Negotiation Skills for Not for Profits QED Group Lunch Time Webinar

Peter Spence, SPANS
03/27/1403/27/14 11
Copyright © Peter Spence, SPANS 2014 The QED Group
Copyright © Peter Spence, SPANS 2014Copyright © Peter Spence, SPANS 2014

 Negotiation is an essential skill for all Procurement Professionals
who expect to lead negotiations with suppliers
 If you expect or are expected to lead negotiations and negotiation
teams, particularly across boundaries and functions, knowledge
and experience in more contemporary negotiation theories and
practice will put you at a distinct advantage
 The competency to Negotiate will determine the successful
performance of the procurement and supply functions
03/27/1403/27/14Copyright © Peter Spence, SPANS 2014Copyright © Peter Spence, SPANS 2014 22

 So how do or would you know if your Negotiation capability is fit
for purpose?
 Firstly, it may help to challenge the perception of what
negotiation is or should be – answers to the following
questions may help.
How do you measure
negotiating success as an
individual and organisation? Does your procurement or
supply group follow a standard
negotiation theory or
approach? What is it?

If not, how do you validate, support and
evaluate the level of competency in the
approach you are taking?
03/27/1403/27/14Copyright © Peter Spence, SPANS 2014Copyright © Peter Spence, SPANS 2014
44
Has your organisation invested in
developing negotiation as a core
competency within your procurement
and/or supply group?
Do you have incentive systems and
support structures that reward group
as well as individual negotiation
performance?
How strong is your internal and
external procurement and supply
relationship networks?

 Price and short term cost reductions/savings
appear to be the current main measure of success
for procurement and supply functions
 Money seems to be the only bottom line
 There may be other real issues that you need to
address to ensure high quality, innovation, reliable,
safe and cost effective supply, strong, stable and
secure supply relationships
Or is it?
How well does your
negotiation approach serve
real issues beyond price?

 You may be tasked with getting the best deal for the
organisation while your performance is only measure on
narrow, single issues (i.e. price, short term cost reductions,
access to ser)
 You may be provided with little authority or mandate to
negotiate beyond a single issue yet will need to satisfy various
demands from multiple users in the organisation that you are
accountable to.
 Sound familiar? You can change the situation.
 Our focus and measures of success define our negotiation
styles and approaches

Focus upon substantive outcomesFocus upon substantive outcomes
Focus upon RelationshipsFocus upon Relationships

Successful negotiations deliver agreements that satisfy the interests
of each party involved; preserve relationships, are efficient and
durable

Interest Based Systems
Sound and Strong
Power/Rights based systems
Distressed, fragile/weak

 Despite the high costs, its seems many are still locked into a
traditional negotiation approach that is more pre-occupied with
exerting rights and power than satisfying interests
 Positional or Distributional Bargaining still appears to be the
prevalent Negotiation approach where competition and
adversarial bargaining based upon positional claims (rights and
power based) is preferred to collaboration (interest based)
 ‘Soft skills’ associated with collaboration are often seen as a sign
of weakness by hard bargainers

 Positional or Distributional bargaining is aligned to an
adversarial or competitive ‘sum/lose’ negotiation approach
– the more you win the more the other side must lose
 Aligned to a scarcity mentality - an assumption that
resources are in short supply and fixed drives this hard,
competitive bargaining style
 More suited to market haggling over single, simple issues
 Not equipped to handle complexity in procurement and
supply - yet it persists
why?

 Culturally understood
 Requires little preparation and is easy to use
 Outcomes are predictable
 Used to divide scarce resources when
long term or future relationships are not important or unlikely
 Suited to simple, single dimension and party issues
 It is a process we are familiar with as a traditional form of
negotiation.

