NEGOTIATIONS


Gunnar Barkenhammar
2018
Copyright









TABLE OF CONTENTS



1. Negotiation and selling 4

2. The negotiator 7

3. The negotiation gap 12

4. Preparations 14

5. The psychology of the negotiation 17

6. Negotiation strategies 21

7. Negotiation tactics 22

8. Manoeuvring 26

9. Argumentation 29

10. Conflicts 31

11. Conflict settlements 33

12. Hawks, doves and owls as negotiators 35










This paper is about business negotiations. A good businessman is also a good negotiator. Maybe the negotiation skill is an art rather than craftsmanship.
Business negotiations may not differ significantly from other negoti-ations. Nor should the current negotiations differ significantly from yesterday’s.
This paper has few references and where they do occur, it’s because the source maybe worth reading for those who want to find out more about a specific subject. There is an academic version of this paper with all the notes and the references, but this paper is written for those who make a living from negoti-ations.
May be it could be interesting to see how other negotiators are nego-tiating; thereby finding new ideas and new approaches. Hopefully you’ll recog-nize some of the situations described and be able to compare how you should have acted in the same situation.
May be you get the impression that negotiations are just cheating and bluffing. For sure it is so when cheaters are involved. However, the vast majori-ty of negotiations have the objective to reach a mutually acceptable solution and to build confidence and trust for future cooperation.




Unnecessary wisdom
you better save until you find
yourself in danger

Axel Wallengren 1846-1896, ali-as Falstaff, fakir



1. NEGOTIATING AND SELLING

It looks like the procurement decisions are moved higher up on the corpo-rate ladder and that more decision makers than before are involved in the final decisions. Earlier the decision could be taken between a buyer and a seller, while nowadays they are taken between groups of decision makers. Thus it seems not really appropriate to talk about selling like it is a different situation that confronts us today. That’s why I refer to this transaction pro-cess as “negotiations” or business negotiations.
Let’s just for a moment go back to the time when our ancestors lived by hunting and fishing. Imagine a hunter who had plenty of meat, but no fish, and a fisherman who had plenty of fish, but no meat. The two should be quite interested in a cooperation. However, how much meat is one fish worth, and how many bass are there to a hare? What about it if the fisherman has plenty of fish and hasn’t had meat for a long time. Or if there are many hunters and few fishermen.
Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonald's, passionately describes how he started McDonald's. At the age of 52, as a salesman of mixers, he’s visiting a restaurant located in a suburb of Los Angeles. The restaurant is owned by the McDonald brothers, and when looking at the restaurant from his car he gets the idea of what was to become McDonald's.

"I was swayed by the affable openness of the McDonald broth-ers. The meeting was extremely cordial. I trusted them from the outset. That trust later would turn to bristling suspicion."

The McDonald brothers and Ray Kroc agree upon cooperation. Kroc is granted the rights to exploit the idea on a national basis, but....

"....there was one other agreement they hadn't told me about, and that was for Cook County, Illinois, where I had my home, my office and my first model store. The brothers had sold Cook County to the Frejlack Inc Cream Company for $5000! It cost me $25 000 to buy that area from Frejlacks,....."

Kroc decided to buy out the McDonald brothers. "....so I called Dick McDonald and asked him to name their price.... They were asking $2.7 million."

The amount is a shock to Ray Kroc, who tries to borrow the money. A conglomerate shows up, which he refers to as the Twelve Apostles. They agree on an amount that will give the Twelve Apostles four times the money…

"In return for $2.7 million in cash... The Twelve Apostles... wound up making about $12 million on it..."

Apparently the salesman Ray Kroc became a better negotiator over the years.
To be willing to negotiate both parties must feel they can gain some-thing on the cooperation, that it should be mutually beneficial. The parties must share common ground.
Typical for this shared interest is that it is contradictory. There is a competitive ambition to ensure a benefit for one’s own party. There is also a mu-tual objective to reach a fair settlement for future business. Both parties want to pay as little as possible, and to get as much as possible. However, if no deal is closed neither party will make a profit.
Each and every negotiation is specific with conditions of its own. How many negotiators are taking part from each side and what kind of positions are they representing. Is this the first time they meet? What is the complexity of the negotiation? What kind of power does each party have? One small company against one big? What time do they have at their disposal?
Most negotiations follow a certain pattern. It’s around this pattern this paper is designed.
The negotiation is an interaction process between two or more par-ties, who are trying to achieve a certain outcome. Like the fisherman and the hunter in the example above, the two parties have something the other party wants. The mutual interests between the parties are the drive for the negotiation. These shared interests make the parties evaluate their negotiating positions. What can we offer and what can we get in return? Implicitly or explicitly the parties have an objective for the negotiation. Either before the negotiation or during the negotiation process.
The negotiation process is very much like a game where the players act as buyer or seller, as customers or suppliers, as employers or as employees. These roles are reinforced by previous negotiations with the same opponent, the expectations of the audience and on conventional perceptions of what should be a fair outcome of the negotiations. And fair is a key word for the audience.
The shared interests that brought the parties together can be strength-ened or weakened during the negotiation process. A crucial factor is how the players choose their roles. Roles emphasizing cooperation between the parties tend to reinforce the cohesion between the parties, while the roles emphasizing competition lead to conflicts. The dilemma between sacrifices in order to have a good co-operation and potential profits can be considered as the scale of a bal-ance for the negotiation.
Each negotiation will reach a point where the parties evaluate the outcome and what can be gained by a conflict. At this point the parties tend to swing in their arguments between more or less implied threats to stop the negoti-ations and refer to the shared interests. Here the negotiation process has reached a crucial stage where this embryo for a conflict can escalate or it can be wiped out by a new approach.
Conflict solution, finally, is a creative process depending on the will-ingness and the capacity for creative thinking, most probably after a long and hard session.


