<< WHAT ARE THE REALISTIC ALTERNATIVES TO NEGOTIATING? >>
In a Role Playing Strategy Session look at the most likely outcomes to
your present situation if you choose not to negotiate.
For example, if you proceed with Resolution by Strength, what can you
expect to get? At what risk? Do you have the energy and resources to take
that route?
You may find yourself in a position where all your current options are
limited and none of them as they now stand really address your concerns. You
could choose to work to create new options by negotiating on the whole issue
or you could negotiate on limited aspects of the issue while continuing with
Resolution By Strength. Progress in negotiating could lead to a new mix of
alternatives to choose from.
You are choosing between the alternatives of what you are likely to
get without negotiating and what you might be able to get by negotiating.
Look at your choices realistically and avoid thinking in absolute terms.
Often after looking at your options, you may begin to see some clear
advantages in negotiating.
 

CONSIDER NEGOTIATING WHEN IT BEATS ALL THE CURRENT OPTIONS:
What Is Your Current Situation?
-- If it looks like you are in an overwhelmingly strong position and you
will get everything that you want then there is little need to negotiate.
-- If it looks like continuing in Resolution by Strength will improve your
situation to where you will not need to negotiate or where you will be in a
better position to negotiate later, then work to improve your position first.
Negotiations might be worth considering if:
-- you could negotiate a position where you knew you could get most of what
you wanted and avoid the risk of a total loss.
-- it allowed you to deal with certain aspects of your issue separately
instead of having all aspects of the issue part of one unchangeable package.
-- you were very unlikely to have all your concerns addressed and you could
negotiate a Back Up System to protect yourself against the worst case.

If you're unsure whether negotiating would be an advantage to your
group, then consider negotiating to see what position your Adversary takes.
You Do Not Have To Agree To Anything.
 

NEGOTIATING: GETTING THE BEST DEAL:
Your goal in negotiating is to get the most important aspects of your
issue addressed. In order to do that, you may need to consider trading off
some less important aspects. You can negotiate a limited and clearly defined
aspect of the issue or the whole issue. Look at your situation objectively
and try to get the best deal. Continue to negotiate as long as it beats the
alternatives (ie: Resolution by Strength).
 

TRADE AND BARTER AS A NEGOTIATING PROCESS:
Throughout history negotiation has played an important role in
interactions between people. People often negotiated for exchange of goods.
The role of negotiation in trade in recent times has become less
important for the average person with the advent of the big chain store
because prices are set by the seller (ie: non-negotiable). Yet barter and
trade are still important methods of exchange in many parts of the world.
Even in industrial societies many people (especially in rural areas) are still
able to `get a good deal',`drive a hard bargain', and `swap' for what they
need. Often there will be very little exchange of money and in a good deal
both parties will be happy with the results (win-win).
Looking carefully at what takes place in `a trade' can be a good way
of understanding the negotiating process. Even people unfamiliar with
negotiating find learning to negotiate comes naturally when they see it in
terms of barter and trade. Many who become involved in negotiating find it
exciting and very rewarding. Bring together a negotiating team in your group
to work with your Steering Council (Core Group). Include people with
experience in negotiating, those who like to barter and trade, and those with
an interest in Strategy.
 

NEGOTIATING: TRADE AS AN EXAMPLE:
In many areas trading for items is a still common form of negotiating.
For example, a woman wanted to start a garden. She had an old snowmobile in
her garage that she was willing to trade for a roto-tiller in good condition.
Early in the Spring, she mentioned to a few of her friends and neighbors to
ask around to find who'd be interested in such a trade. An interested trader
was found and the two met and looked over the items. The tiller owner was
looking for a snowmobile to use with a sled he built to draw firewood out of
his woodlot. Because the snowmobile had a good size engine he was interested.
The new gardener sized up the situation and decided the tiller was in better
shape than the snowmobile so she needed to throw in another item to balance
things out. What else did she have to trade? She had 2 almost new snow tires
in her garage that did not fit her car. `Interested in a pair of 14 inch snow
tires?' The tiller owner was interested because the tires fit his truck.
They both looked over the items carefully and the snowmobile and a pair of
tires were traded for the tiller. Both traders felt they made a good deal.
 