 Not suited to complex or multiparty negotiations
 Tendency to focus upon positions rather than underlying
interests of each party
 Rights and power based adversarial approach that
promotes conflict and undermines long term relationships
 Resulting agreements may not be durable
 Leaves significant money or value behind at the
negotiators table (claiming but not creating value)
 Tendency to negotiate around a single issue (i.e. price)
only may compromise other important interests – i.e.
quality, safety and relationships

◦ Competitive, hard bargaining tactics are not the answer
◦ Hard bargaining strategies undermine trust and relationships
needed for joint problem solving and value creation
◦ A narrow focus on value (success measures) and
competition over fixed or limited resources results in missed
opportunities for mutual gains and expanding the value
proposition
◦ Hard bargaining processes limit communication, disclosure
and sharing of important information that is essential for
innovation, value maximisation, early risk identification and
management

 A process dominated by auctions and competitive tender bids
that determine the value of goods and services
 Little room allotted to negotiations that create the value of goods
or services supplied
 Competitive tender processes that lock out opportunities and
benefits derived from negotiations
 Use of the higher cost rights and power solutions (default to
contract compliance and performance remedies) that are
indicative of stress in the supply relationship management
system

 Increased conflict over rights and power positions leading to high
costs in disruptions, delays, withdrawal of supply and litigation
 Pure auction or tender bidding processes can stifle
communication between buyer and seller resulting in poor trust,
mutual understanding, reliability and commitment - more complex
projects require a higher level of negotiation involvement
 Buyers risk missing out on accessing the sellers/suppliers
expertise on improvements to the supply chain function, process
and/or shared complementary resources that may deliver further
savings or cost benefits

 Balancing traditional power and rights approaches with more
cooperative negotiation strategies will enhance supply
relationships to deliver more strategic value to the organisation.
 Shifting our thinking from purely transactional, distributional
negotiations to more contemporary mutual gains and
collaborative negotiation approaches
 Developing Soft skill development in areas such as negotiation
and collaboration competencies to deliver stronger value
propositions for procurement and supply functions

 Ensure the procurement and contracting function is flexible
enough to enable pricing and conditions to be negotiated if
required to manage emerging supply risks – also allows you to
search for and negotiate post settlement settlements
 Consider the option of introducing an invitation to negotiate
process as a pilot – inviting supplier participation in outlining
the procurement scope and framework for negotiations

 An invitation to negotiate process provides an opportunity to
access information that may improve supply chain
processes
 Consider conducting negotiations with buyers or suppliers
around areas for cooperation beyond traditional contract
terms and conditions – cooperation may lead to each party
revaluing the criteria and opportunities for negotiation
success

Part of changing the game is shifting the mindset from thinking
of suppliers/buyers as adversaries to approaching them as
partners in the supply chain. Supply or procurement relationships
that are well developed and strong are more likely to:
 Increase access to expert and leading edge knowledge to improve
innovation, efficiency and cost benefits
 Improve Innovation - sharing and co-creating knowledge
 Improve trust, commitment and reliability
 Strengthen performance management through collaborative
development, alignment and commitment to KPIs
 Produce reliable quality suppliers

 Deliver soft skills that complement and leverage technical skills
 Prevent and resolve conflicts more efficiently and cost effectively
 Increase the company's Relationship Capital – brand, reputation,
scalability of networks etc.
 Early identification and coordinated response to potential supply
chain failures or threats – risk management
 Increase efficiency and safety for not only the supply chain but
wider business operations
 Promote joint problem solving and more innovative value add
solutions
 Strengthen the durability of agreements and performance

 Now that we understand the high cost of positional or distributional
bargaining what do you intend to do: Surrender, play their game,
quite the game or change the game.
 Changing the game is the most effective response.
 Adopt a more collaborative, mutual gains approach to negotiation
How do we change the game to drive
joint supplier/customer innovation and
create value while still achieving
substantial cost savings?

Mutual Gains Negotiation is based upon the Principled
Negotiation Theories of Fisher, Ury and Patton.
1. Separate people from the problem
2. Focus upon interests, not positions
3. Invent Options for Mutual Gain
4. Use Objective Criteria to set legitimate principles for
decision making
5. Improve your BATNA
2222Copyright © Peter Spence, SPANS 2014Copyright © Peter Spence, SPANS 2014 03/27/1403/27/14

 Emotions become tied to positions
 Positions often mask our underlying interests – fighting over
positions causes us to lose sight of what we really want (core
strategic intent)
 Don’t waste time and money trying to get even or over the
other party – instead, focus on getting what you really want
 By analysing, identifying and focusing to resolve underlying
interests, any resulting agreement will be based more upon
merit
 Positional bargaining undermines relationships

