In family law negotiations it is important to identify all the leverage available to your client. Many professionals view the legal rights a client has as the only piece of leverage. A negotiator may identify their clients legal rights as bargaining chips to be traded in the negotiation process. Examples would be legal rights to property interests, right to child custody, right to parenting time, right to alimony, or the right to child support.
These legal interests may seem to overwhelmingly favor one party, but a good negotiator also realizes that there are often feeling involved that can be used as leverage to seek better settlements. Examples of this would be couples who still care about one another, parents who want what's best for their children, and parents who realize that the child will be living with the other parent as well. These parents do not want the child to live in poverty with the parent who doesn't have the dominate legal rights.
In conducting a mock negotiation in a law school class, I witnessed a negotiator feel helpless because the law was against him. The mock parents had instructions that they still cared for one another and the dominate party wanted to help the non-dominate. The attorney for the dominate party controlled the entire negotiation process and ended up dictating the terms of the settlement. It was obvious that had he used emotional leverage the outcome would have be dramatically different.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Respective power sources between Israel and Palestinians
The negotiations between the two groups has been a fairly unsuccessful and has resulted on years of violence. Discussing the various types of power and who has the dominate position.
Neither party possesses any informational power over the other. There is no information that can be provided to get one party to change their position. Neither party views the other as an expert.
Personalities and individual differences have not given any power to one side. Both parties have equally high needs to control and dominate the other. This can be seen in the immense power struggle between the two groups. Both groups appear to be equally uncooperative to ultimately agreeing on a solution and this stems from not trusting the other group to keep their promises. Both groups do not morally object to using power to get accomplish their goals.
Neither group has any power based on their position in an organization. They do not respect each others groups and therefore no legitimate power exists. Neither group seems to care about the others standing in their respective organizations. It might be argued that Israel might possess more power because the Untied States views their government as allies and that generates legitimate power with the U.S.
Both parties should view their goals as being interconnected because they must find a way to coexist. Unfortunately they take a different view and want to wipe each other off the map.
Israel clearly dominates in contextual power. They have a better chance of winning any war because of the good graces of the United States being both an ally and a supplier of arm. This gives them a better alternative to a negotiated agreement.
Both groups do prefer a two state option but they can't agree on where to draw the lines and they both fear non-compliance of the other party.
Neither party possesses any informational power over the other. There is no information that can be provided to get one party to change their position. Neither party views the other as an expert.
Personalities and individual differences have not given any power to one side. Both parties have equally high needs to control and dominate the other. This can be seen in the immense power struggle between the two groups. Both groups appear to be equally uncooperative to ultimately agreeing on a solution and this stems from not trusting the other group to keep their promises. Both groups do not morally object to using power to get accomplish their goals.
Neither group has any power based on their position in an organization. They do not respect each others groups and therefore no legitimate power exists. Neither group seems to care about the others standing in their respective organizations. It might be argued that Israel might possess more power because the Untied States views their government as allies and that generates legitimate power with the U.S.
Both parties should view their goals as being interconnected because they must find a way to coexist. Unfortunately they take a different view and want to wipe each other off the map.
Israel clearly dominates in contextual power. They have a better chance of winning any war because of the good graces of the United States being both an ally and a supplier of arm. This gives them a better alternative to a negotiated agreement.
Both groups do prefer a two state option but they can't agree on where to draw the lines and they both fear non-compliance of the other party.
What is Power?
In the negotiating sense, power can be seen as the ability to bring about a desired result. When most people think of power in the negotiations setting, they see power as being the power over another. The ability to make another bend to your will or force another to do what they wouldn't otherwise do. Seeking to increase power in relations to the other party often leads to distributive bargaining which can damage a relationship and may lead to inefficient results. However, this can be an effective tool when the substantive issue is more important than maintaining the relationship.
A more effective way to think of power is to look of the ways that it can effectively help to solve a common objective. This facilitates integrative bargaining and will ultimately lead to more efficient result and can help strengthen a relationship, which may provide long term gains.
