 You're watching FJTN, the Federal Judicial Television Network. Live from the judiciary's tele-training studio in Washington, DC, the Federal Judicial Center presents Negotiation and Effective Court Administration, a professional development program for staff of the U.S. courts. Welcome. I'm Michael Siegel and I'll be your instructor today. I'm delighted to be presenting from the newly renovated tele-training studio in Washington. I'm told that this is the first live broadcast out of this studio, this millennium. So I'm very excited to be part of that and welcome you. I think there are five sites out there. We'll be calling on you very soon and going through a little exercise very early in the program. But I want to say that I'm here to help you think and learn about negotiating. Negotiating and negotiating is a very important skill. It's important for various reasons. First of all, it's important because when we can creatively solve conflicts, we can extend our resources, we can extend our energy, we can make our agencies and organizations more effective, and we can do better work. So it's as simple as that. Organizations that find creative ways to solve their conflicts, to solve their disagreements are really able to perform better. It's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that that is the case. Secondly, we are in an era when the old notion of command and control, that managers would get things done by barking out orders. That era really is coming to an end with the diffusion of information, with people feeling more empowered because of their knowledge. It's more a matter of persuading people to go along with organizational goals and not so much ordering them. Command and control is really falling by the wayside in many ways and negotiation skills are a very good replacement for command and control and we'll talk about that as a leadership tool and as a management tool for effective administration in the courts. Now the good news is that these skills can be learned by anybody. They are not the province of a chosen few. You don't have to be Henry Kissinger. You can find your own negotiating style. You can find your own strengths, your own resources. We will guide you with some principles but the way you actually implement those principles as you'll have a chance to do in part two of this program, that's going to depend on your unique blend of strengths and you will find that you will be a different style negotiator than the person sitting next to you. And speaking of the person sitting next to you, we're going to start you off with a little exercise with that person and we're going to call that person your neighbor for these purposes and so we're going to ask you to turn to the person sitting directly next to you and if it's an odd number you can do a group of three and we want you to talk to each other about what you find easy about negotiating. Whether you're negotiating in a business or an organization or a government agency or a community organization or whether you're negotiating in a more personal situation what's easy about the process and then secondly what's challenging about negotiation. We all know that this is not a simple thing although many people think it's a simple thing and it really is a complex process involving a lot of different skills and human emotions and so forth and we're going to try to shed some light on what these are. So what I want you to do though is tell us, tell me what you're thinking about as easy and challenging and I'll make some notes. I'm going to give you about four minutes to have this discussion and I'm going to then go out to the sites. I think I'll start on the west coast. We'll go out to the bankruptcy court in California and then we'll come eastward and go to Maryland and then we'll go to the middle of the country and go to Chicago. We're going to call on you all the sites before the day is over because there are only five of you so there's no chance to hide in this course and we'll be very interested in your comments again about what's easy and what's challenging in negotiating. See you in about four minutes. All right, I hope you've had a chance to have a good discussion with your neighbor. I know we'll get some rich ideas as we begin to go to the sites and to ask you for your feedback on Push to Talk. Let me also offer you the fax number in case you have problems with the Push to Talk at 1-800-488-0397. That would be another way to communicate with us in case you are having problems with the Push to Talk or if somebody in the group just feels more comfortable sending in a question that way, that's fine. Okay, let's now go out to California, Los Angeles, and I believe we have Harriet Gordon out there. Harriet, how are you? I'm fine. Good. How's the weather? Believe it or not, it's raining. It's raining in Southern California. Actually, I'm glad to hear that. It makes us feel a little less bad. Actually, we're having a fairly nice day in Washington, but it's been very cold. Harriet, what did you or your group come up with as far as an idea about something that's easy when you're negotiating? Hold on, we know I want to speak. Okay. Our group decided that knowing the subject matter. Okay, knowing the subject matter makes it a lot easier. And in fact, I would like to build on that comment because I think it's a very important one. Sometimes when you have negotiations between, for example, highly technical automation people and not so highly technical court staff, the highly technical person has the edge. It creates somewhat of an inequality. So in an effort to equalize things, it's very helpful if people with more knowledge can share that knowledge and put people on an equal footing and then have a negotiation. You're absolutely right. It makes it much easier when you know the subject matter. So thank you for that idea, Lenore. Is there another idea there before we move eastward on something that's easy in negotiating? Okay, this is Harriet and it's finding out what the other person wants, asking questions. Okay, finding what the other person wants is easy. Or when you can do that, it definitely does make the negotiation easier because then you have it out on the table and that becomes something that's easier to move from. One of the problems is that some people are actually reluctant to tell you what they want or are shy about telling you what they really want, trying to disguise it, for example, with something else. And when that happens, as you correctly point out, I'm intuiting something from what you're saying, it becomes more difficult when you kind of have to, you know, struggle with what the person really wants or is motivated by. So it's much easier when people are upfront about it, even if it seems direct or even if in some cases it seems even aggressive, it's probably better and more effective in negotiating than to have to search and constantly probe for what the person really wants. Thank you for those ideas. I'm going to move out now to Marilyn. Rebecca Tate, are you out there? I'm here, but I'm not going to be the spokesperson for this question. I'm going to turn it over to Diane Polling. Okay, let's still stay on the easy and then we'll move over to the challenging. Diane, what do you have for us? We talked about some of the same things, determining the boundaries of what the parties involved need or what they want. Okay, this is a good point and it's a slightly different point. And that is exactly what are we negotiating? Is this one issue or is this a multiple issue situation? Do we want to take it one step at a time? Do we want to try to disentangle some of the issues from each other because they're all in one package. It's almost impossible to get through them all. Maybe we can do them one by one. Maybe we can find the easier one first and build some momentum that way. So when we determine boundaries and you might even determine at your first negotiation that all you're going to do is develop a process for how you're going to negotiate. And so it's a very good idea to be clear about boundaries and I think that does make things easier. Do you have one more idea on something that's easy? I guess related to that was people skills. Yes, that's a very good point. Whoever, I forgot the name of the person who was making it. Who was the person in Maryland? Right now it's Diane. Diane, thank you for that point. I'll build on that point also to talk a little bit about the important work that's being done right now in the area of emotional intelligence and how research by Daniel Goleman, G-O-L-E-M-A-N and others, researchers are finding that people with emotional intelligence are often more effective in organizations than people with a lot of intellectual