Negotiation Process
When the discussion on this type of topic comes up, it is important
to
understand several key points. First is the fact that negotiations of
this
nature are done by one group (or institution) to another group. Now,
knowing
this it is also safe to assume that groups of people are not a
collective of one
mind and one thought, and thus the group will not act as
one. Inside these
groups, many different and sometimes conflicting ideas and
interests are bound
to hinder a straightforward negotiation. These internal
problems creeping into
the wood work before the other party has even made in
to the table will
ultimately create new layers in the bargaining process.
This is not to say all
internal negotiations are bad. In my opinion if a
group will argue between them
to smooth out all the potential internal
interests and concerns; then it can
also be sure that as a group the entire
entity was come to the bargaining table
with the knowledge that all of its
main views have already been addressed. Then
as a result the bargainer knows
what as a group they would accept and decline.
As it was briefly covered
in the article the internal bickering within one group
does have its
downfalls which in the long run hinder the group more then promote
it. If
certain people within the group have personal agendas such as personal
wealth
or influence in mind, these views of the few that can go against the
optimum
deal for the entire group. Then as these people fight to have their
views and
solutions pushed forward the group may lose more in the long run.
(Albeit the
few people in the group may come out even stronger.) I believe the
key to
getting beyond the internal negotiations and out onto the bargaining
table
with the other party is to as a group not bicker over 1 or 2 minor
things,
but to look at these deals "one pie" which may have many
different
ingredients within it. The pie is only ready for the oven (ei.
bargaining table)
by the group when they have all added their own
ingredients, and come to a
resolution on these ingredients and the level of
each. Once this is done, then
it is time for external negotiations. I will
use the cooking of a pie as a
simile for the bargaining process to outline my
views. In this way I hope to
outline the reasons as they are presented in the
article in my own way as I
understand and agree with them. As it was
rationalized in the article, external
negotiations must be completely
different process. Just as one doesn’t add
more ingredients to a pie after
it’s put in the oven, internal bickering
within a group of what should have
or shouldn’t have gone into the pie has no
place in the negotiations with the
other party. Sure it is possible to change
the ovens cooking time and even
add new ideas to the pie before entering the
oven, if that is what is needed
to form an agreement. But as stated before, the
pie represents the interests
(hopefully the best interests.) of the group, and
thus external negotiations
should be keep out of the directions to make it. That
being said, external
negotiations will usually have conflicts within them due
the large chance
that the two party’s interests are usually in conflict. One
groups pie will
bake in 5 minutes while the other’s needs 10 minutes due to
the ingredients
in the pies, and thus the oven temperature will need to be
addressed. This is
when each group must appoint a "chef." These people
should know all the
ingredients within each other pies as well as why they were
put in the pies
in the first place. They need to be an expert in how to shape
the oven so
that both groups pie with be baked to their mutual satisfaction, but
yet work
together in hopes the "BATNA" has be reached. To do this the
chefs
(negotiators) must work together, they a partisans, try to find out how
using
the ingredients of each group will be baked into the pies without
wreaking the
pies or causing one of them to be burnt. One other major
importance is the chefs
will have to understand that some ingredients of the
pies may have to be
rearranged or taken out to reach an agreement. The chefs
will need to share in
this process, but as it is likely to occur, each pie
may have "secret"
ingredients or amounts within them that either chef may not
want to revel. When
this happens it can cause serious problems as to what the
optimum temperature is
going to be, so disclosing the ingredient may come
around, but the amount of the
ingredient may be left out and thus making it
possible to reach a solution. (Or
vice-versa) If these problems come to a
head, it needs to be up to the chefs to
individually address their respective
groups responsible for the insertion of
the ingredients and advise them the
needs for altercations. It is hopeful each
group has appointed a chef with
lots of "cooking" experience in getting the
pies fit for human consumption,
and to each of the group’s tastes. Agents -
Hidden Agenda or Strategic
Tool? As I read over this article, several points
were made in both
directions leaning towards the use of agents and also why the
use of agents
can also hamper ones negotiation. I will overview what I thought
were the key
points in both views and then expand them with my views on each. As
outlined
in the article, the obvious effect of agents is the complication that
the
agents cause in the transactions. The principals are not
personally
interacting with the party they are trying to bargain with. This
may in turn
limit the principal’s input and knowledge as well limit the
agent’s
usefulness if they do not properly understand the principal’s views
and
limits. A break down in communication, representation and coordination
are all
increased with the use of agents, and can multiple as the number of
people
representing the principal increases. This came be especially the case
when
dealing in a negotiation in which a lot of bargaining goes on and the
different
principals mediating between agents becomes very complex such as in
a lease or
business takeover. It could become over complex in the
technicalities of the
deal and loose sight of the real goals the principals
are after. There are other
strong points of view made in the article which
caution the use of agents,
foremost being agents may have alternative
motives. When I read the article I
came to agree that these are plausible
arguments which one must take into
account. First, if agent may have
alternative motives on top of the ones you
have hired him/her to work
towards, the two motives may in fact conflict. The
agent depending on the
level of conflict may be able to negotiate around them,
or settle on
something less then perfect for the principal so that the agent can
reap
future rewards. The example used in the article is that of a lawyer who
is
paid by the hour. The longer he works the more he is paid, so even though
he
could of reached an agreement in 5 hours of negotiating, he takes 9 and
the
principle fits the bill in the end. That being said, the other hand shows
many
useful reasons for incorporating an agent into ones negotiation tactics.
The
first and in my opinion the foremost reason is an agents expertise in the
area
the principal may be negotiating in. The article outlines 3
different
‘stripes’ of expertise: Substantive knowledge, Process expertise,
and
Special influence. All 3 have excellent points and depending on the
situation
the principal is in many help the principal immensely. Thus in my
view when the
situation calls for the use of an agent it is mostly if not
always wise to
consider using one. If I for one were arrested for Tax Fraud,
I would want a tax
lawyer to help me out. Likewise if I’m pulling for a seat
on city council and
I had a friend on it already, then I would be
inclined to ask for his help and
to pull some strings for me. This brings the
point of tactical flexibility. In
it, agents can play key roles between the
principal and the other party, either
by playing the agent in a role of
ambassador with no real power and thus
collaborating against another party.
The article quotes many phrases for example
such as the "stalking horse" or
"good cop/ bad cop ploys." All these are
good suggests for using agents, but
only when the ideas call for it and could be
used effectively. There would be
no real point in using a tactical flex plan on
another party who has nothing
significant or personally important to gain or
lose from the deal, it would
be implausible and the principal using the agent
would most likely lose out
in the long run. There are other strong reasons for
leading towards
representation, one being the nice and pleasant process of
divorce. As
outlined in the article, when the opposing principals have problems
between
them and negotiating a deal between them is hampered by interaction, it
would
be advisable to seek representatives to handle the talks. The main
point
would be that human nature can call emotions onto the playing field
between two
ex-lovers opposed to two formal lawyers a lot more often and for
a deal to be
signed with any fairness and rationality one would need outside
help. Overall
the use of agents boils down to the given situation. In most
cases when the
principal is either over this head or even looking for an
angle over the other
party then an agent can be considered useful, but as
outlined above, the agent
may cause more problems their they’re worth. In my
opinion it’s a scale one
needs to be weighed on an individual base, and then
determined if an agent is
needed and then if needed, what type of agent would
produce the best results.