Power can be derived from the following sources: (1) informational; (2) personality and individual differences; (3) Position based power; (4) relationship based power; (5) contextual power.
Informational power can refer to data that can be used to change the other persons point of view or expertise in a certain area. Expertise can be both a power and a detriment. When a party is viewed as not being an expert they can lose informational power. Compiling data to change the others point of view is seen as the most common type of power.
Personality and individual power can be broken down into three categories (1) cognitive, (2) motivational, (3) moral orientations.
Cognitive orientations are individual differences in ideological frame of references. This refers to the individuals perception of how the world operates. Unitary frames believe that the interests of individuals and society are one, while radicals believe that society is a constant class of interests.
Motivational orientations are individuals needs for power and authority over others. Some people seek power while others shy away from it. Moral orientations are individuals views about power and its use. Some people view having power as being wrong.
Position based power is often though of as legitimate power. People have a certain amount of respect for individuals based on the position they hold. Police offers have power over individuals who respect the job the officers do.
Power based on relationships can be achieved when a group shares a common goal. This can result in higher expectations of assistance, more assistance, greater support, more persuasion, and less coercion needed. Networks generate power by their leverage that comes from the ability to control and manage what flows through that position. When individuals interact in the group and gain alliances and respect.
Contextual sources of power come from positions like your best alternative to a negotiated deal. The better and more likely an alternative is to be successful the more power an individual has. The individual that feels like they have no option except to take a deal may appear powerless.
A more effective way to think of power is to look of the ways that it can effectively help to solve a common objective. This facilitates integrative bargaining and will ultimately lead to more efficient result and can help strengthen a relationship, which may provide long term gains.
Power can be derived from the following sources: (1) informational; (2) personality and individual differences; (3) Position based power; (4) relationship based power; (5) contextual power.
Informational power can refer to data that can be used to change the other persons point of view or expertise in a certain area. Expertise can be both a power and a detriment. When a party is viewed as not being an expert they can lose informational power. Compiling data to change the others point of view is seen as the most common type of power.
Personality and individual power can be broken down into three categories (1) cognitive, (2) motivational, (3) moral orientations.
Cognitive orientations are individual differences in ideological frame of references. This refers to the individuals perception of how the world operates. Unitary frames believe that the interests of individuals and society are one, while radicals believe that society is a constant class of interests.
Motivational orientations are individuals needs for power and authority over others. Some people seek power while others shy away from it. Moral orientations are individuals views about power and its use. Some people view having power as being wrong.
Position based power is often though of as legitimate power. People have a certain amount of respect for individuals based on the position they hold. Police offers have power over individuals who respect the job the officers do.
Power based on relationships can be achieved when a group shares a common goal. This can result in higher expectations of assistance, more assistance, greater support, more persuasion, and less coercion needed. Networks generate power by their leverage that comes from the ability to control and manage what flows through that position. When individuals interact in the group and gain alliances and respect.
Contextual sources of power come from positions like your best alternative to a negotiated deal. The better and more likely an alternative is to be successful the more power an individual has. The individual that feels like they have no option except to take a deal may appear powerless.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
How to prepare before visiting a lawyer.
A client who is considering visiting a lawyer, first needs to identify and understand the problem.
This knowledge of the problem the client can identify their interests by asking "how do I ultimately want this problem to be resolved?"
The clients should evaluate and prioritize all four types of interests. Ssubstantive interests which can include items like monetary awards, return of a specific item, or an injunction to prohibit a certain conduct. The client should obtain copies of bills and invoices to help calculate substantive costs. The client should also decide if they want additional compensation like punitive damages or compensatory damages. Procedural interests which would address how the client would prefer to address the problem. Sometimes a client may realize that they would rather not pursue a cause of action at all because they have a stronger interest in avoiding the procedure. Relationship questions address the understanding that conflict has the potential to damage relationships. When dealing with family members and friends especially, sometimes the relationship is more important than the substantive interests. Finally, interests in principal address fairness and what is the right thing to do. Clients may realize that even when the substantive interest is outweighed by the procedural costs, the interest in doing the right thing is so strong that it is worth pursuing.