"You are as you are
when you aren’t
as you should have been”

Nomen Nescio



2. THE NEGOTIATOR

Just as difficult as it is to become a good singer without at least a minor musical talent, it is difficult to become a good negotiator without a modest talent. Like other talents, the ability to negotiate can be improved by instruction and practice.
A negotiator is – obviously- a human being with human short-comings and qualities. He works better with certain individuals and not so good with others.
Since childhood, he has been formed into the person he is to-day. He has been influenced by parents and teachers, managers and col-leagues; he has listened to advice and to encouragements. He has been suc-cessful in some areas and less successful in other areas. He has tried differ-ent solutions to different kind of problems.
As an adult, he has established a fairly stable pattern of behav-iour. He tends to react the same way, to the same type of triggers. He reacts in one way to some things and in another way to others. We know his per-sonality and we have our opinion about him.
The point is that it is difficult for us to change our way of being and behaving and it is difficult to change this pattern. Once we are trapped in a pat-tern we repeat the pattern, whether it is successful or not. It looks like we cannot learn from our mistakes. We redo them over and over again. Not very encourag-ing for us who want to become better negotiators.
There is no doubt about it that our personality affects our ability to cooperate and to run into conflicts. An aggressive and rigid personality is more prone to conflicts than a defensive and flexible individual. A suspi-cious person gets more frequently in conflict than one that is less suspi-cious. A seller who’s well established is more likely to cooperate than those who do not have the same self-confidence. And the foundation for creative thinking associated with it.
We also have different abilities to tolerate a state of conflict and to tolerate disorder. The larger this tolerance is the better the negotiator.
The negotiating climate is affected negatively if you react to the other party's arrogance, digs and late tackles. Watch out for unexpected openings from the opponent. He may have sent up a trial balloon or simply expressed himself ambiguously. An indifferent, but friendly approach should bring the best result. A negotiator should be able "to suffer fools gladly" and be "tolerant und finde jede Idiote interessant.”
The more or less intrinsic ability to persuade and to influence differs from individual to individual as we are too much aware of. Some people have a charisma that fascinates, a charismatic personality. Others have power and titles that we are dazzled by, others have an impressive knowledge. All giving the ne-gotiator an authority that makes it easier for him to influence. The more power and authority a party can present the easier it will be for that party to influence the other party.
Another factor in the personality is the propensity to be on defense. "It’s not our fault that we now are where we are." Such a comment tends to bring forth the same defensive attitude from the opponent. "And it is not our fault either." Instead of a defence, the attitude is perceived as an attack and the conflict has started to escalate.
Even if it’s not intentional, heavily loaded words can be inter-preted hurtful and irritating. To emphasize one’s “honesty” may indicate that your opponent does not possess the same moral calibre. Or even that the other party starts questioning our honesty. Insinuations will make this even worse.
Categorical and doctrinaire negotiators are hardly the best of negotia-tors. Their mental barriers are true obstacles to unprejudiced solutions. Most suc-cessful businessmen have shown their ability to find unprejudiced solutions.
A good negotiator loves to negotiate, to manipulate – which is the essence of a negotiation. He must have a feeling about people allowing him to evaluate them, to see their real intentions and their rationalizations.
It happens that we put labels on the other party: "he is totally unable to compromise" "he has a fox behind each ear", "he’s easy going and easy to deal with." This classification could be misleading. People act differently in dif-ferent situations and an opponent does not always meet our expectations. The caricatures below are a rather known list just as an example. It has four cartoon figures - the bureaucrat, the lieutenant, the liberal and the social welfare officer. And of course combinations of the four:

The bureaucrat is analytical and rational. He believes in facts and logic, he’s sys-tematic and conventional. He tries to evaluate all options and its pros and cons. He has problem accepting changes and he has a conservative approach. He will rarely, if ever, accept new, unconventional solutions. He is focused on results, and he finds little pleasure in the negotiation process. He persistently argues for his opinions even if he finds himself trapped in a corner.

The lieutenant likes to command and to control. He likes action and challenges, he makes proposals and he’s keen to explore new options. He likes to lead, and to deceive. He loves to manipulate. He’s dominant and aggressive. He talks ra-ther than listens. He’s arguing for his own proposals rather than for the others in his team. He’s attacking and he defends what he has gained by all means. He likes to tell the opponent how he thinks they should act.

The liberal is a highly flexible and compromising negotiator. He likes the negoti-ation process more than the outcome. He is sensitive to what the opponent and the audience think of him. He is social, easy-going and charming. He’s flexible – maybe he’s too compromising, all too eager to please. He is clearly creative. The negotiation runs smoothly and as an opponent he’s close to perfect.

Social Welfare Officer is a devoted and an understanding individual. He is un-pretentious, idealistic and willing to give a helping hand. He has a strong confi-dence in his counterparties. When he’s turned down and disillusioned, he be-comes insecure and dependent. He has problems with his fighting spirit and problems to encourage confidence.

A British group of researchers have observed more than 100 nego-tiations has concluded that a good negotiator is characterized by:

1. Avoiding expressions creating irritation – “Why not accepting our generous offer.

2. Advertising in advance what he’s going to say “May I suggest ..May I ask ..

3. Avoiding counterpropositions to the opponent’s propositions. Thus avoiding two opposite sides. Instead he is considering the opponent’s suggestion and will issue his counterproposition at a later stage.

4. Checking if the opponent has understood what he has said. Sum-marizes frequently.

5. Avoiding escalations frequently starting by “It’s not our mis-take… “ the opponent will answer “nor it is ours ..” Or he gets re-ally upset and says “Isn’t it? Then the escalation starts.

6. A good negotiator asks lots of questions. The opponent answers and gives information. At the same time avoids giving infor-mation.

7. Uses only a few strong arguments.

8. Concentrates on mutual interests. The more mutual interests we can find the more conflicts can be solved.

9. Defines the objectives of the negotiation in min, and max alterna-tives rather than stating a specific target.

10. Avoids connecting different issues in sequences, where the answer to question A leads to the answer to question B. Brings up the issues randomly.

11. Gives the opponent carrots. Shows what a result may bring.

12. Takes all the time needed to get a good result.

What are our ambitions for taking part in a stressing negotiation? Please, find below six motives stimulating our efforts.

1. Self-fulfilment. The negotiator tries to understand and to influence his en-vironment. Especially the negotiators wanting to take initiatives. The high-er up in the hierarchy the more distinguished the self-fulfilment. In order to increase their satisfaction they have to be well informed and given a substantial degree of freedom for the negotiation.

2. Cohesion. The motive to search for a feeling of cohesion is based in the insecurity of the individual and cohesion is one way to increase his securi-ty. One way to increase the security is to run training programs and prepa-rations. And then transfer the negotiation to them. Important for the inse-cure is to get a feeling of power and that he has an influence over the situ-ation.

3. Achievement. The motive to achieve something and to get a good result is merely found by challengers and people who want up the ladder. Split the negotiation in partial objectives and make compliments for each target ob-tained.