intelligence but who don't have good people skills, as you point out. People skills, knowing what motivates people, knowing what angers people, being able to read people. There's a book called How to Read a Person Like a Book. If you have good skills in those areas that does make you, I think, a more effective negotiator. And that's, thank you for that point. I'm going to now move to Chicago. Is Martha Ville with us? Unfortunately not. Well, somebody else is there. Who is speaking, please? My name is Stan Holloway. Stan, do you have any ideas or anybody in the room about something that makes negotiation more challenging? One thing that we discussed was having an open mind during the dialogue. Okay, so keeping an open mind is actually a challenge. And some people, as you probably know, have a hard time with that. Their mind is made up very quickly and they can't really hear, they can't even hear ideas that are different from their own or they're so busy rehearsing in their own mind the speech they're going to give when the other person is finished speaking that they haven't even heard what the other person has to say. So being an open mind and truly listening to what the other side is saying is a challenge. It's a very difficult thing to do and not many people actually do it very well. When you can do it very well you can become actually a very powerful negotiator because it helps you gain insight into the interests and needs and motivations of the other side and therefore you're able to offer more creative ideas, I think. Let's see if you have one more idea on challenges in Chicago. One of the things that we discussed was lack of people skills. Right, so it's sort of a corollary with what they said as a strength. The existence of people skills clearly again the lack of people skills is something that does make it more challenging and again it is why it is not, you might think anybody, I said earlier that we can all learn to be negotiators and that's true, but I will not say that it's something that's easy because it does take refining people skills listening skills feedback skills summarizing skills and many other skills that are not that easy and that we don't really learn in school and the absence of those is really noticeable in a negotiation. I'm going to go to one more site and see if they have anything to add either on the easy side of the ledger or on the challenging side and let me see if Rhode Island does Jennifer Diaz available? Excellent. Jennifer do you have anything to add either in the column of easy or challenging? Sometimes it's challenging just to stay calm in the whole situation of negotiating. That's really an excellent point and that's particularly challenging when the other party does things to break your calm and for example I've seen people seat people directly in the sunlight when they're negotiating in other words seating them at a place at a seat where the sun is shining directly in their eyes is hard to stay calm physically physiologically in that situation I've seen people blow smoke in other people's face during a negotiation these things obviously make it hard to stay calm and there's also a whole host of other things that people do to challenge you to stay calm but it's very important to stay calm because you probably do better thinking when you're calm and that is a very important point thank you for that did you have any others there at the site any other easy or challenging in Rhode Island we're going to just then go to Kentucky and then we'll summarize anything else from Rhode Island? We do staying on point during the negotiation? Yes it's important it is challenging to stay on point because again there are many distractions there are people who will take you off point there are people who will try to change the agenda there are people who for various reasons are engaged in military tactics and will try to get you off point and that's very troubling also frankly when we become engaged in people in personal attacks or in yelling and screaming at each other that also tends to take us off point it's hard to stay focused on the issue when you're really getting emotional and excited about things that are going to probably take you away from the major point so that's a really good insight thank you very much for that let's now move finally to Kentucky and if I can see if Grace Dupre are you there? Yes we are Hi Hi You have anything to add either on the easy or challenging side? Yes on the easy side we thought that sometimes once you start communicating you discover that the sides are not as far apart as you thought and it turns out to become easier Good so in the course of the negotiations you will discover that there are common interests and I'm going to give you an example about that later on a little later today in fact in a baseball negotiation between the Baltimore Orioles player Cal Ripken and the team where through the course of negotiating and one of the things they had to do in that case was change the venue they had to move the negotiation out of downtown Baltimore and into a more scenic I don't mean to say that downtown Baltimore is not scenic parts of it are very scenic but to a very rural beautiful with clear blue skies and chirping birds they found when they moved the venue and they got the negotiation rolling they were able to find common interest so that does make things flow a little better let's take one more idea there from Kentucky again on either side of the ledger For a challenge we thought that often in negotiations you end up with kind of a bully who's not going to give an inch on the other side and it's really hard to work around them Yeah I'm calling this the bully syndrome and there are people who are very difficult to negotiate with it goes back in a sense in part at least to the point made earlier about not being open minded there may be other things some people use this as a tactic or a technique to get what they want and so forth and that is a challenge there are ways to deal with it which hopefully we will be able to talk about as we go through the curriculum well this is really an outstanding list of both things that make it easier and things that are challenging what we're going to do is try to make the whole process easier for you by giving you somewhat of a system or a framework to use when you're negotiating so let's take a look now at what our core objectives are and what we're going to hope to do with you today is and by the way you have copies of these slides in your handouts which I hope you all have we now are talking about developing what we call a systematic approach to negotiations what do I mean by a systematic approach you see those four words standoff, diagnosis negotiations and action our tendency as human beings and as managers and as court staff and even as judges is that we tend to go directly from a standoff to an action now let me illustrate what I mean by this point through an example with this orange here you see this nice fresh orange hope you're getting hungry because I am by looking at it imagine this orange two kids are fighting over this orange they're both screaming and crying I want the orange so some very wise person from the federal judiciary they see there's a standoff there so some very wise person says I know the action I know exactly what action to take to break the standoff what's that action let me ask Martha or others in Chicago what's the action that you would take to quickly end this standoff either you can cut it in half or take it for yourself okay if you're hungry you might take it for yourself the logical solution that most of us would probably say I want to get this issue off my desk I want to deal with it quickly I'm going to simply take a knife I would do it but I have a new suit on and give half to each kid so we do that somebody comes along we cut it we give it in half we give half to each kid and they're still crying what's the issue now Lexington Kentucky what's the issue oh that's simple one of them got a bigger half than the other alright one issue might be one got a bigger half than the other at least they perceive that or they perceive that well the fact of the matter is we never really got to the real issue one kid wanted the rind of the orange to help his parents cook a pie and the other kid wanted the contents of the orange to eat it we never analyzed what the interests of the two parties were in this simple case we just listened to their positions now we're going to talk a lot about the difference between a position which is I want the orange and an interest which is I want to cook a pie when you can probe beyond positions to get to interests you will find that you can develop much more creative solutions to problems