ÈȵãºÚÁÏ

A window of opportunity for settlement exists only where there is some overlap between what each of the parties to the dispute considers to be an acceptable outcome.

In my opinion, it is not always desirable to attempt to negotiate an agreement that conclusively resolves all issues. Initial negotiations are often conducted solely to explore the question of whether agreement is possible.

Where the minimum conditions of a party cannot be satisfied through negotiations, the delay involved in negotiation simply protracts the dispute. If there is no area for a potential mutually agreeable solution, it may be preferable to proceed to a binding commitment to have the dispute resolved by some form of mutually acceptable adjudication.

As in all other aspects of leadership, it is essential to balance cost against benefit when considering the offers that are put on the table. Fundamental interest should not be sacrificed merely so that it is possible to say that an agreement has been made.

The goal of negotiation is not simply to reach an agreement. It is to reach an agreement that satisfies as many of the parties’ mutual interests as possible. The agreed solution must not only improve upon the status quo, it must be perceived to do so. The more each party sees its interests as being satisfied, the more likely it will be to live up to the terms and the spirit of the agreement that has been reached.

Conversely, there is a very high incentive to breach where the agreement satisfies few if any of the concerns of one of the parties. Very often, a party who drives a hard bargain merely sows the seeds for further disputes in the future.

Like any dialogue, a negotiation involves an exchange of ideas. Even where a final agreement cannot be reached, both sides have a great deal to gain from such an exchange.

A number of specific guidelines can be offered relating to the exchange of ideas between negotiators.

Specifically, a buyer negotiating on behalf of a municipality should:

• Be sure of the assumptions that serve as the basis for his (or her) municipality’s bargaining position, along with the grounds on which those assumptions are based. The assumptions should be subjected to a reality check before proceeding to negotiation. Assumptions need not (and in many cases, should not) be disclosed to the other party. However, it is vital to listen to what is being said by the other party (and to the other sources of information as well) while negotiations proceed. Assumptions may be reasonable when first made but subsequently become unrealistic as additional information is acquired. If contrary evidence comes forward, the entire approach towards negotiation may need revision.
• Be sure of his (or her) municipality’s own goals and understand why they are desired goals. The relative priority of each goal also needs to be understood. If the organization has goals A, B and C, would it be prepared to give up C, in order to get A and B alone; or are A and B valueless without C. Thus, the interrelationship between the goals needs to be understood.
• During the course of negotiations, attempt to verify all beliefs that are held concerning the assumption made by the other party. Often this can be done by asking questions and analyzing the answers given. It is also essential to clarify specifically what the other party is seeking. If this is not done, there is a serious risk of confusion.
• Learn as much as possible about the other side by listening carefully to the answers that are given by the other party, paying as much attention to what is not said as to what is said. A negotiator should prepare in advance the answers that he or she expects to receive from the other side.