4. Prestige. The motive is to be recognized. Even here we find the challeng-ers and the people who want up the ladder. The way to increase the will-ingness and the satisfaction when negotiating is to give the negotiator ap-preciation in proportion to the outcome of the negotiation. May be by some kind of commission.

5. Security. There are 2 kinds of motives for security. To avoid risks is one, and this motive we all are well aware of the other one is subconscious in the sense that the individual are looking for companies taking good care of their employees. In fact, security is not a real motive nor even a domi-nant characteristic but rather something we all are looking for. The negoti-ator must have some kind of security. Threats should by all means be avoided as a motivation.

6. Money. Money as such is not a motive. Money should be looked upon as a symbol for status. Like security, money has to be there, but is not an ef-ficient motivator.

Who should be our negotiator? The higher up in the hierarchy the more authori-ty and the better the possibilities to change things. According to this the Presi-dent should head all negotiations. However, due to practical reasons this is not possible. The President cannot possibly know each and every detail which may appear in a negotiation. On the other hand, it can be good to have the President when we are trying to finalize the negotiation.
Regarding the size of the negotiation group it is better to be more than the opponents. At the same time it is good if the groups are as small as pos-sible. The more negotiators the more irrelevant questions will appear. And the more formal the negotiation. It will be harder to find solutions acceptable by all the members in the groups. The negotiation process tends to be slower.
The participants in a negotiation group should complement each oth-er and be responsible for a specific area. I. e. clear roles. By competing roles the group will appear un-united. The group should appear as a united unit and a good way to do this is to follow the tactics lined out by the leader of the group and even so when he departs from the outline.




Variables are not vari-able
Constants are not con-stant
Osborn’s Law



3. THE NEGOTIATION GAP

In our private economy may be our car business and our private home business are the most important to us. Sometimes we appear as buyers and sometimes we appear as sellers.
As an example of the negotiation gap let’s buy a private home. We have seen a house offered at $2,6 million. We want the house and may be the seller will accept $2,4 million. The seller on the other hand ponders that we have a certain limit. What he thinks is impossible to figure out but just imagine that he thinks that we are willing to pay $2,2 million. The negotiation gap should then be between $2,2 million and $2,4 million. Thus, the difference between the buy-er’s idea of the seller’s lower limit and the seller’s idea of the buyer’s upper lim-it.
We have an idea about what our house is worth, and we have an idea of how much a buyer will bargain. When it comes to passenger cars this is even more obvious. We all have a fair idea about the price of the car. And how much we can bargain on a new one. We have an idea what is fair both when it comes to our cars and our homes.
The negotiation gap is based upon our experience from earlier nego-tiations and upon what is fair. As buyers we don’t want to be cheated. We want to pay a fair price and preferably a bit under that price. The negotiation is a learning process.
Even if the negotiation is a gambling process, a challenge, we have to follow certain rules of what is fair and what is not.
The negotiation gap depends on the competition. If only a few house are on the market, the seller will not accept a price far below what he offered the house for.
At the same time, the negotiation gap shrinks if the house has specif-ic qualities attractive for us as buyers. Concerning goods and services we refer to product differentiation. The more we can differ our product from other similar ones the higher the price will be. Petrol is such a product where the sellers have tried everything from product specifications to additives. We clients stick to the price.
The more information we have about our opponent the easier we can get an idea about the negotiation gap. If we know that he can save money by buying our product we get a better idea of what he is willing to pay. Say for in-stance that the pay-off time will be 6 months than we have a good idea of what he’s willing to pay.
Important for the negotiator is to establish the negotiation gap. This is a speciality for used car dealers. The car you will trade in cannot be recog-nized when the used car dealer describes it. It is hard to sell for him and it needs repair. The car he wants to sell to you should have a price tag twice the one which is on the car now. All to change our expectations.
The negotiation gap is not an objective truth that can be analysed and calculated. The negotiation gap is based on earlier experiences and on fairly un-certain information. The negotiation gap can be varied by adding further infor-mation by product differentiation.
Looking upon the negation gap as a purely mathematical problem the parties should be able to establish an equilibrium somewhere between the end points of the negotiation gap added by some kind of commonly establish justice of what is fair. The contribution should be in proportion with the reward.
How much more are we willing to pay for a computer just because it says hp on it? Or a passenger car just because it says Mercedes on it? Or an Elec-trolux vacuum cleaner? These companies have created an added value to their brand names. And why so. Security based on product quality may be the 2 pri-mary components. Especially the bigger clients are able and willing to pay for this extra security. Which is in fact the base for ISO 9000. One other way is to add “hidden” quality like in fashion goods and chemical products. YSL. Lanvin and Dior are good examples.
For producer goods it is fairly easy to establish the negotiation gap. A company trying to lower their costs for heating. First we have find out how much and the investments required and the longest pay-off time acceptable. Let’s assume that the client is paying $ 100 000 annually for the heating. We think we can cut this by 40 000. The investment is 40 000. Thus the pay-off time is 1 year. The client is willing to accept a 3 year pay-off time for this kind of invest-ments, which leaves us with an upper limit of 120 000.
Concerning consumer goods and services it is not that easy and we have to rely on what is considered fair and the image we have been able to create for our product.