After prioritizing their interests, the client is then ready to start gathering information supporting the events that happened. The more information that can be provided to the attorney, the more accurately he can assess what options would be most effective.
The attorney balance the priorities of the clients interests with the strength of the case and the interests of the opposing party to determine what the best course of action would be.
This knowledge of the problem the client can identify their interests by asking "how do I ultimately want this problem to be resolved?"
The clients should evaluate and prioritize all four types of interests. Ssubstantive interests which can include items like monetary awards, return of a specific item, or an injunction to prohibit a certain conduct. The client should obtain copies of bills and invoices to help calculate substantive costs. The client should also decide if they want additional compensation like punitive damages or compensatory damages. Procedural interests which would address how the client would prefer to address the problem. Sometimes a client may realize that they would rather not pursue a cause of action at all because they have a stronger interest in avoiding the procedure. Relationship questions address the understanding that conflict has the potential to damage relationships. When dealing with family members and friends especially, sometimes the relationship is more important than the substantive interests. Finally, interests in principal address fairness and what is the right thing to do. Clients may realize that even when the substantive interest is outweighed by the procedural costs, the interest in doing the right thing is so strong that it is worth pursuing.
After prioritizing their interests, the client is then ready to start gathering information supporting the events that happened. The more information that can be provided to the attorney, the more accurately he can assess what options would be most effective.
The attorney balance the priorities of the clients interests with the strength of the case and the interests of the opposing party to determine what the best course of action would be.
Types of interests
"Interests" are the underlying reasons that a party in a negotiation may desire a certain outcome as compared to the ultimate outcome which is generally referred to as a "position." Parties to a negotiation usually have multiple interests. Interests can be categorized as either: (1) substantive interests; (2) process interests; (3) relationship interests; (4) Interests in principals.
Substantive interests are typically the items that are being negotiated. Distribution of property, price, and rates are all examples of underlying interests of the negotiation that can be classified as substantive.
Process interests are the parties desires to have a certain method or procedure for deciding substantive issues. Some parties prefer collaborative bargaining and desire a mutually beneficial agreement and some parties enjoy the competition of distributive (win-lose) bargain. It is extremely important to select a process that will facilitate the ultimate substantive, relational, and principle based interests. When engaging in distributive bargaining a party may risk damaging a relationship. Contrarily, when a party focuses too must on soft negotiations they risk not achieving the substantive interests.
Relationship interests involve one or more of the party having an interest in the strength of the relationship. This is seen in negotiations between parties that are in a personal relationship or family, but can also extend to the professional world where parties will work together in the future. Often a symbiotic relationship exists where the relationship is more important than the substantive interest. In this situation, both parties want to refrain from distributive bargaining.
The final type of interest involves interests in principals. Many times an ultimate substantive interest is not as important as a person feeling like they didn't get taken advantage of. They value the deal being fair more than slanting the outcome in their favor.
It is important in integrative bargaining to seek to identify both your interests and the interests of the other parties through a free exchange of information. When the interests are not known or understood, it become hard to seek solutions that will achieve the interests of both parties.
Substantive interests are typically the items that are being negotiated. Distribution of property, price, and rates are all examples of underlying interests of the negotiation that can be classified as substantive.
Process interests are the parties desires to have a certain method or procedure for deciding substantive issues. Some parties prefer collaborative bargaining and desire a mutually beneficial agreement and some parties enjoy the competition of distributive (win-lose) bargain. It is extremely important to select a process that will facilitate the ultimate substantive, relational, and principle based interests. When engaging in distributive bargaining a party may risk damaging a relationship. Contrarily, when a party focuses too must on soft negotiations they risk not achieving the substantive interests.
Relationship interests involve one or more of the party having an interest in the strength of the relationship. This is seen in negotiations between parties that are in a personal relationship or family, but can also extend to the professional world where parties will work together in the future. Often a symbiotic relationship exists where the relationship is more important than the substantive interest. In this situation, both parties want to refrain from distributive bargaining.
The final type of interest involves interests in principals. Many times an ultimate substantive interest is not as important as a person feeling like they didn't get taken advantage of. They value the deal being fair more than slanting the outcome in their favor.
