Recently we have participated in several integrative negotiation exercises. This kind of negotiation usually contains several negotiable issues, thus clearly understanding your preference and priority are the crucial important step which allows you to continue future trade-offs. We have been talking a lot on how to create values by developing your preference, however, I found I sometime fail to maintain my priority and always deviate from my major preference In the piratical negotiation.
I want to share my experience of the case. This Is a typical case of Integrative negotiation which we actually have several different negotiable Issues. As the role of Allophone, during my previous preparation stage, I realized possible sales restriction and profit- sharing are the issues would bring me biggest benefits, so I decide to focus on them. I also decide to use venture leadership and I. P rights to create extra value If we could not reach the deal.
At the beginning of the negotiation, I think I did a good Job because I clearly expressed my preference to my partner that I highly value restriction and profit-sharing. Since both of us persisted on that, my partner then Ovid to the ALP rights. We spent a quite long time on negotiation of the I. P rights, and gradually, my concentration deviated from my decided priorities to this side issue. I started to stay firmly on the I. P rights, and my partner then switched back to the sales restriction and asked for my concession on restriction.
I unintentionally agreed to move from 18 months/months to 6 months/months. After the negotiation, I realized it might be his strategy to mislead my concentration from my priorities to side issues, and as a consequence, the rooms of negotiation on those revises highly valued issues are enlarged. Although the I. P rights gives more $10 million benefits, which seems to exceed the benefit I lost by making concession on sales restriction ($5 million), the possible size of my “Pie” is reduced.
If I didn’t deviate from my original priorities, I would use leadership and venture location as my arguments to make tradeoffs. Therefore, after this negotiation, I found it is still very easy for an individual to fail to keep his priorities firmly even he already knew about his preference previously, especially when the case is complicated like this. To always keep your preference and priorities in your brain and to avoid being misled by your opposite party, I conclude three tips.
First, rank all the negotiable issues with level of concession besides them on a paper. When you go to the negotiation, bring your paper with you and the concession level could effectively remind you of your priorities. In addition to it, classify issues Into major issues and side Issues. Try to prevent the other party to mislead you by confusing them. Side Issues should be only utilized to create value, but should not replace the position of major Issues.
When you confuse their priorities, It Is quite risky because you might then unintentionally sacrifice your major Issues as tradeoffs to exchange for a side Issue with less benefit. Moreover, If you could be paired, It will reduce the risk of deviating from your Orlando powerless. When we were doing the Moms case, since I have a partner, she stopped me once when I was on the edge of Glenn concession Irrationally on a really Important Issue. The complexity of Integrative negotiation might become “trap” to confuse you with your priorities on several issues. Rank the priorities in numbers,