Small key can
open big door

Turkish proverb




4. PREPARATIONS

Most of us trust our ability to manage appearing problems at the negotiation ta-ble. Trying to predict what will happen during the negotiation seems impossible.
An experienced salesman can predict questions and objections he’ll get from his clients. He also knows what he’ll answer. The objections he gets differ very little between his clients.
A qualified market analysist can fairly easy get information from open sources. In general terms 80 % of the information needed is available from open sources.
The negotiation is for sure more unique than a salesman’s more or less routine visits to his clients. The negotiation process is more exceptional than the information about it that we can find over the net. Thus, it is rather obvious that we don’t prepare for a negotiation, even if we realized the values of such a preparation. However, let’s speculate over what can be done.
We can list our arguments. We can reformulate them in a smashing way. We can try to predict the objections we’ll meet. We can also try to list the potential questions the opponent will rise and how we may answer these ques-tions and objections.
We can try to figure out how willing we are to meet the opponent’s potential demands. May be we can increase our negotiation gap by adding some-thing to our offer. And we can try to predict the negotiation gap.
We can state our strong points and our weak points. Same with the opponent’s weak and strong points. Which one of us will first run into a time squeeze? May be it is so that the opponent needs the product at a certain time. What does the financial situation looks like. Usually it is the financially strongest part who sets the rules.
Thus, we can do a good deal. The willingness to make preparations is a personal disposition. Certain people are more offensive and some others are more on the defensive side. One other thing for not preparing is simply that we just don’t know how to.
In any case we have to make clear what we have to offer. Which are the advantages and what the disadvantages for our product or service. May be we can adjust our offer to this opponent specifically. May be we can reformulate our offer. What do we know about this specific opponent and his requirements?
Weak arguments weaken the strong ones. To add just another argu-ment in order to strengthen our position is dead loss. The chain isn’t stronger than its weakest link. For our argumentation it is better to have short and strong chains than long and weak. Pick no more than 3 arguments and build the argu-mentation around these.
An old Chinese proverb says “know your enemy, in 100 battles 100 victories“. It’s easier to play cards when you can figure out which cards the op-ponent have. In many cultures there are routines for the opponents to get to know each other. The Japanese tea drinking ceremony is such a routine. And the same sitting ceremonies we can find both in Latin America as in the Middle East. The opponents has to get to know each other. Both for the negotiation and may be most important to check the opponent’s moral calibre. Will he be able to and willing to fulfil an agreement? Or will he just cause us time and efforts. As men-tion above we already know a little about him.
One important thing is to find out what kind of authority the negotia-tor has. Who will finally make and take the decisions. We should try to find out this during the preliminary contact – the tea ceremony.
As mentioned above we know a good deal about the opponent through open sources. Then we can contact the service personnel working for him and his suppliers.
Now we are ready for checking our arguments. Let’s make two teams. One playing us and the other one playing our opponent. Simulate a nego-tiation. Use arguments, counter arguments, objections, and answers to questions and objections. Check how the dialogue will develop, check the substantiality for the arguments, Let the teams switch sides.
How big is the negotiation gap? Can and will we change our image? What is our time limit? Are we working just to close this negation with a good result or are we heading for a long time relationship? We can win the battle but loose the war.
The investigations done about negotiations shows that the negotia-tors as a group didn’t agree about the objective for the negotiation, Nor had they defined their roles and responsibility during the negotiation. The group concen-trated on the opponent’s strong sides and neglected the weak ones. Please, find below some comments:


1. We didn’t prepare enough and especially we missed to analyse the infor-mation we had about our opponent.
2. When we had spent ¾ of the time we had for preparations we still couldn’t agree upon the objective.
3. We didn’t split the roles between us. We all tried to do the same thing.
4. We focussed too much upon our own position and on the strength of our opponent and too little on his weaknesses.
5. We were too much focussed on ourselves.
6. During the negotiation we couldn’t stick to the outline and the objective but went into too many side tracks.
7. We repeated the same thing over and over again. None of us has the ob-jective in mind.

A negotiation is self-indicating as we always can see if we have achieved the tar-get or not. And it is sad to note that our lack of imagination contributed to the fact that we didn’t obtain what we could have obtained.
Without a leader and division of roles it is easy for the opponent to play the popular game to split his opponent. Starting with a minor issue for sup-port among one or two of the opponent participants, and then use him or them to extend the support. Once successful it continues to work.
Each one of the participants in the group should play an expert in his field given to him – his role. Should the negotiation need a specialist it is time to call for the real expert.
Like an orchestra the members of the negotiation team be cultivated. The best way is to play as indicated above.



The heart may have its reasons
the sense may not understand”
Blaise Pascal




5. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE NEGOTIATION

We can act according to the rational world and we can act according to the emo-tional world.
In the rational world we refer to how to quantify, how to measure, to facts and to objectivity. The measures are monetary.
The emotional world is more human. Here we qualify rather than quantify. We refer to subjectivity rather than objectivity. We are human with human advantages and shortcomings.
These two worlds rule in a negotiation. A good number of points can be handled rationally. Measure and create mock-ups for. The rest will be emo-tional.
As being the rational and efficient businessman, the IT specialist, we look upon ourselves as efficient and rational going for what will be best for our company. We see to it that we handle all possible alternatives, objectively evalu-ate and finally make our decision. However, this is not the way it works. More likely we’ll find a solution that works satisfactorily. Simply because we cannot find all alternatives nor can we compare them in a rational way. Most of our de-cisions will be far too complicated when we try to put them into a mathematical formula.
Most of our technical innovations have started by qualitative specula-tions, and then step by step be transformed to quantifications. Then the real pro-gress have taken place. It’s when we can measure we can get the real facts. It is easier to quantify historical facts than a guesstimate for the future.
None of us want to be cheated or betrayed or in another way be mis-treated. We all have our opinion what is fair and what is right. In a negotiation there is also an audience of colleagues, superiors, and even the family. Thus, it is fairly obvious that we want to negotiate with opponents with the same norm sys-tem as we have. We prefer generous, easy going, positive people and we avoid boring, negative ones. Neither our opponents nor we are unique in this respect. Thus we have to make the impression that we are and will be a positive and gen-erous partner. Calm and filled by facts, warm, friendly and easy-going. Smiling.
We try to create a positive environment for the negotiation. Trying to avoid endless discussions and struggling about words. Resulting in conflicts with the risk for escalations.
Even if we feel mistreated we shouldn’t show our dissatisfaction by being sarcastic or by face expressions. Our opponent will immediately take de-fence and the negotiation is stuck.
When entering a negotiation we have a certain invested trust. This trust has to be increased as long as the negotiation proceeds, disregarding the minor things that may happen during the negotiation. No one can force neither us nor our opponent to reach an agreement. Even if we don’t reach an agreement further trust should have been built. Look at the negotiation as a game. Then you have a von oben perspective and won’t be personally involved or committed. Why be angry at an opponent who doesn’t matter to us. It is so little we can do when using our bad temper to make progress. Besides it won’t increase our trust. Just imagine that we meet our 4 individuals from chapter 2. How to handle them:

The bureaucrat looks for result. He is looking for to be recognized because of his efforts. Give him partial objectives and give him credit when they are ob-tained. You can do this by making a list of points to be reached during the nego-tiation. A true bureaucrat will gladly negotiate about most trivia. Start with the not so important ones and give him his victories. "It takes a good fight to make the victory sweet”. When we then reach the important parts he should feel very satisfied with himself. And we answer by experts and hard core facts.

