Posts Tagged ‘government’

Equally applicable to Business, Brexit or POTUS.

orange

Roger Fisher and William Ury (Harvard 1981) tell the story of two sisters arguing over an orange. After some discussion they agree to divide the orange in half, an apparently wise and fair solution. One sister then peels her half and eats the fruit, while the other peels her half, throws away the fruit and uses the peel to make a cake. What appeared to be a wise solution – namely a 50-50 division of the orange was certainly fair, but not very wise. If only the sisters had paid less attention to their positions (how much of the orange each was asking for) and more to their interests (why each wanted the orange) they could have reached an agreement which allowed both to obtain everything they wanted.

Instead of analysing negotiation as a confrontation between two adversaries (each of whom is determined to get as much as possible, while surrendering little or nothing on the way), the ‘Principles of Problem solving’ approach calls for greater collaboration. Each side seeks to do as well as possible for itself, but views the other party not as an adversary but as a potential collaborator. The objective is to find ways to advance one’s self-interest while also leaving room for the other side to do the same. This calls for negotiators to move from statements of position to an analysis of underlying interests.

Exponents of this approach to negotiations argue that opportunities for joint gain result when negotiators are able to metaphorically swing their chairs round so that, instead of facing each other, they are side by side, instead of confronting each other, they jointly confront the problem that challenges both. People negotiate with each other all the time – wives with husbands, managers with workers, nations with other nations. Yet despite the fact that it is a path of everyday life, it is only in recent decades that we have begun to study negotiation systematically. To be sure, not all conflicts are amenable to this joint problem solving approach, many are, however.

Others remain better suited to the more traditional concession-making process, alluded to earlier, in which negotiations begin at extreme opening demands, then slowly shift from these in order to reach some sort of mutually acceptable agreement. Although these two methods of thinking about negotiations would appear to rest on different assumptions about the nature of the process, they are actually very much alike in one key aspect. Both points of view are best suited to the kind of negotiation that takes place between parties of equal power. Whether it is two sisters, or two super-powers, as long as neither party has the power to impose agreement on the other, and parties acknowledge their interdependence, there is room and opportunity for negotiation.

But what happens when power is not equally divided between the parties, when one side has far more power than the other, when one side is far less dependent on reaching a negotiated settlement than the other? As Jeff Rubin and Jeswald Salacuse (Harvard 1990) point out, if two nations are engaged in a water rights dispute concerning a river, and one nation sits upstream of the other, why should the upstream party agree to negotiate, rather than simply decide unilaterally to do exactly as it pleases? In turn, what does the party with low relative power do to persuade its upstream counterpart to come to the negotiating table?

vietnam

It is usually assumed that success in negotiations is merely a matter of power and that the company with less power is always at the mercy of the company with more power. Yet the history of international relations is filled with examples of large states which failed to force small states to do their bidding (eg the US and Vietnam, the USSR and Afghanistan). These examples raise the question of whether results in such negotiations are not just a matter of power, but also of strategies and tactics.

It is said that everyone loves an underdog, that the skilled negotiator should be able to turn this phenomenon to his or her advantage, that often the seemingly weak are far more powerful than they realise, and that the powerful may be far weaker than is commonly supposed. Well no method can guarantee success if all the leverage lies on the other side. The most any method of negotiation can do is to meet the two objectives: to protect you against making an agreement you should reject and to help you to make the most of the assets you do have so that any agreement satisfies your interests as well as possible.

So is there a measure for agreements that will help you to achieve these aims? Yes there is – develop your BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). The relative negotiating power of parties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement. Generating BATNAs requires three distinct operations.

  • Inventing a list of actions you might conceivably take if no agreement is reached;
  • Improving some of the more promising ideas and constructing them into practical alternatives;
  • Selecting tentatively the one option that seems best;

Having gone through this effort, you now have a BATNA. Judge every offer against it, having a good BATNA can help you negotiate on the merits. Apply knowledge, time, money, people, connections and wits into devising the best solution for you, independent of the other sides assent.

sumo-light

 

CN7PZ9F1M6(Check the date article written to get the context)

Leaked Government documents suggest a new class of company named ELTD for entrepreneurs over 45. Discussions in Government circles have recently centred on how best to give the next generation, which will be the work force of the future the best opportunity to succeed. It has been long thought that older more experienced business people, particularly entrepreneurs in the technology start up world have been soaking up and making better use of resources that could be utilised by Millennials. Some restrictions on over 45s have come to light that will help target these resources more keenly towards the younger groups.

Entrepreneurs over 45 setting up a new company will have to apply for the new ELTD class, there will be severe penalties for hoarding dormant LTD vehicle companies prior to the age of 45. The ELTD class of company will only be allowed to trade in regional/urban areas that do not have the TechCity, Knowledge Transfer Network, Digital Catapult, Innovate, Tech Strategy Board, Incubator, HackDay, Science Park designations. They will only be allowed to invest and develop in traditional technologies such as the desktop, minicomputer and mainframe platforms. This includes Telecommunications barring Internet Telephony and returns the focus to traditional platforms like PSTN, PBX, Facsimile and Telex.  This will leave the Mobile, Cloud and emerging technologies such as AI and Robotics to the next generation.

There will be restrictions on where ELTDs can hire from, highlights include, no overseas engineering resource and only graduates from the lower layers of UK Universities/Ex Polytechnics. This will ensure that the elite layers of computer science graduates from top class Universities will be funnelled to the more needy Millennial led start ups. Any Government funded programmes  such as the UKTI led missions will not be available to ELTDs, this also applies to  UKTI supported marketing events such as UK or overseas conferences or exhibitions.

Any of the startup network events such as the regular technology Meetups on the circuit will still be available but ELTDs will only be able to attend for the first 2 hours, leaving the hospitality, often beer and pizzas to be more evenly spread across the millennial attendees. This will also allow the younger generation the best opportunities to let their hair down and to network without feeling their Dad is in the room.

There was an instant strong negative outcry from the City to this leaked background information on the proposed new ELTD status of company. This was soon  reduced to a whisper, when it was explained to them that the Government had no plans to set up an ELLP class for the professional classes. This status quo would continue to allow the lawyers, accountants, corporate financiers, venture capitalists and head hunters to target growth start ups for fees in the highly professional manner they were used to.

When the Minister for Small Business was contacted for her reaction, allegedly she said, the boys tell me nothing, I suppose they will want me to go on Question Time again looking like a startled rabbit in the headlights to justify whatever it is they have dreamed up.

The Chancellor was allegedly heard to say as he walked from his private car into a conference centre, left, left, right, right, no that’s not it, or maybe u-turn before being flung at force through a revolving door into the lobby. Luckily one of his aides was there to catch him.

The Prime minister had a beaming countenance and the journalist who engaged kept saying yes David, no David, yes David, no David not remembering what had been said. He said afterwards that it was very similar to when they were at school together.

The opposition spokesman confirmed that they were only really concerned with big brand companies from traditional industries that hired tens of thousands quoting the likes of Kodak. Although they did say they had not heard from them recently.