Tag Archive | "Negotiation"

Advanced Interdisciplinary Collaborative Practice Workshop – Nov. 9-10

Collaborative Practice specialist Victoria Smith leads a two-day workshop to further engage those trained in collaborative practice.

Agenda Day 1:
• Introductions/Goals/Learning Objectives
Overview of Collaborative Process & Professionals

• Advocacy in a Settlement Context – Role play
Redefining the Role of the Advocate
What we keep from traditional advocacy and what’s new
The Spectrum of Advocacy within Collaborative Practice
Understanding Conflict – Role play

• Overview of Interest-based Negotiation
Spectrum of Interests/Core Concerns
The Neuroscience of Interest-based Negotiation – Role play

• The Synergy of Neutrals and Advocates

• Key Communication Skills
Active Listening
Reframing
Non-defensive Questioning
“I” Statements

• Understanding Fairness
Question & Answer

Agenda Day 2:
• Roadmap of the Team Case
Comprehensive Team Protocols

• Initial Client Meeting – Role play

• The Role of the Law in an Interest
Based Process Understanding Power

• The Interplay between Fairness, the Law & Interests

• Option Generation

• Questions & Answers
Wrap-up & Closing
_____________________

National Speaker:
Victoria Smith, Victoria Smith Collaborative PC
A Toronto family lawyer with over 30 years of experience. Her passion and life work is to help clients to resolve their separation and divorce wisely and with dignity, and to support an evolution in the legal profession from adversarial advocacy to conflict resolution advocacy. Over 15 years ago, she confined my practice to out-of-court settlement work using Collaborative Law/Collaborative Practice and mediation. She has successfully resolved hundreds of mediations and collaborative cases. She provides workshops to collaborative professionals across North America and internationally to critical acclaim.

She is an empathic and solution-oriented lawyer and mediator, with a recognized capacity to negotiate creative settlements that meet her client’s needs and goals. She believes in educating, coaching and empowering her clients through a separation process that successfully prepares them for the future. Her goal is to help her clients receive their best possible outcome with the least possible emotional and financial turmoil.
_____________________

Bring a mental health or financial professional & save….
Receive 50% off tuition of second and third professional after first registrant pays full tuition.

To take advantage of this tremendous savings, simply use the following discount codes when prompted at “checkout” and the second and third registrant receive 50% off tuition after the first registrant pays full tuition:
Discount Code for One Colleague = 1colleague
Discount Code for Two Colleagues = 2colleagues
_____________________

ADVANCED INTERDISCIPLINARY
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE WORKSHOP
12 CLE / 12 CME – Thursday & Friday, November 9-10

LIVE IN-PERSON ONLY SEMINAR
– ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Highlighted Seminars0 Comments

Dealing with the Untrustworthy – Part 2

NOTES ON NEGOTIATIONS
By Marty Latz, Latz Negotiation Institute

“We had a deal. Then he tried to slip something in that we had not even discussed. It was significant, too. Not a huge change. But not a minor issue, either. And it wasn’t inadvertent or a mistake. He intentionally did it. Frustrating, to say the least. It raised an issue of credibility and trust.”

Should you walk? It depends.

First, it depends on whether the deal primarily involves a one-shot zero-sum transaction with relatively few issues and no future relationship between the parties. If so, you might decide it’s worth it to close. Otherwise, especially if you will have to work with your counterpart to implement the deal, seriously consider walking away.

Second, and related to the first, evaluate your leverage. Your counterpart’s sleazy tactic (we call these “nibblers” in the negotiation world) changed the value of your deal with them – and made it worse. So re-evaluate it now relative to your Plan B, your alternative to doing that deal.  If your Plan B now appears better than this deal, walk.

This evaluation should also include your personal attitude toward risk and conflict. Your counterpart’s trust-raising tactic increases the risk and possible conflicts and problems involved in the deal and with this counterpart.

Roger Fisher, co-author of the bestseller Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, once said “trust is a matter of risk analysis.” He’s right. The more you trust, the more you risk. The less you trust, the less you risk.

It just became riskier for you to trust your counterpart. The deal also became riskier. Folks like this will be less reliable and trustworthy on all fronts.

If you have spent your life building a company and want to sell it and retire, you likely will not accept a handshake deal with a stranger. Way too risky.

