Large complex negotiations require special tools to keep them ontrack and productive. Inexperienced negotiators generally measure success by the number of concessions they were able to “win” from their counterparty.  This inefficient approach forces people to stick to their position and rarely yields an optimal outcome.

The One-Text Procedure

Enter the wonderful world of the one-text procedure.  The key driver of this processes is the use of an unbiased third party to help catalogue real interests of all parties and then facilitate the combined criticism of possible solutions until the best solution is found.

The summary of the processes is:

 - Collect the true desires and interests of the  participants

 - Draft an interim proposal and present it to all participants for criticism

- Participants continually criticize the interim proposals until they can criticize it no more and the facilitator has prepare the best possible solution. It is only at this point that participants can accept or reject the final proposal.

Since everyone is working from the facilitator’s draft (participants cannot add, edit or modify themselves), it prevents participants from taking positions and becoming inflexible.  By criticizing the drafts of the facilitator, it allows them to criticize the proposal without fear of alienating the other party.

The draft criticism and revision process continues until the facilitator feels the proposal cannot be improved further. It is only at this point that the participants can make a Yes or No decision. This is the process used by the US government when they negotiated the Camp David Middle East piece agreement between Israel (Prime Minister Begin) and Egypt (President Sadat).

 

 

 

I recently read an interesting article in Psychology Today about negotiation that I wanted to share with you. In the article, Art Markman presents findings from a study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that analyzed the role of persuasion in negotiations.

For example, if you are interested in buying a house, the seller might ask for $350,000, arguing that the house was newly renovated and is near good schools. Maaravi, Gonzach, and Pazy argued that when people hear an argument in favor of the initial offer, they think of counter-arguments.  These counterarguments may actually push the counteroffer further away from the initial offer than it would have been had there been no persuasive argument.  Someone looking at a house might find all the areas that still need renovation and think about other houses even closer to the better schools in town and give a low offer on the house.

The study also highlights the importance of the first offer as it serves as an anchor for the rest of the negotiations. The author therefore recommend that you make the initial offer but resist the urge to justify it. Just let the other counter-party come back with a counteroffer. They believe that the counter-offer will be closer to your initial offer as long as you did not attempt to justify it.

The article is an interesting read for anyone involved in negotiations.