 Avoid searching for a single answer and bargaining over a
fixed pie - enlarge the pie and increase value
 Work with supply partners to generate options without judging
them – brainstorm ideas and possible solutions without
deciding or committing = innovation and value creation
 Search collaboratively for mutual gains – this results in
Win/Win outcomes, increases value to the agreed outcome –
avoids the win/lose outcomes associated with unilateral gains
 Search for shared interests

 Search for different but complementary interests that build
value – concept of integrated diversity
 Don’t avoid or compete over differences – ask questions and
seek out differences that you can trade across to ‘package
agreements’ that meets the interests of and increases value
for all parties involved
 Identify and offer something that may be of little value to you
but of considerable value to the other party – seek the same
from your supply partner (i.e. transport; billing preferences,
payment schedules, technology; branding as preferred
supplier etc.).

 Without rational, objective standards on which to base your
negotiation, the process degenerates into bargaining over
positions and not upon the underlying principles or interest of
either party
 Insist that the outcome reflects some reasonable or fair
standard that is independent of the will of either party – i.e. cost
modeling based on industry standards to determine fair supply
margins; mining industry logistic, safety or quality standards.
 Outcomes based upon fair principles tend to be more durable,
enforceable and preserve relationships

 A BATNA provides you with a guide to what is minimally
acceptable as an agreed outcome
 Provides a ‘walk away’ surety that you can do better
elsewhere without having to accept a poor outcome or
concede to pressure from a more powerful negotiator.
 The BATNA should set your (value) zone of possible
agreement (ZOPA)
 A BATNA should improve upon your acceptable ‘bottom line’
to strengthen your negotiation position and improve
your negotiation power
03/27/1403/27/14 2727Copyright © Peter Spence, SPANS 2014Copyright © Peter Spence, SPANS 2014

1. Prepare for Negotiation – Most of the success of
negotiation is attributed to preparation
2. Create Value
3. Distribute Value
4. Follow through – use nearly self enforcing
agreements, monitoring arrangements; agree on
mechanisms to deal with surprises; continue to
build relationships
(Adapted from source: Lawrence Susskind: Consensus Building Institute)

 In the end the value that has been created must be distributed
 Can lead to an impasse to reaching an agreement
 Mutual Gains or ‘win/win’ negotiations do not necessarily
translate to equal outcomes, rather the objective is for all
parties to gain (win) more
 Create value first and then approach value distribution using
the mutual gains approach to preserve long term relationships
and trust in shaping the final agreement
 Use objective criteria that each side supports to divide value
 The mutual gains approach balances the tension between
creating and claiming value
Copyright © Peter Spence, SPANS 2014Copyright © Peter Spence, SPANS 2014 292903/27/1403/27/14

 Avoid intervention by or changes to ‘new’ third parties at the 3rd
stage of claiming value – introducing complex process issues
not previously discussed or agreed risks undermining the
strategic intent of the agreement (i.e. Legal Department
developing and formalising contract terms and conditions after
scoping and pricing has been negotiated)
 This is where agreements can become unstuck, incurring the
significant delays and high costs of conflict
 Consider a one text arrangement to record consensus over
terms and conditions (including risk management ‘contingency
bets;) as negotiated from start to finish
 Involve all relevant parties in preparing for and conducting
negotiation from the outset

Individual Barriers to Mutual Gains Negotiation –
why
the legacy and cost of distributional bargaining
prevails:
 Uncertainty of the problem
 Own fears or assumptions (expectancy theory) that you are
going to be ‘taken’ causing defensiveness, hard bargaining and
attracting similar competitive approach from other party (self
fulfilling prophecy)
 Their hard bargaining style

 Being under prepared for Negotiation or preparing in the
wrong ways
 Lack of confidence in your ability to negotiate
 Disproportionate amount of preparation time on planning for
what we want to get out of negotiation
 Not enough time spent on what we may end up with if there is
no agreement (need to spend more time on analysing and
developing your BATNA)

Organisational Barriers to Mutual Gains Negotiation:
Negotiators often do not prepare as organisations do not allow them to
(insufficient resources, time etc)
The organisation is not familiar with analysing its own BATNA
Lack of internal communication and understanding within the
organisation on what the negotiators objectives are
The organisation only rewards hard bargainers
Lack of internal cooperation in advance of the negotiation task
The organisation does not provide negotiators with a clear mandate to
negotiate

 Adopt a collaborative, mutual gains approach and build your
competencies and confidence in this approach
 Prepare, prepare, prepare – over 70% of successful
negotiations are attributed to preparation
 Invest in developing Negotiation as an organisational rather
than individual capability alone
Copyright © Peter Spence, SPANS 2014Copyright © Peter Spence, SPANS 2014 03/27/1403/27/14 3434

 Conduct a negotiation audit to compare current capability,
challenges and opportunities
 Align organisational instruments of delegated authority,
policies, procedures, processes and incentives to support a
your negotiation approach
 Develop Negotiation and Collaboration as core organisational
competencies – the following steps drawn from the work of
Hallam Movius and Lawrence Susskind in their book ‘Built to
Win: Creating a World Class Negotiating Organisation’
provide a useful guide

Before negotiating with external parties you may
need to get your own house in order first by:
 Negotiating with internal business partners on how you will
negotiate – engage internal partners to work as a team toward
an agreed strategic intent to create value for the organisation
–
 Negotiating Negotiation back tables – negotiating with internal
people in the organisation to who we may be accountable
away from the negotiation table (those not directly involved in
negotiations but influential)

 Clarifying roles, responsibilities, authority, mandate (often these
may be vague, processes are unclear and decision making rules
not agreed to) – ensure you align to the organisation’s instrument
of delegated authority, procurement and contracting policies and
procedures
 If you are directed to seek unreasonable concessions or adopt
hard bargaining there is a need for you to renegotiate your
negotiation mandate and criteria for success
 Engaging key internal partners in the Negotiation process from
preparation to completion to ensure cooperation and alignment
of decision making

 Consider a simple network analysis exercise to visualise and
evaluate both internal and external partner relationships – your
‘negotiation affiliation network’
 Network Analysis mapping will also enable you to see who is
influencing who in the network
 Identify partners you will need in the network and of those, who
you have got
 Identify network structural holes that you may need to bridge
(whether across Departments, Organisations or functions) to
secure partner engagement
 Identify key influencers or brokers that can connect you to needed
partners, resources etc., provide an alternative bridge to bypass
network blockages that impede negotiations, or act as
allies/intermediaries

03/27/1403/27/14 4040
Internal and external
networks link to
form the complete
procurement and
supply negotiation
network
Red labels denote
internal; Blue labels
external
Connection strength
between partners
(nodes) denoted by
width of links
(vertices)
Copyright © Peter Spence, SPANS 2014Copyright © Peter Spence, SPANS 2014

 Supply networks are a negotiated order – we have to
negotiate connections, roles, responsibilities, resources
 Identify and engage connections that may provide alternative
solutions to manage potential supply chain disruptions and
minimise dependencies
 Negotiation networks allow you to build winning coalitions
 The strength of your supply network relies upon the
negotiation strength within it
 While you are busy negotiating the deal you should be aware
that there may be negotiations going on elsewhere within the
network that will impact upon the outcome of your
negotiations

 It is important to map and get all parties involved in the
negotiation process from beginning to end
 The deal is not done until performance is delivered
 Securing the agreement and contract is just the beginning –
performance will still require ongoing negotiations and
performance management
 Link individual performance criteria to the network negotiation
process – giving partners a stake in the process ensures their
interests align with the strategic intent of your negotiation

 Business partners who only become involved in the
implementation of the agreement during the later stages can
still derail a contract and incur significant costs
 The power of preparation – time spent preparing for
negotiations at the front end adds value and saves
considerable costs of renegotiating or seeking remedies for
breach of performance during implementation
 Investing in Negotiation as a core organisation or group
(network) competency will assist to identify and engage all
parties in the preparation/planning and implementation
process

Peter Spence is the Principal of Strategic Planning and Negotiation
Services – a consultancy that provides negotiation competency training
and development, coaching and advisory services.
Peter welcomes your inquiries to discuss negotiation training or advisory
needs and can be contacted on MOB 0457 941188
email: pmspence@bigpond.com

Negotiation Skills for Not for Profits QED Group Lunch Time Webinar

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Negotiation Skills for Not for Profits QED Group Lunch Time Webinar

Similaire à Negotiation Skills for Not for Profits QED Group Lunch Time Webinar (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Negotiation Skills for Not for Profits QED Group Lunch Time Webinar