to talk about the point we left besides during our first
meeting.
Our strategy was to play it soft but without being weak. We had to show them that it was in their best interest to achieve several agreement or the image of their company will end up damaged just like chestnut drive. But our weakness was that we were not in a totally powerful position since they had everything in order to be in compliance.
As it was important to build some trust and to ensure that the negotiation is carried out well, all the parties were very respectful and cordial. It was very significant that our interlocutor let us some time to discuss in the middle of the negotiation because we felt understood and listened. We also tried to present this meeting as a discussion that will allow in the future to improve the life in our town.
It was very important for us to make them know that we were not dans une optique agressive, de défense.
We decided to established 5 major issues we wanted to discuss.
1) Security : The first one was the security. We wanted the company to install some speed bump y order to reduce the speed limit. The company could not disagree on that point so the negotiation was pretty easy. The hardest point here was the negotiation of another entrance. They do not wanted to make new work but we suggested that they could have a right of way at the opposite of Chestnut Drive to enter. This way, people will not have to park in our street and they will be able to construct a parking lot which will be a huge plus for them to sell the appartements. They do not agree so we decided that for 3 months, they could have access to chestnut drive but after these 3 months they will have either, to make another entrance and to create a parking lot or to ask for a right of way to the city hall on the other side on the street in order to "decongest" chestnut drive.
2) Then we talked about noise pollution : We discussed several way to reduce it for instance by fixing different working hours. And we finally agree that the company could create a natural tree wall to limit the annoyance.
3) About "physical damages" : we had to ask for a delimitation of the work zone in order to avoid accidents. So the company would have to pay to put fences all around the work zone and to control the entrance all the time. Indeed we ask for at least security guard that need to be present all the day long and another one all the night.
4) And here we reach the dark point of the negotiation : first for the school. We wanted the company to participate in order to create like an expansion of the school in order not to break down the good reputation of this place. But they did not wanted to do anything. So just like Mrs Dutriaux suggests to us, we decided to make them thought they had an idea. We suggest to them to file an application to construct the new school. This way, they will make a deal with the with all in order to have a new construction site what means more money for them. Then, we decided that they will investigate in order to do so and we will talk about it in our next meeting. About recreational facilities, they suggested to make a reduction to all the inhabitants of chestnut drive so they can have an access to all the recreational facilities with an subscription.
5) And finally, we talked about the bad behavior of the workers : here we just insist about the importance of having a supervisor during the working hours, to control the workers and to remind them the regulation.
I tried not to let Aline - our lawyer - say everything. I tried to help her giving her some advices to
counter the defense of our interlocutor, giving her some supplementary arguments.
But it's difficult not to interfere. Another difficulty is to suggest that the idea is their : it is a good way to make them accept a proposition we made. You always have to think about the formulation of your proposition : the meaning, the organization of the words, the tone. Everything is going to play a huge part in the analysis process the interlocutor can make : indeed, after proposing an idea, the interlocutor will make everything in order to reject it (or at least, he/she will try to give you the as little as possible). You have to show him/her 1) he/she will win something very valuable 2) that's an idea he/she could have had in order to satisfied and be satisfied. So he/she will think and consider the idea more easily.
I was pretty happy about this negotiation because I think we get as much as we can and it was not aggressive at all. Even when we disagree, we tried to listened to our interlocutor and we recognized good arguments. There are several principles to respect in order to face a angry public.
I think it was important for the other side to listen to us a lot because, we had remontrance to do. And that is the purpose of our readings of the week. One thing I have learned from these texts is that, if you received critics, you do not have to be focused and these and say to your interlocutor "I will fix this by doing that, and that, and that". It is very essential to let the interlocutor express his/her discontent so he/she can feel seen. You have to understand why your interlocutor is angry about and face your responsibility. It all starts by making an apology.
Then it is important to proof your good faith to the other part, by engaging joint fact finding. It could means that you will work together to ameliorate the situation. For that you can start by choosing together experts to evaluate a situation etc. You will have to make compromise and show to your interlocutor that you are making some sacrifices for them : they will feel listened and they will be more "soft"/ less tough. In order not to break all the trust you built, you always have to be loyal and be trustworthy. This way you will be able to build a long-term relationship and you will be able to ask to your interlocutor to make concession more easily. Indeed, because you have been making efforts, the other part could do so when you really need it.