and as we look again at this model what it requires is that we break our tendency to move quickly to an action because our tendency again let's get the problem off our desk let's get to the next case whatever it is but we want you to step back from that quick action and do some diagnosis do some diagnosis and then do a negotiation and then take your action so it will probably slow the process down just a little and I know that's not always realistic because sometimes you need to solve problems quickly but I guarantee you if you do more diagnosis and we're going to give you some tools with which to do the diagnosis in order to take better more creative and more effective actions finally we're going to describe and use and next time you will actually have a chance to use what we call principle negotiation there are many different terms that we could use some people use the terminology win-win negotiating I like the term principle negotiation because it's based on seven principles which I'm going to with your help elaborate that today and go through seven different principles and then have you try to apply them in a case that you'll negotiate next time we meet which is next Wednesday I believe now let me ask if there are any questions at this point otherwise we're going to move into the next segment of the program Michael this is Kentucky on your based upon what you said I was wondering about the slide it looked like you were saying we should go from standoff through diagnosis through negotiations and then finally to action is that correct? that's correct it may be confusing the way the diagram is presented but that is what I meant to suggest I'm suggesting that the action be the last step and whether it's clear enough on this slide or not that's what I'm intending to say what I want to really prevent is the tendency to move directly from the standoff to the action that's really the main point does that help? yes thanks okay any other questions? okay let's then move to take a look at some negotiating systems now when you're negotiating you have choices to make you don't have to negotiate the same way each time and what's involved in a negotiation are two different things the venue or the method by which you're negotiating and the substance of the negotiation now both are equally important venue and substance for example I tell clerks of court and chief probation officers and other court executives I say the negotiation you have with a judge is in the judge's chambers you're immediately putting yourself at a disadvantage because the venue in that case is very favorable to the judge there he or she is in their seat of power surrounded by all their accoutrements of power and there you are basically as a supplicant I know it may not feel that way but it can have that effect but it can quickly be perceived that way by the judge so I suggest maybe try for a more neutral territory where the judge isn't quite so enmeshed in all the accoutrements of power and where you can perhaps reduce some of the inequalities that exist in power that are so prevalent in the judiciary so venue and content are both important this is why they argue for a long time negotiations for example in Middle Eastern negotiations what city shall we meet in shall it be Madrid or shall it be Oslo or shall it be Spain where should we meet is a very important question we met most recently they met in Shepherdstown, West Virginia and that was a very deliberate choice it was very deliberately chosen not to be in Washington DC because they wanted less interference from the press they wanted less publicity about the negotiations with Syria between the Syrians and the Israelis that just took place recently they moved it up to Shepherdstown which is a little more removed from the heavy media concentration and so forth so think about venue and think about substance both are equally important now any system and we're going to give you four different systems of negotiation any system you use should be judged according to the book Getting to Yes which you have listed in your bibliography should be judged by three criteria one, does the system produce a wise outcome two, is it efficient and three, does it improve or at least not damage a relationship again, three questions you should ask about whatever system you're using one, does it produce a wise outcome two, is it efficient and three does that system and negotiation improve or at least not damage a relationship now with those three questions and with the ideas of venue and content in mind let's take a look if you will at a catalog of negotiating systems I'm going to describe four different ones and the first one we'll talk about is called hard positional bargaining now in hard positional bargaining you say yes I say no you say the office with the window I say the office with the window you say the pentium computer I say the pentium computer we put our stakes in the ground you put your stake here I put my stake here and we continue to dig our stakes deeper and deeper into the ground and it becomes less and less likely that either of us will make concessions because what's happening is that we're becoming tied more to our ego and it's becoming a contest of wills and we're becoming less focused on what is the best idea in fact in hard positional bargaining frequently whose right becomes more important than what's right I'm not going to give into her again how many times have we heard that by the way this is why kids are fantastic at positional bargaining because they have more energy they don't get tired the way we do and actually the outcome of hard positional bargaining frequently is who gets tired first I can't argue with you anymore have your way I just don't have the energy to continue this take leave take this project away from me I can't argue with you anymore in hard positional bargaining we are acting in fact if you look at Albert Einstein's definition of insanity he says that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result in hard positional bargaining in a sense we are acting insanely because we say well maybe if I raise my voice maybe they'll really understand my point I'm going to change my approach but I'm going to speak a little louder or I'm going to get mad or whatever it is I'm going to get sarcastic we don't really change our approach we keep going the same way now let me ask let me go down to California Harriet's group there in the bankruptcy court have you seen do you recognize this as a familiar style of negotiating what do we do do you see any benefits or any disadvantages of this style of negotiating no benefits okay it's hard to see the benefits because very often again the outcome is not the best outcome but it's produced by fatigue or by other things and I don't think it satisfies those three criteria that Fisher and Urie talked about otherwise the outcome isn't efficient and doesn't improve a relationship it may not damage our relationship because we're kind of used to it in fact in our personal lives this happens a lot but it doesn't improve relationships let's take a look now at the second style of negotiating and that is the game of chicken it's another style of negotiating now let me ask Grace or others in Lexington do they play the game of chicken in Kentucky well I'm not sure about the negotiating game but the driving game they do alright what is the driving game tell us about that you would each be driving down a road headed toward each other and neither one would move to the side of the road exactly two cars driving down a highway 70 miles an hour one person has to leave or you both get killed we're in a row boat we're going to drill a hole in this we're going to drill a hole in the boat until you give me what I want or you give me my budget or I'm going to shut down the federal government which is how our budget was formulated in 1995 when Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton couldn't negotiate an agreement they played the game of chicken now chicken is a way to negotiate you may not have seen the parallel immediately from the driving game but it is a way to negotiate it's relying primarily on fear and intimidation and threats now Eisenhower once said you can rely on fear and coercion and command etc as a form of leadership and people will obey you as long as you're in the room an interesting quotation from Eisenhower because you better not turn your back on people if you've negotiated this way let me give you an interesting anecdote I witnessed in an airport that illustrated this point about don't turn your back if you've played chicken there was a long line of passengers at an airport at a particular gate and an individual a man just rushed in front of it and