Resolution in Communication: 5 steps to effective negotation resolution

I recently attended a police hostage negotiation workshop that shed light on the extreme circumstances that could require effective negotiation. Two representatives from Hampshire Police gave a talk on their experiences with negotiating in dangerous situations with vulnervable people. The main ‘take-away’ from the workshop was the skill to listen.

A 5 step process was given by the representatives to help understand the key factors that make up effective negotiation.

5 step processThe first step is ‘Emotional Intelligence’, which means understanding the circumstances of the situation you are trying to negotiate.
The second step is ‘Intitial contact’. It is important to use warm welcoming open lines to introduce yourself.
The third step is to build raport with the person through ‘Empathy’.
Fourthly, ‘Trust’ needs to be gained through continuation of the third step.
And finally, the fifth step is to effectively ‘persuade to solve the problem’. Through all the steps listening should be the number one skill used.

This five step process contrasts Saner’s key factors of negotiation (2000), which takes a more aggressive approach:
Coercion: using force, or the threat of force to wrestle concessions from an opponent.
Opening strong: starting out with a position that is higher than what you realistically estimate you can achieve.
Salami tactics: prolonging a negotiation to a painstakingly slow pace, only giving a very small concession to the other side when it can no longer be avoided in order to placate the other side for a little while longer.

Do you think these steps are useful?

What other factors are important for resolving conflict through negotiation?

Negotiation in practice:

Heineken set up a challenge where guys had to convince their girlfriends to purchase stadium seats using the power of negotiation. The result is humorous and show how difficult negotiation can be at times. Have a look and find out if they managed to or not:

What do you think of the video?

Negotiation in Communication – Good vs. Bad

—Negotiation is an interpersonal decision-making process necessary whenever we cannot achieve our objective single-handily’ (Thompson, 2005). This post compares two case studies of negotiation and analyses how one has managed negotiation effectively and the other ineffectively.

GOOD

909c4a2d-776a-404d-a750-8726ab8d33c3-460x276

WHO: Scottish Referendum

WHAT: ‘If you don’t know, then you have to vote No’.

WHEN: Thursday 18 September 2014

RESULT: Scotland remains part of the UK because more people voted No. 55.3% voted No and 44.7% voted Yes. It is said that Gordon Browns speech at the “Love Scotland Vote No” rally in Glasgow swayed the votes towards No to independence. Brown spoke of choosing No because of love for Scotland and love for the future and one point that stood out to many was ‘If you don’t know, then you have to say No.’ The majority of campaigns were targeted at the No or Yes camps and little attention was given for the people who were unsure or had unanswered questions and Brown reaching out to these people is said to have been the tipping point in votes towards No. Political speeches are a great way to negotiate and if done effectively they can make a massive difference, proven by this case study.

VS

BAD

apple-samsung-patent-dispute-300x192-11390244

WHO: Apple and Samsung

WHAT: Samsung in patent violations of Apple IPhone trial

WHEN: 2012

RESULT: A California jury ruled that Samsung would have to pay Apple more than $1 billion in damages for patent violations of Apple products, particularly its iPhone. However, the negotiation was not handled well and the cost would be further argued until the judge dropped the charge to $600 million. After this the negotiation had still not been settled and in November 2013, another jury ruled that Samsung would have to pay Apple $290 million of the amount overruled by the judge in the 2012 case. Despite the pay-out finally being settled this didn’t resolve the conflict as a court-ordered mediation between the CEOs of the two companies in 2012 ended in impasse and the disputants continue to fight in courts worldwide.

RECCOMMENDATIONS: In terms of Samsung managing to negotiate the cost of the pay-out down lower, there was still the issue that the original negotiation was unsuccessful resulting in the trial lasting longer than necessary. The cost should have been negotiated at the first trial and agreed to by both parties with a coinciding agreement to end the conflict between the organisations to prevent future court cases.

What do you think of these two examples?

What do you think could have been done better to resolve the Samsung vs. Apple negotiation quicker?

Can you think of any examples of negotiation that stand out for being good or bad?

 

References
THOMPSON, L. 2005. The mind and heart of the negotiator. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall.—
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, 2015. Top Business Negotiations of 2013: Apple versus Samsung [online] [viewd on 24th February 2015] [Available at: http://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/top-business-negotiations-of-2013-apple-versus-samsung/%5D
GOV.UK, 2015. Scottish Independence Referendum Archived [online] [viewd on 24th February 2015] [available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/scottish-independence-referendum/about%5D
BROWN, G, 2015. Gordon Brown’s speech at the “Love Scotland Vote No” rally in Glasgow [online] [viewed on 24th February 2015] [available at: http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/2014/09/gordon-browns-speech-at-the-love-scotland-vote-no-rally-in-glasgow/%5D
Photo credits:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/261285/apple_v_samsung_five_experts_five_questions.html
http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/2014/09/gordon-browns-speech-at-the-love-scotland-vote-no-rally-in-glasgow/