Another types of mistakes you can do is to think wrong. For instance you can be over-committed and your negotiation will suffer irrational escalation. That is to say that even if you have a good strategy, if it is deprived of any logic, it will produce harmful consequences, and the backtracking will be impossible. For instance if you pay too much for something just in order to get it, it is not a good move since then you don't have any money left. You have to be rational and not being whimsical or too much competitive. You have to be objective and fix you clear limits so you can't make an unconscious choice.
Also, you have to be objective in all situation, in order to avoid the partisan perception. It means to fail a negotiation because you are too implicated and you do have a biased look. To avoid that you can either try to put yourself in the shoes of your interlocutor or make some hypothesis about the issues of the situation.
And do not have irrational expectations or you will not be able to make a deal since there swill be no ZOPA. Here you behavior and the one of your interlocutor can play a huge part and change the conversation in a way where a deal would have been possible. Moreover, being too confident can lead the negotiation to failure. It is a little bit like partisan perception. You believe that you are going to win and you are missing some opportunities. And finally, unchecked emotions is something to avoid. You don't have to let some emotions take the controle during negotiation because it will automatically lead you to failure. You will not be able to get focused and you will take unconscious decisions. You have to make allowance.
A good mindset and temper are eventually the key to master the negotiation process.
Chestnut drive case available here : https://www.pon.harvard.edu/shop/chestnut-drive/
We had like an hour to organise our speech and it was very short but I think I am more and more confortable with the terms and the process. It's more natural for me to determine the issues of a negotiation. Now, it takes me way less time to target the requests that I can formulate, the one that i have to avoid/bypass in order not to offer to much. Furthermore I have some reflexes during the negotiation : I tried to control myself, not to be to emotive without being totally inexpressive and subdued to my interlocutors. For my these three hours were not enough ; it was very fun.
I think I could ameliorate a lot of thing like for instance learn to delegate. Indeed for me, it was difficult to let the lawyer make all the work for us. Moreover, I didn't wanted Aline to feel lonely speaking all by herself during 1 hour. So we decided that we should all talk to practice but also to show to our interlocutor that we where all implicated and informed about the procedures, what's possible to do, what's not legal etc. At the beginning we had some time to discuss and to define several points. It was not very difficult to be coordinated because we have the same vision of things : we had to defend the same interest, to formulate common requests in a general way otherwise, we would give up the idea. The negotiation should not profit more to an inhabitant in particular.
We focus our rhetoric on the fact that we lived in a little peaceful town which as been impacted negatively by the construction. We really want to restore peace and quiet. So, our purpose was to in one hand, obtenir compensation for all the damages caused and in the other hand to make sure that the futur work will never be a disagreement/danger.
So we had to define clearly our position : the construction of the chestnut village can be a good thing even if it's under regulation and a strict control. Because it is perturbation a lot the organization of the town. And our interest was to get several compensations and advantages. We had to show to Bunyon Construction company's committee that the project drives a lot of disagreements and can put in danger the life of the chestnut drive inhabitants and their activities.
Indeed we are in favor of the construction insofar as it can allows our town to be more dynamic but it has to respect some rules. However, we will jeopardize the Bunyon Company's projects by talking to the press for instance. We had some shared interest for instance to bring more and more people to Chestnut was the major interest we shared since it will allow the company to sell a lot of apartment and it will bring new clients for the commerce already installed. But it can also be harmful because of the parking question for instance. At the end, we do not agree about everything so we decided to meet again in several weeks in order to talk about the point we left besides during our first
meeting.
Our strategy was to play it soft but without being weak. We had to show them that it was in their best interest to achieve several agreement or the image of their company will end up damaged just like chestnut drive. But our weakness was that we were not in a totally powerful position since they had everything in order to be in compliance.
As it was important to build some trust and to ensure that the negotiation is carried out well, all the parties were very respectful and cordial. It was very significant that our interlocutor let us some time to discuss in the middle of the negotiation because we felt understood and listened. We also tried to present this meeting as a discussion that will allow in the future to improve the life in our town.
It was very important for us to make them know that we were not dans une optique agressive, de défense.
We decided to established 5 major issues we wanted to discuss.
1) Security : The first one was the security. We wanted the company to install some speed bump y order to reduce the speed limit. The company could not disagree on that point so the negotiation was pretty easy. The hardest point here was the negotiation of another entrance. They do not wanted to make new work but we suggested that they could have a right of way at the opposite of Chestnut Drive to enter. This way, people will not have to park in our street and they will be able to construct a parking lot which will be a huge plus for them to sell the appartements. They do not agree so we decided that for 3 months, they could have access to chestnut drive but after these 3 months they will have either, to make another entrance and to create a parking lot or to ask for a right of way to the city hall on the other side on the street in order to "decongest" chestnut drive.