It is important in integrative bargaining to seek to identify both your interests and the interests of the other parties through a free exchange of information. When the interests are not known or understood, it become hard to seek solutions that will achieve the interests of both parties.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Reflect on taking out "but"
When the word "but" is added to qualify a statement, the only thing the listener hears is what comes after the "but". When listening to statements containing the word "but", I believe that I have identified the cause for people to naturally pay closer attention to the statement after following the "but." The statement following the word "but" is typically the part of the statement requiring action or correction. Here are a few examples, "you wrote an excellent paper, but you need to correct the second paragraph." The second part of the statement is the part that captures the listeners attention because it requires action. Another example is, "you played a great game, but you should have tried harder in the second half." The correction required by the listener is again subsequent to the term "but."
I feel that adding a positive statement is not necessarily a bad thing before giving bad news. Under those circumstances utilizing the word "but" is appropriate. However, if the objective is to give a compliment, leave the "but" out.
I feel that adding a positive statement is not necessarily a bad thing before giving bad news. Under those circumstances utilizing the word "but" is appropriate. However, if the objective is to give a compliment, leave the "but" out.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Applying integrative bargaining in a business environment
The dilemma of trust and the dilemma of honesty should play a huge part in integrative bargaining.
The dilemma of trust relates to how much of what you believe the other party tells you is the truth. By assuming that all the information the other party discloses is the truth, a party leaves themselves open to be taken advantage of. In my experience the best way to combat this dilemma is to find out all the information you can about a transaction prior to entering into negotiation. This will allow you to corroborate information provided or identify when the other party is not being completely forthcoming or truthful. In mortgage sales, employees were taught to sell benefits to the borrower while downplaying the actual terms of the loan. This acted as a method of distributive bargaining disguised as integrative bargaining. The loan officer would point out several areas in which the loan was accomplishing the interests of the borrower. Focusing on these interest caused the borrower to believe the loan officer was focused on accomplishing the borrowers objectives. Thus, causing the borrower ignore the point of contention (the rate and costs).
The dilemma of honesty relates to how much does a party disclose to the opposing party. Disclosure can further weakened the position to the borrower. Loan officers were taught to seek out the underlying interests of the borrower and use those interests like a weapon to charge higher rates and collect larger fees. Borrowers who provided honest and accurate information seldom ever got better deals.
This is not to say that I believe that disclosing honest interests is a bad thing for a negotiator to do, but a negotiator must first address the trust dilemma. This can be accomplished by verifying the information given prior to disclosing truthful information about one's own interests. Researching as much information as possible prior to starting negotiations is one way to combat the trust dilemma.
The dilemma of trust relates to how much of what you believe the other party tells you is the truth. By assuming that all the information the other party discloses is the truth, a party leaves themselves open to be taken advantage of. In my experience the best way to combat this dilemma is to find out all the information you can about a transaction prior to entering into negotiation. This will allow you to corroborate information provided or identify when the other party is not being completely forthcoming or truthful. In mortgage sales, employees were taught to sell benefits to the borrower while downplaying the actual terms of the loan. This acted as a method of distributive bargaining disguised as integrative bargaining. The loan officer would point out several areas in which the loan was accomplishing the interests of the borrower. Focusing on these interest caused the borrower to believe the loan officer was focused on accomplishing the borrowers objectives. Thus, causing the borrower ignore the point of contention (the rate and costs).
The dilemma of honesty relates to how much does a party disclose to the opposing party. Disclosure can further weakened the position to the borrower. Loan officers were taught to seek out the underlying interests of the borrower and use those interests like a weapon to charge higher rates and collect larger fees. Borrowers who provided honest and accurate information seldom ever got better deals.
This is not to say that I believe that disclosing honest interests is a bad thing for a negotiator to do, but a negotiator must first address the trust dilemma. This can be accomplished by verifying the information given prior to disclosing truthful information about one's own interests. Researching as much information as possible prior to starting negotiations is one way to combat the trust dilemma.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)