NEGOTIATION: GRASSROOTS GROUP AS AN EXAMPLE:
A citizens group was concerned with noise from a mining operation that
was locating in their quiet rural area. The sound of large chunks of rock
dropping from a loader into trucks was loud and it could be heard for miles.
Since the operation went on day and night, the group felt this was a serious
problem and they were working with the local Planning Office to have their
concerns addressed.
After researching the noise problem, the group found that rubber Truck
Bed Liners were commercially available (and in use in some areas) to control
loading noise. They made a proposal for the use of Truck Bed Liners as a
noise control. The mining company, after contacting the liner manufactures
and some users of the liner, reported that the liners were very expensive,
significantly reduced the carrying capacity of the trucks, and had to be
periodically replaced. They concluded that the liners were too expensive to
be a solution. They said that they were interested in controlling noise if
cost effective methods could be found. The group came back with a proposal to
build a noise barrier made of mine waste rock to control loading area noise.
The company agreed to this cost effective measure and the group gave up their
idea of the Truck Bed Liners in favor of a solution that could be easily
implemented. Both parties were satisfied with the solution (win-win).
 

WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT? OFTEN DIFFERENT ASPECTS IMPORTANT TO EACH SIDE:
Look at your situation and define what aspects of the issue are most
important to you. What aspects are less important side issues? Both parties
in a negotiation are trying to get the aspects of the issue that are most
important to them addressed by being willing to trade off some aspects of
lesser importance. The key is, on some aspects of the issue, what is most
important to one side is often not of the same importance to the other side.
TRADE EXAMPLE: The new gardener really wanted a tiller for her garden
and considered a snowmobile a less important item. The tiller owner may have
just bought a new tiller and his old tiller was much less important to him
than a snowmobile to help him bring in his firewood.
CITIZENS GROUP: The citizens group was very concerned with noise and
its impact on their quality of life and property values. They felt the truck
Bed Liners would be a solution. The mining company was concerned that the
delay in getting needed permits, caused by the noise problem, was holding up
production. For them, how the noise was controlled was very important because
of the potential difference in cost between alternative methods.
Clearly define the most important aspects you want addressed. Make a
list. Remember, the citizens group later realized the real issue was the
control of noise and, as it turned out, the actual method used was not an
issue as long as it was effective.
 

FINDING COMMON GROUND:
Different aspects of an issue are often of very different importance
to the two sides of a negotiation and progress is based on identifying those
differences and coming up with acceptable trade-offs.
After deciding on your Negotiating Position (what is most important to
you), put yourself in your Adversary's place. If you were them, what
Negotiating Position would you be likely to take? Compare your group's
Negotiating Position with the likely Negotiating Position of your Adversary
(and /or Decision Makers). Look for common ground. Progress may be possible
in agreement on general concepts (ie: desire to minimize impacts on people) or
on specific details (ie: certain mitigation measures).
Role Play both sides of the negotiation on areas you've identified as
common ground. Try and anticipate where these negotiations could lead.
Which paths of negotiation will better address your concerns? Which paths are
likely to lead into areas that you'd like to avoid? Begin negotiation by
avoiding areas where you are most likely to disagree and focus on areas where
progress may be possible. You can then move to more difficult areas later in
the negotiation.
 

IDEAL NEGOTIATION:
People are often surprised to see that it may be possible to have
something that is not very important to them that is very important to the
other side.
TRADE EXAMPLE: The new gardener had 2 snow tires that did not fit her
car. The tires were not very useful to her, (little value) yet because they
fit the tiller owner's truck, they were worth almost the cost of 2 new tires
to him (great value).
CITIZEN GROUP: The citizens thought the Truck Bed Liners were the
solution to their problem. The company thought they were too expensive, but
they were willing to make a noise barrier. The citizen group gave up their
idea of the Truck Bed Liners (no loss to them) and got noise control in the
form of a noise barrier (great value to them). The company put the work into
the noise barrier (at little cost to them) and got production started (great
value to them).
In an ideal negotiation, each side trades off something of minor
importance to get one of major importance (to them) in return.
 