started making all kinds of demands on the ticket agent and started raising his voice and being very rude very obnoxious making all kinds of demands on her and really trying her best to calm him down as you said to stay calm and to have an idea of what he really wanted and to help him ultimately a customer service challenge that we sometimes deal with in the courts and he just kept going on ranting and raving and finally she took care of him she mollified him and he left and then he came back and finally she got rid of him she sent him on his way and the guy behind him when he approached her at the ticket stand he said to her miss I want to commend you you've done an outstanding job with this individual you really held your own and you acted very professionally he was out of control and she smiled and she said don't worry I got him back he said well what do you mean you're in Tokyo so you see using fear and intimidation has a cost there's a cost to pay I'm not recommending anybody use that as a form of customer service but I thought it was a cute way to make the point about chicken nobody likes to be threatened we don't do our best work when we're threatened and yet people continue to use that as a form of negotiation let me go now to Marilyn, Rebecca or others what about chicken what do you think about using this as a negotiating strategy I personally don't think it's a very good idea people have long memories and they'll wait for any opportunity to get you back it's a very good point people do have long memories and they will seek a way to get back it's a sort of risky proposition anything else that comes to mind from any of the sites about the game of chicken it seems to focus more on the individuals and not the issue at hand very good point who was speaking please this is Mark Sammons from Baltimore, Maryland hi Mark that's a very good observation Mark it's focused more on the individuals and how you can exert pressure on an individual and not really on the purpose that you're serving with this particular task or the goals of the organization it's a very perceptive comment and I agree with it now let me just say there may be times when you have to use chicken let me give you a quick example of a personal experience where I had to use chicken I was once at a job where I was being given a fairly difficult time on the question of religious leave a boss was trying to make it hard for me to take religious leave for a holiday I checked and of course many of the laws were quite clear that employers were expected to grant this leave to employees and of course there was a little stipulation that always says at the discretion of the supervisor so if the supervisor wants to give somebody a hard time they probably have it out but I still didn't like the idea and so I started getting upset about it and I was being coached by my fellow employees and they were saying why don't you negotiate I was new at this job they said why don't you negotiate it work out a deal work out a compromise you know he's weird don't worry about it and I said well I said I'll tell you something I would be tempted to do this if it weren't so important to me but I can't do that I'm going to take you to court and I smiled I was playing chicken and guess what happened what happened was I got my religious leave and I got an apology from his boss so the point is there are times when you may have to play chicken it's not something you should just abandon there may be people who won't understand anything else Kofi Annan said about negotiating with Saddam Hussein in this case is even better and that's a reality of life that there are some people who you're going to need more than moral suasion alone to influence them and to negotiate with them in a sense okay let's move now to our third form of negotiating a form very popular in Washington DC and that is the negotiating system that I call favors and ledgers favors and ledgers what do you think that means let's go to Chicago Martha, Via or others in Chicago what do you think I mean by favors and ledgers this is Linda Rudolph in Chicago to me I think it means that we'll work this thing out by doing favors for each other or I'll do something for you but I'm going to keep track of those favors and eventually I'm going to call them in excellent, excellent I couldn't say it any better but really the way it is it's the game that's played for example in Capitol Hill you scratch my back I'll scratch yours you vote for me on this bill I'll vote for you on another bill if I'm from New York City and I care a lot about the subway the mass transit operating subsidies and you're from Georgia and you don't really care very much about the New York subway but you do care about peanuts I'll vote for you on the mass transit you vote for me on peanuts we do favors for each other I'll do this project for you this time because I know you really don't want to do it you'll have to do something for me in the future but as you correctly point out we are keeping score and if the person doesn't come through as somebody said earlier we have long memories so while this is a very powerful form of negotiation and by the way the reason it's so powerful and one favors is so powerful to negotiate is that the human dynamic of reciprocity is very powerful a fascinating study on this by Cialdini you have a book listed in your bibliography called Influence by a social psychologist named Cialdini who studied the way people influence each other and one of the ways is through reciprocity and he did a fascinating study of the Hare Krishna he used to go to people in airports and ask for money and they got absolutely no money nothing very very little money they then came on the idea let's give people a flower first and then ask them for money guess what happened their contributions went up exponentially so reciprocity is an extremely important human dynamic it undergirds the power of favors and ledgers and it makes it very human but as you've correctly pointed out it may not produce the best outcomes because in a sense if the outcome of hard positional bargaining is who gets tired first the outcome of favors and ledgers may be whose turn is it whose turn is it who owes who a favor that's not necessarily getting at your best answer it's getting at who needs to do a favor for whom now let me go back to Los Angeles maybe it or others there have any comments about favors and ledgers Michael I think in the long run you lose credibility okay why is that that's an interesting point well you get the perception that your opinions and decisions are for sale very good point very good point you give out the impression that your opinions and decisions are for sale at the highest bidder and that is a very very that's not a reputation you necessarily want that doesn't necessarily help your credibility that's a very very good comment the other fact of the matter is some people have more to give out than others if you're a clerk of court you may have more favors to give out than if you're somebody else lower in the hierarchy and so forth so we want to be careful about that and consider using it maybe when we have to but look at another form we're going to call principal negotiation that will be our last form of negotiation and we'll come back to that after we take a look at a short video clip now what I'm going to do let me set up we're going to take a look now at a short vignette of a negotiation that's not going particularly well it's a negotiation that occurs in the private sector between a turns out a dentist and a computer expert who are in a business together perhaps an unlikely combination nonetheless there they are in a business together and they're having a pretty rough time solving a conflict and I'm going to show you a short vignette of this about a seven minute vignette and I want you to look for what systems of negotiation are being used because it's primarily a negative example but it'll set us up to look at the other side immediately thereafter so your assignment in looking at this video clip is what styles what negotiation systems that we just described hard positional bargaining, chicken, etc do you see it work in the Hacker Star negotiation so what are we doing here what are we doing now in this meeting right now today what do you think we're trying to accomplish what do you think all I feel you're trying to accomplish is to vent on me personally and I think we should deal with the practicality like where is power screen right now power screen is finished it's good program, sorry but you were wrong, sorry other people think it's great but the fact is that you've gone out you've negotiated with these people you've got a deal you made a deal behind my back and I feel