Our lieutenant looks for power. He likes his uniform. Which is fashion clothes and celebrities. Use his devotion for power as an asset. Bring in the personnel as far up in the hierarchy as possible. Choose high fashion premises. Add with symbols. If we bring in second lieutenants he’ll play his game as the command-er. Never try to push him down.

The liberal is highly flexible and compromising as a negotiator. He’s focused on the process rather than the result. He’s sensitive about the opponent’s idea about him and the audience’s. He’s social, easy- going and charming. He can be too flexible, too compromising, too vague, and too eager to please, For sure he’s creative. It is easy to negotiate with him and as an opponent he’s close to perfect.

The social welfare officer is compassionate and understanding. He’s unpreten-tious and always willing to give a helping hand. He trusts his opponent and he’s idealistic. If and when disappointed he’ll be unsure and dependent. He has prob-lems with his fighting spirit and problems to assure confidence.

The same word or the same expression may have different meaning in different countries. Due to our experience we also denote different meaning to the same word. For words like creativity and objectivity you can find hundreds of definitions. All words are not understood by all people. Words like sublime and extrovert there are one few people who instantly can define. Thus it is im-portant for us to use a vocabulary our opponent can understand. If we cannot understand words our opponent is using just ask. Use a technical expression when appropriate otherwise you’ll be looked upon as an amateur.
As a negotiator we play a certain role. We act as actors and according to the role. And will be predictable accordingly, especially as we tie the role to obligations and duties. Certain people even play their role so they appear to be the actor. While other play their role during a limited time and less passionate.
Our entire life is built upon roles. As parents, as neighbours, as cli-ents and as suppliers. In this way we are associated to our society. And some time there will be conflicts between our different roles. An example is middle managers acting both as a boss and a subordinate. “All the world is a stage and we are merely actors," according to Shakespeare.
It’s important to interpret the opponent’s expressions. We nod when we agree, we shake our heads when we disagree. We put our hands together where only the fingers touch each other when we feel satisfied with ourselves. These expressions we do unintentionally and we all have the same expressions.
An interested opponent lean forward in his chair. If he’s uninterested he leans back. Check the opponent when you argue for something. If he leans forward he’s interested, but if he leans back you are on the wrong track. And opponent who feels safe is showing his open hands and may be also opens his jacket. A suspicious opponent is closing his hands, cross his legs and ties his jacket.
It is easy to notice when the opponent gets nervous. His eyes are shifty, he’s adjusting his clothes and he’s fidgeting. When really frustrated he’s scrubbing his nose and the back of his head. His hand is running through his hair. He’s clenching and twisting his fist, his respiration becomes shorter.
These are signals that correspondence with the opponent’s argu-ments. Should gestures and arguments differ we feel that something is wrong.
It is slightly easier to hide our inherited gestures when we are aware of them, it is difficult to totally conceal our feelings, even if there are people known for their poker faces.
A firm attitude generally brings a good result, while a soft attitude doesn’t. A soft attitude is a bad strategy. A tough attitude on the other hand re-duces the possibilities to reach an agreement. Should we, however, be able to reach an agreement, a tough attitude will bring a better result.
It seems fair that if one side is making a concession the other side should make a corresponding concession. This is, however, a learning or experi-ence process rather than a poetic justice. When our concessions aren’t followed by corresponding concessions, we’ll, understandably, be more restrictive with our concessions. Thus, take soundings, before you make concessions. Our op-ponent may get annoyed if we don’t make corresponding concessions. So start with small ones to get a feeling about the opponent’s way of handling our con-cessions.
Put yourself in your head that you’ll be successful in the negotiation and have a positive attitude to yourself.




“Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the dif-ference”

Reinhold Niebuhr



6. NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES

Under this heading I would like to give some basic guidelines how to reach the best possible agreement for us. The word strategy means that we have to adopt to circumstances we cannot control.
Follow the path of least resistance. Try to reach an agreement about the product or service the client wants, rather than going for something the op-ponent is reluctant to.
If our opponent in earlier meetings had rejected a proposition is it useless to bring up the proposition again. The risk for rejection is even bigger the second time. If we still would like to bring it up we have to repack it so it looks like a new proposition.
A capricious and unpredictable opponent is a difficult opponent. The more capricious an opponent acts the easier it is for him to reach an agreement that is beneficial for him. And even easier if he looks like he’s an established and reliable person but acts unpredictable. If we try to answer by acting unpredicta-ble our chances to reach an agreement will be reduced.
Thus, we must act rationally and unpredictable. We must make it clear to the opponent what we want to negotiate about and on which terms. As well as we must make it clear to the opponent that our possibilities to change our terms are limited. We must show that we are willing and able to cooperate, make a rational impression and constrain our emotional reactions. On top of that we should be friendly and courteous leaving an alternative. The more alternatives we leave the more combinations we have and the bigger the negotiation gap. The negotiation gap can be extended by splitting up the deal in payments, warranties, service etc. and then agree upon a reasonable sharing of the responsibilities.
Another strategically important subject is to take and to maintain the initiative in the negotiation. The initiative gives us an advantage and a power po-sition. The trick is to ask questions, to make outlines for the continued negotia-tion and to take the responsibility for taking the minutes for our meetings.
Should we lose the initiative and find ourselves in a defence position we have to recapture the initiative. It seems rather obvious that this can be done by arguing, but the most efficient strategy is to ask questions, to summarize and to take short breaks. And that someone in the group brings up a new question.




You cannot convince
someone by ignoring his ob-jections.