STRENGTH OF NEGOTIATING POSITION: TRADE EXAMPLE:
Many factors influence the Strength of your Negotiating Position. In
the trade of the snowmobile and the snow tires for the tiller, a very big
factor in the Strength of the Negotiating Position of each side would be the
season of the year that the trade took place.
In the Spring, when many people are getting their gardens ready, then
the tiller owner would be in a strong Negotiating Position. In the late fall
the snowmobile owner would be in a very strong Negotiating Position because
both her items (snowmobile and snow tires) were winter related items. In
fact, her position would be so strong that if the trade had taken place in the
Fall then it may have been considered an `good deal' even without the 2 snow
tires.
The strength of your Negotiating Position has a lot to do with what
items are eventually traded. A very strong Negotiating Position can shift the
balance in your favor while still creating a solution fair to both parties.
(win-win).
 

STRENGTH OF NEGOTIATING POSITION: THE RESULT OF ALL YOUR WORK:
From the very beginning of your involvement in the issue (and often
without realizing it) you have been building your strength towards your
Negotiating Position. To the extent that you have been effective in building a
solid position on the issue and a strong base of support in your community,
you will now be in a strong Negotiating Position. You can use a show of
strength to make your Adversary (and/or Decision Makers) more aware of your
strength and if necessary increase your strength by widening your influence
(see Resolution by Strength). A strong Negotiating Position means you will be
able to get more of what you want in negotiating while giving up less.
 

STRENGTH OF NEGOTIATING POSITION: CITIZENS GROUP AS AN EXAMPLE:
The strength of your Negotiating Position plays a critical role in
negotiating.
For example, in the mining noise problem, the citizens group had
worked through the local Planning Office and the State Environmental
Conservation Department to make sure that their concerns were addressed. They
presented a very reasonable case that the noise impact of the mine could be
very intense, raising the background noise levels from quiet to very high
levels 24 hours a day. This was clearly a major impact, so the group had a
very strong position on the issue (especially in light of the fact that the
technology to control the noise was readily available). In addition, they had
built a good base of support and had widened their influence (Planning Office
and Conservation Department). In fact, the Planning Office had taken the
position that the mining permit would be a conditional one. The permit would
last 6 months and then it would be extended only if the company addressed the
noise problem. The group's Negotiating Position was so strong that the mining
company had no choice but to deal with the noise issue. This points out the
importance of your early work in building a good base of support in your
community for having your concerns addressed and for widening your influence
(Resolution by Strength). A strong Negotiating Position has a great impact on
the final outcome.
 

BACK TO RESOLUTION BY STRENGTH: OFTEN PART OF THE NEGOTIATING PROCESS:
Progress in Negotiation does not always lead to a full resolution of
the issue. Negotiate as long as it beats the alternatives to negotiating.
If negotiation is limited to certain aspects of the issue then you may
need to consider continuing with Resolution by Strength on other aspects of
the issue even while you negotiate. If you're negotiating on all aspects of
the issue you may, at times, need to consider a Show Of Strength (see outline)
if you feel your Adversary (and /or Decision Makers) are not taking you
seriously. You may even need to consider going back to Resolution by Strength
to put more pressure on the Negotiating process.
When considering the use of a Show of Strength or Resolution by
Strength, carefully weigh how it will impact on your ability to negotiate.
Role Play any action before taking it. Remember, success in Resolution by
Strength often leads to negotiation. Be careful to avoid any actions that
could severely damage your ability to negotiate in the future. Resolution of
an issue is often a balance between Resolution by Strength and Resolution by
Negotiation.
 

BACK TO RESOLUTION BY STRENGTH: AN EXAMPLE:
The low altitude flight group first began negotiating indirectly by
working through their local Planning Office on Back-up System issues.
Progress was made on limiting the number of flights per day, but no progress
was made on minimum altitudes (500 feet above their homes). While
negotiation progressed on limiting the number of flights, the group continued
working through Resolution by Strength to address the remaining issues. By
getting resolutions passed in the County Legislature, widening press coverage
(locally, regionally and at the state level), and by appointment to the
Governor's Ad Hoc Committee, the group was able to expand their base of
support and widen their influence. They raised issues related to the effects
of the flights: Many Amish communities were in the flight path and the
startle effect on animals posed a real safety hazard to those working with
horses especially in traffic situations. There was evidence that the military
was in violation of their own interpretation of regulations on flights over
populated areas. There were adverse effects on property values and many
schools would be overflown. Raising these and a number of other effects of
the flights gave the group a very strong position on the issue. With a great
increase in the Strength of their Negotiating Position, they were then able to
open negotiations directly with the military at the Ad Hoc committee meetings
on the need to address the effects of altitude of the flights.
 