ripped off it's not just the money it's not just that it's personal trust behind your back scenario because I showed it to you, I offered it to you on several occasions and you rejected it outright, unsultingly and I didn't go out in search of a buyer for this it fell into my lap the same way you fell into my lap because then you made a deal I didn't make a deal you've taken that product away from the company I feel that the company owns the product when did the company decide to do the product when did the company okay it when did it go into work according to you, since you are the company you went out and did it I did it at night I did it at night you do lots of things at night for the company and on weekends listen, if you go out fishing Alan I'm not saying that if you catch a fish it belongs to the company but what I am saying the way you operate is that you have an idea in the middle of the night on Porta word or resource I own 50% of it to you because it's our product the fact is it's our product I don't see it that way I don't see it that way I don't see how you see it that way it's not our product and how dare you even say it's our product when you remember distinctly saying no it's a terrible product six times to me and even when it was finished and obviously a grand product you said it was a bad product I said it was too esoteric I didn't think it was too esoteric I didn't think it was transformational I didn't think it was you said you put in thousands of hours at the time I didn't feel that that was the product in which to invest thousands of hours of development time you did it anyway yes I did it anyway and I'm glad I did it and I'm glad I did it and I'm glad I did it you know I think that you're wrong both technically about this new product and wrong and your whole mentality towards this market you know I know you get upset when I call you a dentist right but you have a dentist's mentality right your wife said that when she split on you right and it's a cheap shot but you know today you're doing to me exactly more emotionally and more painfully because when I rejected power screen I didn't insult you personally which is what you're doing now you're rejecting my ideas and then you're saying okay you never contributed you feel is if the company is entirely you and that all I did you show up once a month and wring your hands and they say and complain and and just generally act like a complete wet blanket and I'm expected to think that you're contributing to this company I put yes I'm an amateur and that's what you've been telling me now for six years and I've had it I think you are a child so what let's talk business you've got a covenant in the contract that you cannot compete with Hackerstar do you think you're going to be able to take that contract and make it stand up in some kind of court I mean it's very very specific it's not that vague at all read a sentence that's clear to me I will I brought it with me I see you did I'm sure you carry it around with you okay the company will employ the manager as a general manager for a period of eight years first of all there's eight years mentioned while the manager is employed one year after termination of such employment the manager will not engage the whole thing to me cut to the part I'm reading that will not engage in competition with the company either directly or indirectly in any manner or capacity as advisor, principal agent, partner, officer, director blah blah blah of any association or otherwise in any phase of the business of designing, writing testing, selling or producing microcomputer software no problem because there's no competition with power screen between port-a-word and writing software I mean whether you like it or not this is the real world this is what judges and lawyers pay attention to this is a legal document we'll go to your people the judges and lawyers and that ilk right and if you're right then good but you're not going to win you have to prove that I was negligent and you're not going to be able to do that all I have to prove is that you signed this contract which you did okay if it's that simple go ahead why are you sweating? well because I don't want to lose the company I see something to gain in here the other guy who says I'll take my ball back just do something now quickly I don't want to talk about this for another six months do it now dissolve the company do whatever you're going to do just do it now I just don't want to continue like this do you want to come in and talk about it? no now we're going to have to see you in court I'm looking forward to it and that's not your environment they don't do things the way you like them in court and you know something the judge is probably a judge too we usually leave that last line out of the judges programs let me go to I'm going to go to Providence Rhode Island the Jennifer or colleagues and ask you what styles of negotiating you saw at work there this is Barbara D'Amico from Providence at first I saw the hot positions bargaining and then I think I saw the chicken threatening to go to court okay good yeah I think we see clearly at first very different perceptions you did it on company time I didn't do it on company time again with the stakes in the ground going back and forth not really making any progress or doing any analysis and it does escalate by the end to chicken I'll have to see you in court it's not your environment very good let me ask Grace Dupre and Lexington or others what else did you see in there any styles or any points about negotiating certainly didn't remain calm and they probably negated any chance coming to an agreement because they started getting very personal in their comment yes a lot of personal attacks they're doing exactly the opposite of what we advise there's a little phrase I use called be hard on the issues and soft on the people and they are doing exactly the opposite they're being hard on the people and soft on the issues and that is not an effective approach to negotiating good let me ask in Los Angeles what observations would you make and then we're going to go ahead and start the seven principles Michael it just seems like a no win situation do you mean that there doesn't seem to be a solution or do you mean that the way they're dealing with each other is no win I think the way they're dealing with each other there's no way they can come to an agreement yes they don't have a process that will get to an agreement first of all look where they're meeting they're meeting right there in the computer room you can tell it's a little dated by the look of the computers but that's not necessarily the best place to negotiate the guy's blowing smoke in his face the other guy is throwing a pencil up in the air so there's a lot of things wrong with this process as you say this is not going to lead to a settlement it's almost impossible to lead that way what we're going to find is that what they really need is a mediator because they are not doing very well at talking to each other and we'll talk a little bit particularly in part two about some of the differences between negotiation and mediation so that's very good does anybody else have any additional comments or reflections on the video or questions before we move on to the seven what we're going to do is we're going to quickly reveal seven principles of effective negotiations that you will see flashing across your screen right now we're going to go ahead and take each one of these individually we'll probably get through most of them today and we'll save the last few for next time I'm going to give some examples I hope of these principles in action and what it looks like to use them try to have you apply them to a case study that we'll get to you for the session next week where you'll have a chance to apply these principles in a negotiation between two judges, a bankruptcy judge and a district court judge over the question of courthouse security I think you'll find that an interesting case and you'll be able to relate to it I'm sure very well the first thing we're going to talk about is very important is focusing on the interests we talked about before in that silly example with the orange about the difference between interests and positions it is interests that brought you to the table it is your interests not your position that you really care about we want you to again be hard on the issues and soft on the people and we want you to concentrate on what you really want and need this is what we mean on the interests now let's take a look if you will at this diagram which shows us that in any issue you face there is usually the tip of the iceberg is the position what you here express I can't get to the office before nine o'clock for example is usually a position but underneath that position is a clustering of interests and if you can get to those interests which does take some work because as you can see they're under the surface people aren't always comfortable revealing them people may even not be fully aware of what all of them are but if you can get to them you can develop much more creative approaches in a negotiation now let's take a look at a case study of this from the Middle East you may remember the six day war between Israel and the Arab neighbors and the Israelis captured as you can see on the larger map the Sinai Peninsula and they held it and in 1978 Jimmy Carter who was the American president at the time said I want to try to negotiate a treaty between Israel and Egypt over the Sinai Peninsula particularly and so they decided they were going to try to do that in the role of being a mediator and they went to both sides they went to Israel and Egypt and they said let us start by exploring your positions and so they went to Menachem Begin who at the time was the Israeli prime minister and they said Mr. Begin can you tell us your position and Begin said of course I can tell you my position I'm going to keep the entire Sinai that's my position thank you for asking they then went to Sadat and they said Sadat what's your position Mr. Sadat and Sadat said my position is I want the entire Sinai back that's my position thank you for asking so they had diametrically opposed positions now one of you mentioned before that in the context of the negotiations you could come to common interest well the Americans decided led by Jimmy Carter at the time they were going to go back and ask each side not what their positions were because they already knew them they were so they went back to Begin and they said Begin we understand your position you want the whole Sinai what's your interest and Begin said my interest is security I need this land for the security of my nation I'm not going to even mention the oil fields I'll give those back but I have an air base there that I need for security the Americans said oh you have an air base what if we the Americans took that air base and Begin said I've never thought about that this is a very interesting idea let me think about it and they said okay hold it right there we're going to go back to Sadat they went to Sadat and they said Sadat we understand your position what is your interest and Sadat said my interest is sovereignty sovereignty I want to see the Egyptian flag fly over this territory which has historically been taken from us by the British, by the Turks I'm really concerned about sovereignty now the Americans didn't say well that's not really a legitimate interest they said well how can we help you meet that interest they said what about if we call for a demilitarized zone pull the Israeli troops back and let the Egyptian flags fly and that's basically the deal they got in Camp David the Camp David treaty was basically the Israelis gave back part of the Sinai they got their air base the Egyptians pulled back their troops and the Egyptian flag flew they got a treaty in an area where it's very hard to get peace treaties by moving both parties from their positions to their interests and sometimes you need a third party to do that sometimes you're too embroiled in a direct confrontation to even see your interest you're too busy arguing again over those stakes in the ground that we talked about earlier let's take a look at another example the example from what I mentioned before Cal Ripken and the Baltimore Orioles again moving from positions to interests the Baltimore Orioles and Cal Ripken a few years ago were separated by several million dollars of salary that way they were projecting out for Cal Ripken and they were negotiating in downtown Baltimore and finally the mediator or the negotiator a guy named Schwartz who by the way has written a book called The Power of Nice interesting title for a baseball negotiator to write he says why don't we move this negotiation to my farm up in another part of Maryland where it's a little bit more conducive to a discussion and they did and what they found as they talked was that Cal Ripken's interests were different from his position the Baltimore Orioles interests were they wanted to pay him a fair price but they didn't want to pay him a lot more than his statistics were meriting at the time because in comparison to other players it would be too much but what what happened was as they got into the discussions they realized that Cal Ripken's real interests were he wanted to be able to sell his goods in the stands because he and his wife like to support a lot of charities he wanted to assure first class hotel accommodations for him and his guests which of course cost money and he wanted what everybody in every organization all over the world always wants parking he wanted to be guaranteed parking access to the stadium and so the Orioles were able and he were able to come together around these kinds of interests and bridge the gap that the positional bargaining was creating so that's the difference between interests and positions let me ask if there are any questions about this point good let's move then to the second principle of effective negotiations which is to protect the relationship now the first principle here is to be respectful of the people and you say you guys in Washington don't know much that seems pretty obvious let me go to the bankruptcy court in Lexington grace to pray and others how can you be either respectful or disrespectful to people when you're negotiating? don't interrupt them give them eye contact and that kind of stuff would be respectful I think the listen oh yeah use a calm speaking voice and polite tone and all very good ideas about respecting people let me ask in the bankruptcy court in Los Angeles any additional ideas about respecting or disrespecting don't attack them personally which we saw in the video it's a real bad idea to attack people personally in a negotiation or in communicating in general it really deteriorates it makes things deteriorate very quickly by the way one of the things that you might do if you're being attacked personally is not reciprocate there's been some research done on the power of non-reciprocal behavior I don't mean reciprocity which is what we talked about before but I mean reciprocating behavior in other words if somebody attacks you personally to not come back and also attack them personally but to try to take things in a different direction can really help a negotiation it's fascinating if you think about it during the 1988 the presidential debates George Bush was seen on national television going like this I don't know how many of you remember it but I remember it very vividly and you're wondering what was George thinking millions of people on national television why would he look at his watch so they asked him they said George what were you thinking and he said well what I was thinking was that I was debating a very loquacious individual named Bill Clinton who likes to talk and I wanted to be sure he was staying in his 92nd limit well that's good about what George was thinking but the question is what was his audience thinking so being respectful of people you have to be conscious of how you're looking to the other person that you're doing yourself has a very important point there let's take a look at some other points under this rubric of protecting the relationship you want to be sure you listen and understand their point of view and now being heard and also to be unconditionally constructive let me back up for a minute to the listening and being understood or heard one of the most powerful human motivators is being heard when people come out of ADR proceedings they're asked alternative dispute resolution in the courts and they're asked what made this work for you you know what they often say they don't say I won or lost they say I got a fair hearing I was heard so it's very important to be heard people really like to be heard and that's a powerful technique now let's go to the next one about being unconditionally constructive that means that whatever comes at you you come back positively if somebody gets angry when you're negotiating the advice is you try to stay calm as you were all saying before let me ask a bankruptcy court Marilyn, Rebecca how can you stay calm when somebody else gets angry what can you do count it ahead just kind of be still before you speak alright, anybody else there have any techniques that have worked for them to diffuse anger or hostility how about in Los Angeles what do you do out there how about bringing it back to the issue come back to the issue you see it's getting a little off course we're getting a little excited let's get back to the issue you can say something like I appreciate the passion of your position and then we offer job counseling or you can say something that I have said to a very angry person one time I said you know I respond much better to proposals than to threats Roger Fisher who is the guru of negotiation says when somebody gets angry at him he imagines the anger going right past him and hitting the wall and he comes back in a very low voice interesting techniques it's not an easy issue but let's try sometimes it's good to say I think we need a break this isn't going very well I'm feeling a little uncomfortable let's take a break so those are all things you can do really in terms of protecting the relationship what you want to aim for is the idea of building a partnership around solving the problem there's a lot of power in this if you can get to it the two of us can really use our mutual talents instead of fighting with each other let's use our synergy around the idea of solving a problem let's move to the next principle of effective negotiation which is again using good communication and again you say well that's pretty obvious every course we ever went to talks about using good communication and I agree but let me give you a few particular ways that I mean this one be open to persuasion you can understand your interests but you may not have thought of all the ways there are to reach your interests for example in a negotiation between an employee and a manager over the subject of telecommuting a subject that I know is very active in many districts throughout the country the manager may say well you know I heard of a case where the manager said you know I tell you something I'm against the idea in principle because of all these concerns I have but I'll listen to your arguments to the employee who was proposing that he was be able to do telecommuting and the employee did a very smart thing he approached the situation not from his perspective but from the boss's perspective now let me explain what I mean by that if you were to persuade a boss for telecommuting to do telecommuting and you were doing it from your perspective you would say things like I don't want to sit in traffic I want to be able to spend more time with my family I want more uninterrupted time and I want to be able to work at my own pace whatever it is these are all very legitimate reasons but they may or may not be what's on the manager's mind what's on the manager's mind are things like accountability coverage and equipment what this employee did was he did research on those issues how can I assure the manager of accountability how can I assure the manager of coverage and how can I get my own equipment or help the office with the equipment and he did a lot of research the manager who really didn't have as many ideas as the employee did about it and she said you know something we're going to try this out because you've persuaded me that you can protect my interest so I'm at least open to persuasion the first thing is be open to persuasion and that's very important have an open mind as you were saying when we did our little exercise second point here a demonstrate interest in the other person's point of view let me go to Chicago how can you demonstrate interest in somebody's point of view Marva this is a need in Chicago you would demonstrate interest by listening to the person and responding to what they're saying okay by listening by responding to what they're saying perhaps by summarizing or paraphrasing you can use a phrase like that's a very interesting idea and you can deliver that sincerely it doesn't mean I agree with it it means I heard it again there's a big difference between hearing an idea and agreeing with it and at this stage of the negotiation when you're just starting it's more important that you at least hear the ideas you don't necessarily have to agree with them they're very good ideas let's go to our third point now on this which is realize that you have partisan perceptions now let me give you a little anecdote about this which makes the point I think very vividly there was a young attorney right out of law school who went to a senior partner of a law firm and said I'm ready for my first case I'm really anxious to do my first case I want to see if all this stuff I learned in law school really works and is going to pay off and the senior partner says that's terrific here's your first case I want you to work with the plaintiff go prepare the plaintiff's case come back to me when you're ready so the young attorney goes out and very assiduously prepares the plaintiff's case works on it constantly doesn't eat doesn't sleep day and night on this case comes back three days later he says to the senior partner I have the plaintiff's case down pat I'm really excited and the senior partner says it's great that you have the plaintiff's case because you're actually working with the defendant I just wanted you to understand the other side you can't change somebody's mind unless you know where their mind is at and you won't know where their mind is at unless you study their side as carefully as you study your own let me give you another anecdote in this regard one of the authors of the major textbook getting to yes which I think is still the single best book on negotiating it's a little penguin paperback it'll cost you less than ten dollars and it's a great resource William Murray went to Brussels a few years ago and worked with the Russians and the Chechnians negotiating some parts of the peace treaty they're having troubles again recently but this was before the most recent episode and they worked very hard concept on win-win negotiating they spent three or four days up there in Brussels and they were negotiating and working at deals and right before they left and they had a tree he gave them the following charge which I think illustrates the point of partisan perceptions the victory said to the Chechnians he said what I want you to do before you leave is I want you to write the victory speech that the Russians are going to give when they get home about this treaty and he said to the Chechnians or to the Russians rather I want you to write the victory speech that the Chechnians are going to give when they get home seeing it from the other side seeing it from the other point of view is very powerful in negotiating let's make the last point on this slide now Covey says, Stephen Covey says seek first to understand and then to be understood let me ask if there are any questions about using good communication okay hearing no questions we'll move on to our next point a very important point in negotiations which is to rely on legitimacy now relying on legitimacy means when all else fails you ask some very basic questions such as is the proposal fair and is there an external standard or criteria we can use now let me give you a few examples somebody says they want $200,000 for your home that's a very interesting price but can you tell me how'd you come to that price how'd you arrive at it what's it based on what are other houses selling for in the market I remember in the old personnel system his manager I'd like a three-step increase in the courts and the manager said it's a very interesting idea I heard it can you tell me is anybody else in the court system doing this is there any precedent is there any legitimacy it's a very important part of the negotiation I just saw a very interesting article about ebay ebay.com which some of you know is an online kind of auction system and they were saying what makes this work is that there's a tremendous level of trust among the people using it some people have apparently quit their full-time jobs to sell things all day and night on ebay and they're making out pretty well but one of the things that adds legitimacy to it is that there is a rating system that you as an auctioneer or a buyer or a seller are given a rating as a person you get a rating is it pleasant, is the person reliable, dependable and that becomes part of your identity you get a rating by the other people in this ebay about how easy it is to deal with you and how reliable you are and that's a form of legitimacy it's fascinating some people have actually called their friends and said would you say some nice things about me even though you haven't bought anything from me lately a rating on ebay kind of an interesting situation and the last point about legitimacy is that nobody wants to feel taken nobody wants to feel that they could have gotten a better deal or nobody wants to feel that they could have done a little bit better had they had more information or had the negotiation been a little slower