John Morley




7. NEGOTIATION TACTICS

Here we deal with the tactical game during the negotiation.
Listen, ask and take notes. Start the negotiation very smoothly. Lis-ten to the opponent. Note his arguments. Ask if you don’t understand. The more you ask, the more the opponent will show his intensions. To take notes shows that you are interested in his arguments. You can always go back to your notes in case the opponent claims “I said this earlier”.
It is to our advantage to keep a low profile than having an expert atti-tude. The idea is to get as much information as possible.
Specific information. Sometimes the opponent is asking for details in our offer like a specification of our expenses, which could be hard to deny. Try to include as many items as possible. It is easy to pin down a specific item trying to get a price reduction.
Our self-confidence. Sometimes we feel trapped. The opponent’s ar-guments are convincing. Just consider why he is spending time on us. What are our benefits that he cannot find somewhere else?
Mutual ground. It is the mutual ground that keeps us together want-ing us to reach a mutually acceptable result. Thus, it is important for us to con-centrate on and to emphasise this mutual ground resulting in cost benefits, re-duced risks and technical development etc.
Split the price. The inventor of the chess game was offered a reward for his invention. The emperor said he could ask for whatever he wanted. He only wanted one grain of wheat on the first square, two on the second and so on. Which looks like a modest request. Until you start counting. Usually it is the same way with the index clauses, interest by month, and royalty on hours sold just to mention a few of these tricky ones.
The price is not everything. Some opponents seem to know the price of each and every product, but not the value. They concentrate on price trying us to do the same. It’s only on Wall Street that the price is all there is to a product. We have our image, we have our value and the opponent is totally aware of this. Thus he’s concentrating on the price. We have to stand firm and to stress the whole package.
Put out feelers and probes. Try to find out the opponents position. Test with a high bid to see where the opponent stands. We can later lower the bid by discounts.
News need time. All changes require time to get accepted. It will take time for an opponent to get used to the fact that he has to pay more than he ini-tially expected. Give him time and he’ll change his mind.
The rescuer negotiates when the ship is in distress. Each and every rescuer knows that the best time to negotiate is when the ship is in distress. The opponent’s willingness to pay is higher before he has received the service than after.
Fait accompli. Threats of all kind create discomfort. In most cases it is better to hit first and negotiate later. Declare a price increase of 50 % and most clients will leave. Better to make the 50% increase and then negotiate with each client and they will be happy for a 25% price increase. Stop the work and nego-tiate for a new agreement. Make the change you want and negotiate later.
Markers. At the roulette table it is easier to gamble with markers than with dollar notes. A loss in markers is easier than a loss in cash. Same with our credit cards. It’s easier to accept a higher price when paying by the credit card than by cash. And it’s the same way with the figures in an agreement.
Easy come easy go. We don’t value things we got for free or dirt cheap. We may even think there is something wrong with the product. Thus, let the opponent pay for each item requested.
Fundamental principles. The opponent is convinced that his system, his technical problem, his company is unique and the only one existing. Our concrete suggestions he’ll immediately transfer on his application and most of the time it doesn’t fit. Thus, don’t make concrete suggestions until you know what the opponent is going for.
Boomerangs. Try to predict the objections you’ll get from the oppo-nent and try to turn them into arguments for yourself.
Retreat. The opponent will try to find out about our weak points. The less he knows the better. Step down and turn the discussion into less combustible subjects. In the worst of cases we have to blow up some trivia to something that has to be solved immediately.
Use you network. Within a company there are a number of persons interacting in a decision. Use your network within the opponent’s company both to get information as well as to give information. Some persons are more open than others. With a good network within the opponent’s company it’s harder for the opponent to play with us.
Don’t give answers to all questions. We don’t have to comment propositions from the opponent that we find unreasonable. Don’t reduce the price unless you remove something from the offer. Start with a price that in-volves some bargain. Let the opponent struggle for a haggle. If not he’ll be sus-picious and make problems in future negotiations.
References. Refer to other companies in the same magnitude as the opponents.


In a world of cheaters
The honest one is a cheater

André Gide




8. MANOEUVERING

A negotiation is the prelude to an agreement and may be a longer cooperation. The negotiation gives an indication if the opponent will fulfil our agreement or not. As indicated earlier each game has its rules. If the combatants don’t know the rules, there is no game. The result won’t turn out to a mutually beneficial outcome. If the opponent doesn’t want to or cannot follow the rules it is better to just withdraw.
It is claimed that criminals will be good prosecutors as they know how the opponent envisions. By bringing up tricks and manoeuvring that shouldn’t be part in a serious negotiation we’ll recognize them when we see them. Don’t do to the opponent what you don’t want him to do to you to quote a celestial power. Some of the manoeuvring below are on the borderline and, of course, it is up to each and every one to decide with whom he’ll negotiate and cooperate. Birds of same feather tend to flock together.
Bluff, lies and swindle. The borderline between right and wrong, a lie and a truth, ethical and not ethical is thin and varies between cultures and branches. It’s fairly obvious that we shouldn’t lie, but there are occasions when the truth and the whole truth isn’t to our advantage. Most of the time it is possi-ble to spin the information and to give a very brief answer. Even so the oppo-nent get the idea that this is the complete answer. There are parlour games where the bluff is part of the game, but even then there are certain rules for bluffing. Same goes for branches and cultures where the bluff is part of the game but even then there are certain rules. Should the opponent claim that he has a limit for his acceptance there is for sure a certain margin included in the bargain. It is obvious that the opponent has given us false information but this kind of lies are part of the game.
To cross the limit. It may happen that the opponent is so stressed that he sees no other way out than bluffing. Asking for facts leads us nowhere. To-gether we have to find a way around the problem. In case we know we are deal-ing with a notorious bluff maker, just cancel the negotiation and ask for a new negotiator. In case you suspect that this is a normal behaviour for the opponent this is just the tip of the iceberg. Even if you can give the opponent a dose of his own medicine, the risk is high that there will be problems all the way.
Each and every company is dependent on a network of contacts – suppliers, clients, representatives, creditors, employers, shareholders, officials etc. One single overstep the mark may damage our reputation along the whole line. So the recommendation is to keep away from the borderline between legal and illegal, honest and dishonest, truth and lies.
Briberies and lubrications. Unfortunately, briberies and lubrications exist. If they can exist high up in the administration, they can exist just anywhere along the line. Managers should scrutinize their companies. Like it is with bluff and forgeries, the borderline is rather thin between bribes and presents, between lubrication and representation.
Bribing as a talent. The person accepting a bribes could look upon the bribe as compensation for the time he has put into a project, and the one bribing should present the bribe like that. The more persons involved in the ne-gotiation, the harder it will be to bribe. Should you suspect that someone is bribed, try to find out who makes and takes the decisions in the company. Make your more beneficial offer exposed in the company, than the bribed employee has to, even if temporarily, abandon his bribing contact.
The reasonable and the unreasonable. In this manoeuvring we have two individuals. One is playing hard and unreasonable and the other one is play-ing soft and cooperative. In some games the unreasonable is just a shadow figure referred to as the decision maker, the procure manager, the company policy or what could be appropriate. Movie makers are using this technique in cross-examination sections. Russians use this quite frequently with one hard wing and one soft wing moderating the hard wing’s unreasonable demands intermittently changing place. The remedy for this tactic is to present your own bad boy and let the two bad guys confront each other. The opponent will realize that his tactic will lead nowhere. Should you suspect that your opponent is playing this game just give an indication of your suspicions and the opponent will stop playing.
New negotiator. To bring in a new negotiator is an old game the op-ponent is using when he wants to see a revival in the negotiation. To break a standstill in the negation or to get a discount. Or to withdraw earlier concessions. Sometimes the opponent is bringing in a fresh and rested negotiator after a long and tiring session.
Sunk costs. Usually each party has spent a considerable amount of time and money preparing for an offer. It is quite understandable that both sides are trying to recover these costs in one way or another. Both parties however, are aware of the fact that these sunk costs shouldn’t be considered in the offer.
Ties. If our opponent should try to tie us down to an agreement he’ll ask for further information. Be careful. Our know-how is part of our deal. The more we give the less we can sell, and the more information the opponent has about our margins. And for sure we are not the only one the opponent is asking for an offer. Which means that our information will be presented to our competi-tors.
To take a deposit. Basically this manoeuvring is to keep something that belongs to the opponent. Imagine that our supplier has delivered a wrong product. We need the goods, but the opponent wants a price reduction before he returns the wrong product. A game a supplier plays is to claim for an ad pay-ment before delivery. So what to do? Well, we can take a deposit or a hostage. Should we make an ad payment we have to open for the possibility to continue our negotiations in court. Most efficient is to anticipate delays. And to object as high up in the opponent’s hierarchy as possible.
Limited authority. Should the opponent refer to “budget”, his boss, or some other authority we are dealing with someone who doesn’t have the au-thority to negotiate. Which we shouldn’t do.
Threats. May be it is tempting to escalate an advantage by a threat. Especially if we don’t feel we are making any progress. However, a threat may totally snatch away the foundation for our cooperation. We both should think and act positively in order to find a competitive combination between the two of us. We all know how it feels to be threatened and we don’t easily forget nor for-give. Should the opponent make a threat consider what his possibilities to carry his threat into execution are? Withdraw from the negotiation and send in a mid-dleman to protest and to mediate. If you give in, you can expect more threats. To make counter threats will lead us nowhere. Make sure you always have a main supplier from which you take 80% and a backup supplier from which you take the remaining 20%. .
Procrastinations. Clear indications that our opponent is trying to pro-crastinate our negotiation is that he’s referring to his superiors, who haven’t made their decision yet, or that they need further information. .Should this be the case we can make it clear that we stop here and now and when they are back we start all over and from the beginning.
Disclosures. There are documents that shouldn’t be disclosed. For instance our competitor’s offers. We have all reasons to believe that this is not just a coincidence.
“This is all we got”. This is a common objection which you have met many times. “We would love to buy but we don’t have the requested $ 30 000. We only have $ 26 000.” Most salesmen make a $ 4000 reduction just to close the deal. The trick is to make a corresponding reduction in the offer. The manoeuvring in this case is when the buyer is shopping around to find out about the margins. He’s of course aware of it that most salesmen do the reduction shown above. We, on the other hand, know that all companies can transfer mon-ey from one account to another. Or to use a longer time span.