And while you can try to legally nail down in writing as many contingencies as you can, it’s tough to completely eliminate the trust factor in any deal. It’s especially difficult if the deal involves a future relationship between the parties.

Manage the risk.

So what should you do if you decide to keep the deal? At the least, request an equivalent or greater concession in return. Don’t just give in. If you do, they’ll nibble more. After all, it worked. Why not keep on nibbling?

In addition, consider these strategies. I also recommend these if you find your counterpart untrustworthy due to other factors (like your research into their reputation, they made material misrepresentations in the negotiation, they used other sleazy tactics, etc.).

  • Independently confirm all statements that may provide your counterpart with leverage or power, especially if they involve the existence of an alternative deal.
  • Discount the relevance of statements that cannot be confirmed.
  • Document and then confirm in writing the party’s commitments.
  • Consider recording the negotiation.
  • Aggressively explore your potential alternatives (Plan Bs).
  • Be especially wary of vague and ambiguous statements and commitments.
  • Understand that such negotiations take more time and effort than others and recognize this cost in doing business with this person.
  • Pay attention to the details and don’t leave ambiguous issues unresolved.
  • Consider bringing in an independent third party to help.
  • Specifically define what constitutes a breach.
  • Provide a fair and efficient mechanism to ensure commitments get satisfied or to resolve disputes that may arise from a potential breach. (We use escrow agents in some transactions for this very purpose. It’s too risky to trust the other side will just comply based on our agreement – so escrow agents manage it.)

Of course, don’t lower yourself to their level. Your reputation is too important to risk.

Latz’s Lesson:  Sometimes we have to deal with untrustworthy individuals. Protect yourself.

______________________________________________________________________

Marty Latz will be presenting again this year at the ICLEF Conference Facility!
December 1 – Gain the Edge! Negotiating to Get What you Want, 6 CLE / 6 CME / 1 E

______________________________________________________________________

Marty Latz is the founder of Latz Negotiation Institute, a national negotiation training and consulting company, and ExpertNegotiator, a Web-based software company that helps managers and negotiators more effectively negotiate and implement best practices based on the experts’ proven research.  He is also the author of Gain the Edge! Negotiating to Get What You Want (St. Martin’s Press 2004). He can be reached at 480-951-3222 or Latz@ExpertNegotiator.com

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Negotiation/Mediation Blog0 Comments

Negotiation Trust and Credibility – Part 1

NOTES ON NEGOTIATIONS
By Marty Latz, Latz Negotiation Institute

“Everyone lies in negotiations. And everyone knows everyone lies in negotiations. So why should we care? Shouldn’t we just assume our counterpart is not telling the truth, should not be trusted, and behave accordingly?”

No. Making these assumptions would be highly counterproductive and inaccurate. Everyone doesn’t lie in negotiations. And we shouldn’t assume our counterparts don’t tell the truth and should not be trusted.

But credibility and trust issues do raise critical problems that infuse many negotiations. And some people do lie and cannot be trusted.

Since these issues permeate many negotiations, we will address it in two columns. We will first focus on why we even care about trust and credibility in negotiations.

Next month, we will address what to do if your counterpart cannot be trusted.

So why care? Because your and your counterparts’ trust, credibility, honesty, and reputation directly impact your negotiation results.

Studies show the extent that parties mutually trust each other leads to maximum success in many negotiation contexts.

The opposite, too. Parties’ distrust leads to lack of information sharing (a crucial element of negotiation effectiveness), inefficiencies, wasted time, high transaction costs, implementation problems, and lost deals.

Without trust, I will be less willing to work with you to satisfy our mutual and sometimes competing interests. We may not even engage, leaving us with a suboptimal resolution to a problem we both face.

Assume I’m looking for a contractor to build an addition to my house. I get several bids. XYZ’s bid, after our initial negotiation, is the lowest by $10,000. And his references say he does excellent work.

But I also reach out to my LinkedIn and Facebook networks to research his reputation.

One mutual connection tells me XYZ orally promised her certain prices on changes that arose during her renovation. He reneged.

The other emails me XYZ used cheap piping despite promising top quality.

I will likely go with the next lowest contractor. XYZ lost my business. And I paid more for my addition. Lose-lose, due to lack of trust and credibility.