or whatever it was I remember one time trying to buy a tennis racket at a very nice hotel where you should never buy a tennis racket but being there and playing tennis and loving the racket and saying to the tennis pro afterwards would this racket be for sale by any chance and of course the tennis pro said well we could let it go for about $180 notice the phraseology we could let it go for $180 and I tried to use some legitimacy I said well tell me how many times has this racket been used and the pro said well it's been used once you mean the time I just used it or time before anyway to make a long story short I bought the racket for about $110 I think it was now here's the kicker of the situation it took me about four months to get up the courage to check out the real price of that racket because I did not want to feel taken and that brings us back to the point nobody wants to feel taken and that is another very important point about legitimacy now let me go to Chicago and ask is legitimacy a concept you can get a hold of does it sound helpful in terms of doing negotiations do you see any uses for it in the courts I think you really want to be legitimate it shows that you you're a standard you're setting high standards for what you're saying and the actions that you take that's right and the more research you can provide the more you are going to be seen in that light sometimes people wonder how they can persuade judges and I think one of the very good ways to persuade judges is to know your subject they're very bottom line people they want the facts they don't want a lot of fluff and if you can buttress your arguments with legitimacy with a lot of facts behind you with a lot of comparative data for example what other courts are doing and so forth you probably will have more chance to influence people like judges or other high level executives in the court system one of the things that's happening with again using another computer situation with the internet is that people in occupations are easily able to obtain information about what salaries are being paid to other people throughout the country and they're presenting this data to their managers and it's becoming increasingly hard for managers to justify why a person is getting $10,000 less than the rest of the nation in the same industry so again the internet makes access to information and information is power in fact in a negotiating environment as somebody said earlier it helps when people are willing to share information or to know some things about their subject let's now just start in on any more questions about legitimacy if not we're going to move to the next I will make one additional comment in that sometimes it's hard to get agreement on the facts that we're talking about for example if you look at negotiations between the congressional budget office and the office of management and budget in Washington they have very different perceptions for example on the economic growth rate or on other things that you have to kind of project out sometimes it's very difficult to get agreement on what you might think would be legitimate data or objective information so that's sometimes not as easy as it sounds but it's always worth trying for let's move to our next point as we move to wrap up the first session and this one is the considering the options now what we mean here is we want you to consider a wide range of possibilities we don't want you to do what's often done which is to fire hose ideas the tendency we may have in our organizations is people will voice an idea and somebody else will say well we tried that before or that'll never work here or I know the boss won't agree with that or forget it there's no way or we make facial expressions before the ideas even seen the light of day that tends to limit ideas it tends to limit discussions it tends to make people less willing to offer ideas because they feel they're going to be shot down and so we want you to try to avoid the tendency when you're negotiating to fire hose ideas to take a fire hose and put an idea out before it's even seen the light of day rather we want you to keep an open mind with a full range of options when you're negotiating now let's look at the next point which is not to dismiss anyone too quickly as we mentioned and then thirdly I would say let's use creativity in solving problems now let me give you a few examples of creativity and well probably this will be the last point we'll be able to make today because I want to talk about this one a little bit because I think there are some interesting ideas that have developed the idea of being creative let me first ask the audience let me ask any of the sites have you seen or yourself used any particularly creative approaches to negotiation anybody in any of the sites let me give you a few examples of what I've seen in the way of creativity and it may spur some ideas among you one of the things that happens often in a negotiation is that you might have people who are either very angry with each other or people who represent very different power situations in a hierarchy sometimes for example with judges and non-judges in the judiciary when you're trying to have a collaboration or a negotiation the non-judges tend to be very quiet and you get a lot more ideas from the judges than from the non-judges and so because there are power discrepancies it makes people a little shy and you don't get a full dialogue with the creative use of the technology and in this case again it is a computer technology where I had a meeting run by the AO our sister agency and I said why don't we try their judges and non-judges we want to get a full plate of ideas which we may not get in the normal course of things let's try something a little different let's see people at computer terminals and let's have them type their ideas across the screen unattributed so there's less chance that there's ego involvement in the ideas and you know something it really worked we got a lot more ideas and we didn't know who they were from and we didn't care who they were from and we got a lot better dialogue and a lot better approaches to a negotiation so one idea is to use technology if you can a discussion or a conversation that's not happening in regular ways another thing would be to search for different venues for different places to have a negotiation again the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations several years ago that ended up in the Oslo Accords were greatly facilitated by meetings of academics that were taking place in Oslo, Norway because the Norwegians have developed the whole style of negotiating there was an exhibit actually in Union Station on Norway recently and they had a whole section on the Norwegian approach to negotiations they like to get people out of the public eye they like to have no press involved they like to take them away from the public eye put them directly with each other without a lot of formality and they find that that really helps and so these academics meeting in Oslo, Norway were able to get some ideas into the traditional diplomatic process that was taking place in Madrid and the Israelis and the Palestinians allowed that to happen and they were able to move their negotiations forward that way so we got to be really open-minded to a lot of different ideas a lot of different strategies in order to get negotiation creativity juices flowing let me go ahead and stop there for today and ask you if there are any questions about what we've talked about today we're going to head next week to continue to talk about these principles of effective negotiations and then we're going to actually give you a chance to practice to try it out to negotiate a case study next week but let me stop we have a couple minutes left and anybody who has any questions or comments about today's material Mike, this is Harriet from Los Angeles Yes Did you overpay for that record? Thank you that I actually found out it was a $200 racket so I did pretty well but thanks for reminding me to finish the story Any other questions? Well again if you think of questions during the week you can always call me on the telephone or bring them with you next time I've really enjoyed working with you I feel that we've had a good dialogue here and I've heard some excellent ideas and concepts about negotiating and getting into the material and we'll continue next week I'd like to thank Heather and Trisha here in our studio who make me look good and make us look good I'd like to thank Val Simmons for her work on this program and I'd like to thank all of you for participating you'll see some additional credits that will come on the screen have a good week and we'll see you again on Wednesday