The arguments the strongest
part are using are the best.

Jean de la Fontaine



9. ARGUMENTATION

The opponent – nor even we – can absorb facts to an extent we would like to. Thus, no long lists of arguments.
Be careful with words like sure, absolutely, without any doubts etc. The result is the opposite. “Liverpool will win the league” is a more definite ar-gument than “Liverpool will absolutely win the league”.
Arguments like biggest, best, quality, service are words that are used ad nuseam and have lost their original value. Our opponent wants facts and proofs. We should be able to show that he can lower his costs, be able to bill faster, get a better security etc.
The logic in our argumentation has to be unimpeachable. Our argu-ments have to be delivered in a way that one argument leads to another in a ra-tional way conversation. Should our opponent feel that there are inconsistencies in our argumentation he’ll be in doubt and look for more inconsistencies.
We don’t want to spend our time listening to things that are obvious. The opponent will lean back in his chair, stretch his body hoping for an end to this tirade. Equally boring are phrases like “to tell the truth”, “according to our view ...” misunderstand us correctly “
It’s also boring for the opponent to listen to long lectures showing our know-how. It disturbs his self-confidence and our dialogue.
Trying to change a negative attitude to a positive one is hard. Espe-cially if the opponent is prejudiced. On top of that, the attitudes usually have emotive components. It’s dead loss to try to prove it that the opponent is wrong. We just have to concentrate on the positive parts where we can agree.
In all areas in life that are wise guys. Wisenheimers who know better even when it comes to our own field. Here we have the possibility to engage the opponent, to give him hints and let him draw the conclusions all by himself. Let him show how competent he is. Ask him for advice. Agree with him, and stimu-late his stuck up vanity. He wants the attendance. We have paved the way for a promising future.
Should the opponent bring up an offer from a competitor to us, just say that the offer is good but our offer is better because …
Make the argumentation short. Most of the time we know when the opponent is ready to sign but we keep on arguing to make sure we’ll have a deal. May be the opponent gets new ideas and we have to continue the dialogue before the opponent is ready to sign.
Avoid questions where the opponent can answer yes or no. His an-swer should be an answer between two positive alternatives. A no answer will most of the time turn out to be some kind of a jam.
Should the opponent vacillate between two or more alternatives, try to make a list of advantages and disadvantages between the alternatives. In the first place try to reduce the alternatives to just two. Now you and the opponent can try to find the most rational decision for him. We can also list what we agree upon so the opponent can say “yes” step by step.
Sometimes we face accusations. The opponent claims that we are guilty of something. Should it be easy for the opponent to prove our culpability it is better to confess than to be convicted. The golden rule is to deny until we are proven wrong. This is a speciality of Russian politicians as we have seen many times.
Before signing, summarize so you both agree upon what you have agreed on. After the signature make sure to affirm that the opponent has made a good decision.