2) Then we talked about noise pollution : We discussed several way to reduce it for instance by fixing different working hours. And we finally agree that the company could create a natural tree wall to limit the annoyance.
3) About "physical damages" : we had to ask for a delimitation of the work zone in order to avoid accidents. So the company would have to pay to put fences all around the work zone and to control the entrance all the time. Indeed we ask for at least security guard that need to be present all the day long and another one all the night.
4) And here we reach the dark point of the negotiation : first for the school. We wanted the company to participate in order to create like an expansion of the school in order not to break down the good reputation of this place. But they did not wanted to do anything. So just like Mrs Dutriaux suggests to us, we decided to make them thought they had an idea. We suggest to them to file an application to construct the new school. This way, they will make a deal with the with all in order to have a new construction site what means more money for them. Then, we decided that they will investigate in order to do so and we will talk about it in our next meeting. About recreational facilities, they suggested to make a reduction to all the inhabitants of chestnut drive so they can have an access to all the recreational facilities with an subscription.
5) And finally, we talked about the bad behavior of the workers : here we just insist about the importance of having a supervisor during the working hours, to control the workers and to remind them the regulation.
I tried not to let Aline - our lawyer - say everything. I tried to help her giving her some advices to
counter the defense of our interlocutor, giving her some supplementary arguments.
But it's difficult not to interfere. Another difficulty is to suggest that the idea is their : it is a good way to make them accept a proposition we made. You always have to think about the formulation of your proposition : the meaning, the organization of the words, the tone. Everything is going to play a huge part in the analysis process the interlocutor can make : indeed, after proposing an idea, the interlocutor will make everything in order to reject it (or at least, he/she will try to give you the as little as possible). You have to show him/her 1) he/she will win something very valuable 2) that's an idea he/she could have had in order to satisfied and be satisfied. So he/she will think and consider the idea more easily.
I was pretty happy about this negotiation because I think we get as much as we can and it was not aggressive at all. Even when we disagree, we tried to listened to our interlocutor and we recognized good arguments. There are several principles to respect in order to face a angry public.
I think it was important for the other side to listen to us a lot because, we had remontrance to do. And that is the purpose of our readings of the week. One thing I have learned from these texts is that, if you received critics, you do not have to be focused and these and say to your interlocutor "I will fix this by doing that, and that, and that". It is very essential to let the interlocutor express his/her discontent so he/she can feel seen. You have to understand why your interlocutor is angry about and face your responsibility. It all starts by making an apology.
Then it is important to proof your good faith to the other part, by engaging joint fact finding. It could means that you will work together to ameliorate the situation. For that you can start by choosing together experts to evaluate a situation etc. You will have to make compromise and show to your interlocutor that you are making some sacrifices for them : they will feel listened and they will be more "soft"/ less tough. In order not to break all the trust you built, you always have to be loyal and be trustworthy. This way you will be able to build a long-term relationship and you will be able to ask to your interlocutor to make concession more easily. Indeed, because you have been making efforts, the other part could do so when you really need it.
Another types of mistakes you can do is to think wrong. For instance you can be over-committed and your negotiation will suffer irrational escalation. That is to say that even if you have a good strategy, if it is deprived of any logic, it will produce harmful consequences, and the backtracking will be impossible. For instance if you pay too much for something just in order to get it, it is not a good move since then you don't have any money left. You have to be rational and not being whimsical or too much competitive. You have to be objective and fix you clear limits so you can't make an unconscious choice.
Also, you have to be objective in all situation, in order to avoid the partisan perception. It means to fail a negotiation because you are too implicated and you do have a biased look. To avoid that you can either try to put yourself in the shoes of your interlocutor or make some hypothesis about the issues of the situation.
And do not have irrational expectations or you will not be able to make a deal since there swill be no ZOPA. Here you behavior and the one of your interlocutor can play a huge part and change the conversation in a way where a deal would have been possible. Moreover, being too confident can lead the negotiation to failure. It is a little bit like partisan perception. You believe that you are going to win and you are missing some opportunities. And finally, unchecked emotions is something to avoid. You don't have to let some emotions take the controle during negotiation because it will automatically lead you to failure. You will not be able to get focused and you will take unconscious decisions. You have to make allowance.
A good mindset and temper are eventually the key to master the negotiation process.
Chestnut drive case available here : https://www.pon.harvard.edu/shop/chestnut-drive/
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire