IB

I was assigned to summarize "Sources of Joint Gains in Negotiation," but it is missing from the red book and Dr. Liu will bring us a copy tomorrow, sorry!

--
Maggie Mariscal

Preparatory Reading on Senator Chambliss

Hi everyone!

As BB contributed the IBW earlier, I would like to share Senator Chambliss' bio and voting record website with you in advance (and to the benefit) of our D.C. trip on Wednesday!

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=22029

Highlights:

Gender: Male
Family: Wife: Julianne
2 Children: Lia, Bo.
Birth date: 11/10/1943
Birthplace: Warrenton, NC
Home City: Moultrie, GA
Religion: Episcopalian

Education:
JD, University of Tennessee College of Law, 1968
BA, Business Administration, University of Georgia, 1966
Attended, Louisiana Tech University, 1961-1962.

Professional Experience:
Attorney, Business Law and Agricultural Law
Partner, Moultrie Inn.

Political Experience:
Senator, United States Senate, 2002-present
Representative, United States House of Representatives, 1994-2002
Primary Candidate, United States House of Representatives, 1992.

Organizations:
Colquitt County Economic Development Authority
Georgia State Bar Disciplinary Review Panel
Leadership Georgia
Moultrie-Colquitt County Chamber of Commerce
Moultrie-Colquitt County Economic Development Authority
Youth Sports Coach, Young Men's Christian Association.

Caucuses/Non-Legislative Committees:
Congressional Fire Services Caucus
Congressional Sportsmen Foundation
Juvenile Diabetes Caucus
National Guard Caucus
Rural Health Caucus
Senate Caucus on Military Depots, Arsenals and Ammunition Plants
Co-Chair, Senate Reserve Caucus
Steering Committee.

Moreover, he's a Scorpio!!

One warning sign, though: Over the course of several weeks in 2002, this candidate repeatedly refused requests by citizens in the candidate's own state, leaders of both major political parties, major news organizations and Project Vote Smart staff to provide voters with essential issue information in the 2002 National Political Awareness Test.

This candidate would not provide this information to citizens in the candidate's own state - no matter who asked them, when they were asked or how they were asked.

Campaign Finances:
2001-2006 Total Receipts: $12,176,383
2001-2006 Total Spent: $10,098,821
Cash on Hand: $2,080,492
82% of his PAC contributions came from Businesses (vs. Labor and or Ideological/Single Issue)
85% of his PAC contributions have been fully disclosed

Recent Votes:
YES - Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions
(this is currently in contrast to GA Supreme Court, however)
YES - Passage of Legislation to Update Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
YES - Passage of Drought Mitigation Steps by Army Corps
NO - Amtrak Reauthorization

Enjoy!
--
Carol Sautter
404-610-6660
cj_sautter@yahoo.com

THE NEGOTIATION CHECKLIST
The article offers a tool for use in negotiating important issues. The
"Negotiation Checklist" helps to be prepared before walk into a negotiation. It
is based on proven principles of negotiations that are taught in several of
North America's top business schools.

NEGOTIATION CHECKLIST
A. About you
1. What is your overall goal? The big picture. Is what do you hope to
accomplish
2. What are the issues? Price, delivery schedules, duration of contract,
product or service upgrades, cancellation clauses, contingency plans,
transportation services, and many other options. In general, the more issues you
can put on the table (with reason), the better off you are.
3. How important is each issue to you? Picture their relative importance. On
which issues should you stand firm and on which issues can you afford to
concede?
Develop a scoring system for evaluating offers:
(a) List all the issues of importance from step 2.
(b) Rank order all the issues
(c) Assign points to all the issues (assign weighted values based on a
total of 100 points).
(d) List the range of possible settlements for each issue. Your
assessments of realistic, low, and high expectations should be grounded in
industry norms and your best-case expectation.
(e) Assign points to the possible outcomes that you identified for each
issue.
(f) Double check the accuracy of your scoring system.
(g) Use the scoring system to evaluate any offer that is on the table.
4. What is your "best alternative to negotiated agreement" (BATNA)? Backup
plan. Consider negotiating with the only supplier in town or having many
alternatives.
5. What is your resistance point (i.e., the worst agreement you are willing
to accept before ending negotiations)? If your BATNA is vague, consider
identifying the minimum terms you can possibly accept and beyond which you must
recess to gather more information. The worst agreement you are willing to accept
before ending negotiations.
B. About the Other Side. The final agreement will reflect not only your own
preferences, but the other party's as well. Thus, it is useful to ask the same
questions about the other party as you ask about yourself.
1. How important is each issue to them (plus any new issues they added)?
2. What is their best alternative to negotiated agreement?
3. What is their resistance point?
4. Based on questions B.1, B.2, and B.3, what is your target? Set target
based on what you know about the other side.
C. The situation. These are additional contextual factors to consider to help
you maximize your advantages and minimize your risk of making mistakes.
1. What deadlines exist? Who is more impatient? The negotiator who feels a
greater sense of urgency will often make rapid concessions in an effort to
secure a deal quickly.
2. What fairness norms or reference points apply? The abstract discussion may
be less threatening or emotionally charged than the negotiation details, and may
result in a more cooperative tone and outcome for the negotiation.
3. What topics or questions do you want to avoid? How will you respond if
they ask anyway? If there are things you do not want to discuss, prepare your
deflections in advance and polish them until they are seamless.
D. The Relationship between the Parties
1. Will negotiations be repetitive? If so, what are the future consequences
of each strategy, tactic, or action you are considering? Consider whether you
expect or want to continue a business relationship with the party across the
table.
2. (a) Can you trust the other party? What do you know about them?
Inquire how this company conducts negotiations. How much you trust the other
party will influence your negotiating style.
(b) Does the other party trusts you?
3. What do you know of the other party's styles and tactics? Different
negotiators have different personal or cultural preferences. You are likely to
secure the best deal and have the most positive interaction if you learn about
their style in advance and try to accommodate it.
4. What are the limits to the other party's authority? Most negotiators,
unless they are the CEOs of their companies, are authorized to negotiate only
certain specified issues and within certain ranges.
5. Consult in advance with the other party about the agenda. Consider calling
the other party beforehand to share what issues you plan to discuss and to ask
what issues the other party might raise.

--
Jaime A. Latorre

Article: Rethinking the Culture-Negotiation Link

Rethinking the Culture-Negotiation Link
By Robert J. Janosik
(Summarized by CS)

Practicing negotiators have tended to rely on the concept "culture," or on related notions like national style, to explain behavior encountered at the international bargaining table. Since the notion of culture as an explanatory tool holds such allure for negotiation analysts, this paper will examine the treatment of "culture" with important consequences for the understanding of the culture-negotiation connection. I have identified 4 distinct approaches: culture as learned behavior, culture as shared value, culture as dialectic and culture-in-context.

CULTURE AS LEARNED BEHAVIOR

The notion of culture, and searching for the organizing principles behind it, resorts to generalizations based on the observed typical characteristics and behaviors of the inhabitants of a particular geo location. Therefore, the focus if often on what negotiators do, rather than what they think – with very little analysis of when/why/how the behavior pattern occurs (which relies greatly on the sensitivity of the observer).
• In 1716 de Callieres wrote "On the Manner of Negotiating with Princes" and hypothesized that there is a direct relationship b/w negotiating behavior and place of birth (Spanish diplomats never act in haste and always try to conclude with an advantage).
• In 1963 Harold Nicholson wrote "Diplomacy" and suggests that a nation's diplomacy is a function of the country's norm and values (there are differences in the theory/practice of the Great Powers…caused by variation in national character, etc.).
• The first US Consul General to Japan, Townsend Harris, got increasingly frustrated by long-enduring trade negotiations in 1930 and vented: "the Japanese do not regard the promise they gave me last…to lie, for a Japanese, is simply to speak."
• In 1970, Howard F. Van Zandt's "How to Negotiate in Japan" noted 13 distinctive behavior characteristics commonly encountered by Americans in talks with the Japanese (avoidance of 'no', gift-giving, etc.).
• Flora Lewis' observations of US-Saudi Arabian relations in 1979 continue the theme of experiential observations: "the Arabs nod their heads and listen, but this does not mean that they agree."
These writers, then, view their task in terms of making it possible for others in the same position to successfully manage for others in the same or similar future situations. Although this is very valuable, it's also a very limited approach.

CULTURE AS SHARED VALUE

A second commonly-applied approach is where the analyst will search for a central cultural value or norm that distinguishes each of the groups being compared – assuming that thinking precedes doing and that one's thinking patterns derive from one's cultural context. From the practitioner's point of view, this is quite appealing (much as the first option) because it suggests an almost inevitable (thereby predictable) pattern of negotiating behavior.
• Mushakoji Kinhide in 1976, contrasted US and Japanese negotiating styles. US = erabi culture, Japanese = awase. Erabi = a behavior seqeuence whereby a person sets the objective, develops a plan based on the objective and then acts to change the environment according to the plan (present a clear statement of position and expect the same). Awase = assumes the environment must be adjusted to (prefer infer the other's position, avoid early commitments).
• "Smart Bargaining: Doing Business with the Japanese" (Graham and Sano, 1984) point to a set of cluster values that contribute to the Japanese style: amae (indulgent dependency), wa (the maintenance of harmony), and shinyo (gut feeling). According to the authors, Americans have a tendency to negotiate in "John Wayne Style" – preferring short, informal negotiations that emphasize the quality of the participants.
Another variant of this approach is to regard the nexus of culture/negotiation to a nation's ideology, of which there are 3 recognized: Liberalism, Fascism and Communism.
• In 1968, Kenneth T. Young examined the history of US-Chinese negotiations from the perspective of their ideology: "a Chinese Communist negotiator is an ideologist more than anything else…Maoist ideology has enclosed China w/in a new ideological wall." "Typically, then, this kind of negotiator tried to outflank his opponent and weaken him by every conceivable means at every possible point."
• In 1951, "Negotiating with Russians" finds that Western observers usually ascribe deception, dissimulation, rigidity, non-accommodation, hostility and harassment to both Soviet and Chinese Communist diplomatic representatives.

CULTURE AS DIALECTIC

This is a different model of the makeup of culture in negotiations, based on a proposed identity made up of sets of polar opposites. This model was created in response to criticisms of the other models that offered only simplified single culture values; this one is defined by the tensions/dialectics that exist embedded in every culture. And whereas the other models were static and unchanging, this one allows both individual variation and changes over time. However, this model not deterministic and is therefore more difficult to wield in negotiations with great utility.
• Michael Blaker's "Japanese International Negotiating Style" (1977) cites two forces in Japanese negotiations: "harmonious cooperation" (avoid discord at all costs within the social/business matrix) and "the warrior ethic" (encourages risk-taking in dogged pursuit of a cause). Both have strong grounding in Japanese history, both are legitimate.
• He also describes 5 norms of Japanese bargaining action: overcoming domestic opposition, dispelling western resistance, secrecy, careful deliberations and situational adaptation; and 3 norms of Japanese negotiating tactics – optimism, fatalism and nonmoral pragmatism. (probe/push/panic tactical style of negotiating)

CULTURE–IN–CONTEXT

The fourth approach is the most complex, and suggests that human behavior can only be accounted for by understanding three primary components – the individual's personality, cultural values and the social context in which the individual operates. (Any less than this multi-faceted overview is inadequate, per the proponents of this model.) This model is now greatly favored by analysts, because it holds in common the assumption that though culture is important, it is not the only contributor to an individual's negotiating behavior. Rather, culture is interdependent, interactive. Particularly important are the factors that define the individual negotiator (age, gender, religion and personality) as well as those factors which define the context of the negotiation. In other words, nationality/culture does have in important role to play, but any generalizations about the nationality/culture nexus may require modification to account for the age, religion, gender mentioned above. But
as the complexity of this model increases, its utility for the practitioner decreases (fewer 'do's and don'ts, more complex answers).

OBSERVATIONS

The goals of the scholars and the participant-observers differ somewhat, and so there has been a tendency to dismiss or downplay the problems of definition and conceptualization in the examination of the various 'contributory' factors to the phenomenon of negotiation. Practitioners prefer either the 1st or 2nd model for its high degree of predictability concerning the behavior of the target group; scholars prefer either the 3rd or 4th that are more psychological and make prediction more complex and risky enterprise. So although all the models are important, the 1st and 2nd approaches have more to do with what has been called 'etiquette', and although this is an important conversation, but it must ultimately move on to more complex matters that lie at the heart of understanding if there's some trans-national, trans-cultural understanding of the fundamental nature of negotiation itself.

IBWA Here We Come!!!

Hey Everyone!

We're visiting the International Bottled Water
Association (IBWA) in DC. Here are some FAQs, enjoy!!

BB

What is IBWA?

What is the International Bottled Water Association?
The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) is
the trade association representing the bottled water
industry. Founded in 1958, IBWA's membership includes
U.S. and international bottlers, distributors and
suppliers.

Who Are Our Member Companies?

IBWA member companies range in size from the original
family-owned and operated water bottlers to giant,
diversified food corporations who have added bottled
water to their product lines. From the manufacturers
of equipment to small distributors, to the rapidly
increasing number of international members, are all
important segments of the bottled water industry and
IBWA.

Why Do Companies Become IBWA Members?

IBWA plays an active role at all levels of state and
federal government assisting in the development of
stringent regulations for bottled water to ensure the
greatest safety possible and high quality of bottled
water products. IBWA has supported the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration and state regulators/legislators
in the development of strict regulations that will
help guarantee bottled water's quality.
IBWA has also developed a Model Code which has been
used as model regulation in many states. Additionally,
as a condition of membership, bottlers must submit to
an annual, unannounced inspection administered by an
independent internationally recognized third-party
organization. This inspection assures that all IBWA
bottler members meet federal, state and IBWA
requirements for the production and sale of bottled
water.

Bottled water code:
http://www.bottledwater.org/public/pdf/IBWA05ModelCode_Mar2.pdf

Negotiation Techniques

Negotiation Techniques

Summary: Lawyers who understand these common negotiation techniques can plan their strategies more effectively. They can enhance their skill in the information phase, increase the likelihood that they will achieve acceptable agreements during the competitive phase, and endeavor to maximize the gains obtained for their clients in the cooperative phase.
I. Reading 3-1: Negotiation Techniques: How to Keep Br'er Rabbit Out of the Briar Patch
Three Formal Phases of the Negotiation Process
A. Informative Phase – knowledge and desires of opposing party (strengths, weaknesses, strategies)
· Try to learn as much as possible
· Determine underlying needs and interests behind opponent's positions
· Decide what information you are willing to disclose vs. what you are required to disclose
· Use blocking techniques to minimize unnecessary disclosure

B. Competitive Phase – articulation of your own demands
· Principled Offers and Concessions – High, but rational objectives, rational explanation for changes of position
· Argument – Factual and legal arguments, emotional appeals in some circumstances
· Threats and Promises – Overt and implicit threats, less challenging warnings, "split the difference approach" (one side promises to move halfway if the other side does too)
· Silence and Patience – The more you talk, the more information you disclose and the more concessions you make
· Limited Authority – Actual or fabricated, used to obtain a psychological commitment to settlement and to get concessions before actual negotiation begins
· Anger – likely to offend opponents and disclose information, used to show seriousness
· Uproar – threatening dire consequences, need to consider how likely it is to actually happen
· Settlement Brochures and Video Presentations – states factual or legal basis for a claim
· Boulwareism – "best offer first" or "take it or leave it"
· Br'er Rabbit – use reverse psychology, make opponent feel like you have accepted an unfavorable argument
· Mutt and Jeff – One reasonable negotiator professes sympathy toward the concessions made by the other party, while his partner rejects each new offer as insufficient (good cop/bad cop)
· Belly Up – wolves in sheepskin, effectively refuse to participate in negotiation process
· Passive-Aggressive Behavior – such as showing up late for meetings, not bringing important documents, failing to write up agreed-upon terms

C. Cooperative Phase
n Explore alternatives that might enhance the interests of both sides
n Parties can initial or sign their current agreement, and then seek to improve their joint results
n Still a competitive phase, using power-bargaining techniques

II. Reading 3-2: Secrets of Power Negotiation
A. The Myth of "Win-Win" – more important is the ability to convince other party that they have won
B. Ask for more than you expect to get
n "Effectiveness at the negotiating table depends on overstating demands"
n Maximum Plausible Position – most you can ask for and still be credible

C. Never say yes to the first offer
· Flinch – always react with shock and surprise
· Avoid Confrontation – agree initially and then turn it around (Feel, Felt, Found Formula)

D. Play the reluctant buyer or reluctant seller – "wish number" and "walk-away price"

E. The Vise Technique – "You'll have to do better than that"

F. Don't Worry about Price – find other ways to make opponent feel like he/she is winning

G. Higher Authority – say that you have to consult with a higher authority, opponent will make more concessions to a person they don't see or know

H. Don't Split the Difference – let the opponent suggest splitting the difference, makes them feel like they won something

I. Set it Aside – focus on other issues, then change the people in the negotiating team or the venue

J. The Art of Concession – don't fall into a pattern of concessions, don't make equal-size concessions, never make the final concession a big one

K. Make Time Your Ally – more time = more concessions (80% of concessions occur in last 20% of negotiations)

L. The Most Dangerous Moment – most vulnerable is when you think the negotiations are over, don't show emotions or disclose any information

M. Your Most Powerful Weapon – Walk-Away Power – give the impression that you can walk away from the negotiations at any time