NEGOTIATING FOR A WIN-WIN:
In order to facilitate a solution, each side must get a least some
aspects of what they need. Even when one side is in a very strong Negotiating
Position and the balance is leaning towards their side, it is important for
them to be sensitive to the basic needs of the other sides position.
Each side must be careful not to put the other side in a position
where they feel the need to `dig in' for a hard fight just because there is no
face saving way out.
Whether you end up with an ideal negotiation where both parties are
happy with the results or one that is strongly influenced by the Strength of
the Negotiating Position of one side or the other, both sides need to work to
retain the basic elements of a win-win whenever possible. Otherwise they
risk a return to Resolution by Strength.
 

NEGOTIATING A WIN-WIN: EXAMPLE:
The resolution of the flight issue was heavily influenced by the
Strong Negotiating position of the flight group. Over a period of a year, the
group had built overwhelming support for their concerns and they had a strong
case on the effects of the flights. As a result, the negotiations led to the
military agreeing to raise the minimum altitude to 1000 feet. Further work
led to a revision to 2,000 feet. Other issues, including continued safety
hazards with the Amish and the possibility of bird strikes in an area that was
a major bird migration route, led to a 2,700 minimum altitude. Faced with
serious limitations on the use of the flight path, the military was then
willing to consider a proposal for not using the flight path. Instead, planes
could circle high above the military fort (5,000 feet instead of 500 feet) to
make entry into the fort's bombing range. This proposal would involve a
possible impact on some people near the fort because planes needed to make
final entry to the bombing range at a lower altitude. People in that area
worked directly with the military to identify and avoid individual homes and
the impacts were mitigated to their satisfaction. The military then agreed to
not use the original flight path and instead accepted the new alternative.
With the impacts on people addressed, the military (although it gave up some
low altitude training) achieved a politically acceptable solution that allowed
access to the bombing range (win-win).
 

RESOLUTION:
Whether you came to a Resolution of your issue by Strength or by
Negotiation, your group has put a lot of time and energy into working to
effectively present your concerns. By becoming involved you have built a new
sense of community around your issue. Even if all your concerns were not
fully addressed, you have been empowered by your involvement. Besides the
valuable skills you've learned, your view of the world and of yourselves has
changed. You have gained a new awareness of the part you have to play in this
time of critical change. Give yourselves credit for the work you've done. In
the end, the commitment and effort involved in raising your issue has improved
the most valuable resource of your community: people.

The real measure of your work is that you became involved.
Working together, you took on the challenge of your issue
so that:

"... government of the people, by the people and for the people
shall not perish ..." Abraham Lincoln

We thank our Registered Users for supporting this Software.
 

< SUMMARY 16 > RESOLUTION BY NEGOTIATION:

<< WHAT ARE THE REALISTIC ALTERNATIVES TO NEGOTIATING? >>
In a Role Playing Strategy Session look at the most likely outcomes to
your present situation if you choose not to negotiate.
For example, if you proceed with Resolution by Strength, what can you
expect to get? At what risk? Do you have the energy and resources to take
that route?
You may find yourself in a position where all your current options are
limited and none of them as they now stand really address your concerns. You
could choose to work to create new options by negotiating on the whole issue
or you could negotiate on limited aspects of the issue while continuing with
Resolution By Strength. Progress in negotiating could lead to a new mix of
alternatives to choose from.
You are choosing between the alternatives of what you are likely to
get without negotiating and what you might be able to get by negotiating.
Look at your choices realistically and avoid thinking in absolute terms.
Often after looking at your options, you may begin to see some clear
advantages in negotiating.

** (C) Cicada Ridge Software **

[ Return To Menu For Effective Action ]