Archive for June, 2010

By Karen S. Walch

Negotiators who rely solely on classic hardball tactics of negotiation will use the “lowball/highball” opening offer device to firmly anchor their position and weaken their counterpart in a negotiation. An extreme and aggressive initial offer is valid because this causes the other party to reevaluate their own resolve and opening offer and move them beyond their own resistance point or bottom line. This hardball tactic is very effective and enduring because most counterparts tend to be unaware and unprepared to defend themselves against this classic tactic. This week’s aw will address the concept of anchoring as an integrative negotiation practice that can be used by negotiators who have experienced the ineffectiveness of “lowball/highball” plans or prefer not to use hardball tactics.
Read more »

By Karen S. Walch

A goal in the battle of classic negotiation power is to win at claiming as much as you possibly can of the ZOPA, or Zone of Potential Agreement. Knowledge is required about how to seize as much of the value that exists within the ZOPA space. Skill at claiming this value is a cornerstone to winning as much as you can in classic negotiation approaches. This week’s law will address the ZOPA, or perceived zone of value between two parties as they negotiate. Within this perceived bargaining range, an agreement is possible between the negotiators. Outside the zone, no amount of negotiation can yield an agreement.
Read more »

By Karen S. Walch

Efforts at goal achievement in classic theories of negotiation power tend to focus on tactical maneuvers and actions. Much of the preparation in this classic sense is on how a negotiation “battle” is fought and won. Success becomes a matter of how good the tricks and tactics are. This tactical maneuvering finds it roots in political and military strategy, and in more contemporary business and economic theory. But, what happens when tactical sophistication has little to no connection with an appropriate strategy? This week we will focus on fundamental criteria for negotiation strategy often overlooked in the classic tactical approaches.
Read more »

By Karen S. Walch

In classic power strategies of negotiation, CC&D (concealment, camouflage and deception) activities are often used. This phrase comes from the world of military intelligence as efforts by rivals to control access to key information. Negotiation preparation in the classic sense focuses on how to lie, hide or omit what may be true. Many of the preparation tasks in classic power strategies have been focused around how to manage information, behavior and image via flawless CC&D measures. This week’s law will explore how integrative preparation strategies can counter and manage such deception techniques used by potential negotiation counterparts.
Read more »