No peace unless your
neighbor wants to have peace
Danish proverb




10. CONFLICS

A negotiation has a chronological progress. May be it shows at the end of our negotiation that we and our opponent have different views on what is fair and what is not. Which, of course, differ between cultures and coun-tries. What is fair in one culture could be unfair in another. And differ over time.
When a big company is negotiating with a small company there is an obvious unbalance in power. Which the small company is totally aware of. However, the big company have a reason for entering a negotiation with the small company. Thus, it is not so smart for the big company to use its size as some kind of lever, which will only result in the fact that the small company feels like the underdog it is. Same if the opponent rides on his high horse telling us “Can’t you see the result of this?”, “Good that you finally see the problem”, “Great that you agree with us”.
Sometimes an aggressive expression may arises a conflict “Now you are talking rubbish”, “Here we totally disagree”. The accusations are aggressive and the words are highly dogmatic. May be it wasn’t meant that way but it may start a conflict.
When we enter a negotiation, we have anticipations on the oppo-nent, how he will act in different situations, and for sure we have an opinion what is reasonable and what is not and we take it for granted that the opponent will follow our standards, our benchmarks. When he doesn’t we’ll be frustrated, and even chocked. Like in a crisis.
There are 4 stages or phases in a crisis. The chock when we don’t know how to act or react. The reaction, when the problem is accepted and we are trying to find reason how it could happen. The adoption, when we are trying to solve the problem. The revolution, when the crisis is part of our experience.
It is in the same way as in the crisis we go from the chock to the re-action. Where we are asking ourselves “What is this?” When we think we have an answer we act. In our negotiation – different from the crisis – we have two options. Either the crisis will develop or it will fade out, depending on how we act and how our opponents acts. Should we act harshly, we’ll get an even harsh-er reaction, and the conflict is escalating. Usually added with prestige and block-ages. We can anticipate a total collapse.
We have talked about our expectation on our opponent. That he should act in a certain way. Play the game in a certain way. When our expecta-tions aren’t fulfilled there is a frustration, which I refer to as frustration of val-ues. Should we, on the other hand, have different views on the result of our ne-gotiation, I would like to refer to this as target frustration. We don’t agree on the objective for our negotiations nor what we should obtain and may be not even with alternative objectives we have.
A similar frustration is the frustration about the practicalities or the realities. For instance which department within the company should handle the issue. I would like to refer to as the fact frustration.
Still another frustration is the pseudo frustration. We have misunder-stood each other and we are talking about different things, we have not commu-nicated properly. May be depending on language problems or symbols we have interpreted differently.
Hardly any relationship is free from conflicts. Conflicts will release tensions in the same way as fever or temperature is the way our body will get rid of bacteria or virus. May be we can look up the conflict as a commitment or a dedication. The more dedicated the two parties are the more likely it is that there will be a conflict. The main reason for a conflict is that one of the parties will lose something the way the negotiation has turned out at the moment. Without mutual interests there is no reason for a conflict. Thus, a conflict is a good sign that we have established a community of interest with our opponent.
When the conflict is solved in one way or another, there should be a feeling of a win win situation. Which takes a diplomat’s all diplomacy and a fa-natic’s whole fantasy.




There has never been a good war nor a bad peace

Benjamin Franklin




11. CONFLICT SETTLEMENTS

The most efficient way to handle conflict is stop the conflict before it esca-lates. Like in many other cases we can handle one or may be two problems at the same time, but when more problems hit us at the same time we’ll have problems. In a negotiation we tend to overreact and the escalation is there.
Many a time we have to confess that our negative attitude is based on misunderstandings or our limited knowledge about the circum-stances. A positive attitude and a positive interpretation will circumvent many conflicts.
Based on what we now know about the conflict and its phases it seems quite obvious that it is during the orientation we tell if the frustration will turn to a conflict or not. When we feel that there is a frustration we need facts before we act. Remain calm, get the information needed even if we temporarily have to terminate the negotiation. And then return with a new and creative approach.
During the orientation phase it is important to evaluate the con-sequences of a conflict. Which objectives we may gain with the conflict as a mean. Not forgetting the reason why we are negotiating, our mutual inter-ests and the reason why we have different opinions for the moment. Most probably the reason is that we are competing about the resources. The con-flict as such has a tendency to block the free flow of information important to both of us. And not the least, the generation of ideas to find creative so-lutions.
Again. We need a positive spirit with equalized or neutralized power and status relations, which gives us a negotiation climate without ap-parent risks for conflict escalations.
Should we find ourselves in a position where the conflict has escalated we have to find out what kind of frustration we have to deal with.
Is it a frustration about values, then we haven’t adjusted to the values of our opponent. Or, of course, he hasn’t adjusted to our values. This could be referred to as a cultural clash. In one way or another we have adjust to each other’s values.
Regarding the frustration about objectives we have to find a compromise. It’s a give and take game. If we are not willing to give then the reason for the negotiation has vanished.
Are we dealing with a frustration about realities, may be the best way is to call for an independent troubleshooter. Or a smaller group with authority to solve the conflict all by themselves.
The foundation for the negotiation is consensus and seeking solutions in harmony. Both sides are looking for a cooperation or an ex-tended cooperation where they may get more out of their joined forces than each one of them can by himself. This could be a reminder when it looks like we got stuck. Or bringing in new arguments so we can see the problem from another point of view. One other way is to bring in an expert, who can give his view on the situation.
Still another way is to exchange our negotiators for new ones and may be new one better matching the opponents’. The better the match is between the two sides the better the negotiation process.
Still another way is to form a project group with representatives from the two sides. The group should articulate an objective for the group and for the negotiation and the group has a responsibility for obtaining the objectives.




Good judgement comes from ex-perience, and a lotta that comes from bad judgement

A cowboy’s guide to life



12. HAWKS, DOVES AND OWLS AS NEGOTIATORS


The relationship. The hawk looks upon the opponent as a rival. The dove looks upon the opponent as a friend and the owl as someone you should solve prob-lems together with.

The objective for the negotiation. The hawk is looking for victory. The dove is looking for an agreement and the owl as a mutually beneficial outcome.

The concessions. For the hawk concessions from the opponent is mandatory. The dove is making concessions while the owl differ between person and prob-lem.

Firmness. The hawk is firm about both persons and problems. The dove is friendly to persons and flexible about problems while the owl is friendly to per-sons but firm when it comes to problems.

Trust. The hawk doesn’t trust the opponent. The dove trust the opponent while the owl is independent.

Pressure. The hawk puts pressure on the opponent. The dove make offers and the owl is trying to find mutual interests.

The bottom line. The hawk will never ever show the bottom line. The dove shows the final offer while the owl have no final offers.

Control. The hawk is going for the final offer. The dove is looking for what the opponent may accept while the owl is trying to find possible solutions acceptable to both parties.

The agreement. The hawk will accept only “my way”, the dove wants to close an agreement in the first place. The owl is going for a fair agreement.