Or let’s say I still go with XYZ. But I end up spending a ton of time detailing the parts used, every possible contingency, and negotiate everything into a contract with airtight provisions relating to a possible breach.

It may still be better than my alternative, given the cost difference and risk involved. But we both lost time and effort having to dot every “i” and cross every “t.”

Trust and credibility also disproportionately and negatively impact negotiations involving parties expecting future relationships.

A colleague recently completed a nine-month negotiation involving a long-term partnership between his company and a serial entrepreneur interested in further funding and managing it. Neither party would have closed had either heard a hint the other party had trust or credibility issues.

“Hold on,” you respond. “This sounds great. But it’s a no-brainer that you want a reputation as trustworthy and credible, right?”

Wrong. Many negotiators put their reputations at risk by playing fast and loose with the truth. Perhaps they make up an alternative to their deal in an effort to create leverage. Or they play games like orally reaching a deal and then nibbling for more. Or they threaten their counterpart in a fit of anger.

Of course, sometimes these strategies work – short-term. And then only if the negotiation involves just a few zero-sum issues (where one dollar more for one necessarily means one dollar less for the other).

But reputation-risking strategies rarely work long-term. Eventually these tactics come to light. Reputations suffer.

Years ago, I raised some money for my software company. I had an investor willing to put in $100,000. But my research turned up a fraud-related problem on his SEC record. I turned down his money. Too risky.

I eventually closed that round – but it took more of my time and effort. He lost out too.

Two final notes. One, it’s not only about getting the best deals. It’s also about behaving morally and ethically.  You’ll never regret doing the right thing in a negotiation.

And two, your reputation rests on what your counterpart says about you after the negotiation. Not what you hope they say. Remember this next time you consider a tactic some might find too close to the line.

Latz’s Lesson:  Trust, credibility and an honest reputation lead to better and more successful negotiations and deals.  Don’t put them at risk.

______________________________________________________________________

Marty Latz will be presenting again this year at the ICLEF Conference Facility!
December 1 – Gain the Edge! Negotiating to Get What you Want, 6 CLE / 6 CME / 1 E

______________________________________________________________________

Marty Latz is the founder of Latz Negotiation Institute, a national negotiation training and consulting company, and ExpertNegotiator, a Web-based software company that helps managers and negotiators more effectively negotiate and implement best practices based on the experts’ proven research.  He is also the author of Gain the Edge! Negotiating to Get What You Want (St. Martin’s Press 2004). He can be reached at 480-951-3222 or Latz@ExpertNegotiator.com

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Negotiation/Mediation Blog1 Comment

Effective Threats

Marty Latz will be presenting again this year at the ICLEF Conference Facility!
December 1 – Gain the Edge! Negotiating to Get What you Want, 6 CLE / 6 CME / 1 E

_____________________________

Notes on Negotiation: Effective Threats
By Marty Latz, Latz Negotiation Institute

“I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse,” Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) says in The Godfather. Perhaps the greatest movie threat ever, Corleone had dominant negotiation leverage – his counterpart faced certain death if he refused Corleone’s “offer.”

By contrast, the media recently reported that President Donald Trump instructed Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to speak with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on health care and “remind” her of the Interior Department’s control of many issues affecting Alaska.

Trump’s threat didn’t change her vote against the Republican plan.

Of course, I’m not suggesting Trump behave like the Godfather. But there are effective and ineffective threats.

If and when and how should you use threats?

First, understand the fundamental nature of threats. Northwestern Professor Adam Galinsky and Brigham Young Professor Katie Liljenquist define a threat as “a proposition that issues demands and warns of the costs of noncompliance” in “Putting on the Pressure: How to Make Threats in Negotiations” in Harvard’s Negotiation newsletter.

Threats constitute an often-unspoken element in almost all negotiations. They’re actually a super aggressive effort to exercise leverage. Leverage, as my regular readers know, relates in part to the strength of your alternative to a deal with your counterpart (your Plan B if your deal is Plan A) relative to their alternative to a deal with you (their Plan B).

Your ability to negatively impact their perception of their Plan B through a threat – the costs of noncompliance with your offer – strengthens your leverage. The worse you can make their Plan B seem with a threat, the more likely they will accept your Plan A by comparison.

Threats are also not inherently evil. As Galinsky and Liljenquist note, “[r]esearchers have found that people actually evaluate their counterparts more favorably when they combine promises with threats rather than extend promises alone. Whereas promises encourage exploitation, the threat of punishment motivates cooperation.”

Understanding this, follow these four research-based guidelines in deciding how to use threats.

1.    Strategically Plan Your Threats

“Put your bike away now, or no electronics for a week,” you might threaten after you find your 10-year-old’s bike in the driveway for the umpteenth time.

Every parent has lost their temper at some point. Does it help? Usually not.

Threats based on anger, volatile emotion, and momentary pressures are almost always counterproductive. Galinsky and Liljenquist note that “multiple studies have linked anger to reduced information processing, risky behaviors, and clouded judgment.”

Strategically planning your threats in advance, not reacting instinctively, addresses these concerns. Such planning also reduces the possibility of counterthreats and retaliation, which could escalate and spiral out of control.

The goal of a threat is to satisfy your interests. Use it to motivate cooperation, not to punish.

2.    Threaten Only in Limited Circumstances

Northwestern Professor Jeanne Brett and her colleagues, according to Galinsky and Liljenquist, have identified three circumstances in which threats can be necessary and effective:

  • Getting your counterparts to the table when facing a seemingly intractable deadlock (like threatening aggression or sanctions to get a recalcitrant country to engage in peace talks);
  • Breaking an impasse by signaling strength and fortitude (bullies sometimes only respond if you demand respect by flexing your muscles); and
  • As a mechanism to ensure compliance and implementation of an agreement.

The reason to only threaten in limited circumstances? Even well-crafted threats may carry significant negative consequences, as noted by Galinsky and Liljenquist, including:

  • Provoking resistance and anger, thus decreasing your counterparts’ likelihood of granting your wishes;
  • Undermining an agreement’s legitimacy if your counterpart believes it resulted from coercion; and
  • Inciting a desire for vengeance (“[p]sychologists,” Galinsky and Liljenquist write, “have found that revenge has biological foundations, persisting until it is satisfied, like hunger. The more severe a threat’s consequences, the more extreme the retaliation is likely to be.”)

Don’t make threats a regular part of your repertoire. Selectively use them.

3.    Credible Threats Work – Empty Threats are Counterproductive

Don’t start a war you’re not prepared to fight and finish. Former President Barack Obama famously threatened Syria with severe consequences if it crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons.

What did he do after the world saw unmistakable evidence it had crossed his red line? Said he didn’t have authority from Congress to even engage militarily and negotiated a deal to stop it from happening again.

Did this prevent Syria from doing it again? No. Did Obama and the United States lose significant credibility relating to its future promises and threats with Syria and the rest of the world? Yes.

Reputations matter, especially relating to the credibility of threats.

4.    Frame Your Threats to Satisfy Your Counterparts’ Interests

Effective threats should also be framed so they can be realistically satisfied and not engender ill will. They should thus:

  • be specific and detailed;
  • address your counterpart’s interests;
  • be delivered respectfully in a measured, serious tone;
  • include meaningful consequences;
  • link to a timeline; and
  • possibly include an escape route if circumstances change.

Also use them sparingly in situations involving a future relationship between the parties. Threats can backfire long-term.

Then-President Ronald Reagan in 1981 threatened 12,000 striking air traffic controllers with the loss of their jobs if they did not report back to work “within 48 hours” of his statement. 11,359 did not comply. He fired them.

According to Galinsky and Liljenquist, “[m]any observers view Reagan’s controversial threat and follow-through as a pivotal moment in his presidency and the foundation for future political victories.”

Latz’s Lesson:  I’ve made you an offer here you can easily refuse. Don’t. As Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry would say – “make my day.”

______________________________________________________________________

Marty Latz will be presenting again this year at the ICLEF Conference Facility!
December 1 – Gain the Edge! Negotiating to Get What you Want, 6 CLE / 6 CME / 1 E

______________________________________________________________________

Marty Latz is the founder of Latz Negotiation Institute, a national negotiation training and consulting company, and ExpertNegotiator, a Web-based software company that helps managers and negotiators more effectively negotiate and implement best practices based on the experts’ proven research.  He is also the author of Gain the Edge! Negotiating to Get What You Want (St. Martin’s Press 2004). He can be reached at 480-951-3222 or Latz@ExpertNegotiator.com

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Blog, Negotiation/Mediation Blog0 Comments