Practical Guide to Negotiating in the Military

Practical Guide to Negotiating

in the Military

edition)

“Let us never negotiate out of fear. But, let us never fear to negotiate.”

John F Kennedy

“In today’s DOD environment, your span of authority is often less than your

span of responsibility. In short, you are charged with mission success while

working with people you have no direct authority over.”

Dr Stefan Eisen

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 2

2. Negotiations Defined 2

3. Choices in Conflict Management: The Relationship between Task and People 3

4. Essential Terms 5

5. TIPO Framework 9

6. NPSC: Negotiation Strategy Selection 14

a. Evade 14

b. Comply 15

c. Insist 16

d. Settle 17

e. Cooperative Negotiation Strategy (CNS) 19

7. Common Pitfalls to any Negotiation Strategy 23

8. Summary 24

Appendix 1: Glossary of Common Negotiating Terms 26

Appendix 2: TIPO Worksheet 36

Appendix 3: AFNC Negotiation Worksheets 37

Annex A: AFNC Negotiation Worksheet 38

Annex B: AFNC Negotiation Worksheet (Expanded) 39

Appendix 4: AFNC Negotiation Execution Checklist 44

Appendix 5: AFNC Negotiation Cultural Considerations 45

INTRODUCTION

Military leaders do not operate in isolation. Because of our professional duties and our

social natures, we constantly interact with others in many contexts. Often the interaction’s purpose

is to solve a problem; getting two or more people (or groups of people) to decide on a course of

action to accomplish a goal. Virtually every problem solving process we attempt involves some

aspect of negotiations. Practically speaking, Air Force personnel engage daily in negotiations with

co-workers, supervisors, subordinates, business partners, coalition warfighters, non-governmental

organizations, etc. On-duty, you could be negotiating a scheduling issue between Operations and

Maintenance or perhaps a Memorandum of Agreement between two agencies. Later, off duty, it

could be deciding on a Saturday who will 1) take the kids to soccer while 2) the other parent buys

the groceries so 3) the entire family can meet for a sit-down dinner.

In the Air Force, senior leaders have identified negotiation skills as a critical core leadership

competency. Air Force Doctrine Document 1-1 Leadership and Force Development (8 Nov 2011)

under “People/Team Competencies” and the Air Force Policy Directive 36-26 (27 Aug 2008), under

“Fostering Collaborative Relationships” highlight the competencies of “Influencing” and / or

“Negotiating.” Additionally, in today’s complex environment, the need to work within more peer-

based relationships, and the need to communicate across service, joint, interagency, and coalition

environments, all point to the value of understanding and effectively applying negotiating skills.

Leadership articles and books, whether addressing senior leader skills or broader leadership

competencies that all Airmen should develop, are consistent in advocating for improved

negotiations skills as a core leadership competency.

This guide builds on the original 2009 NCE primer, Warrior / Negotiator: No Longer an

Oxymoron, but a Necessity.

This guide outlines and provides frameworks for assessing and using

five essential negotiating strategies tailored to the military environment. Each has its strengths and

weaknesses. By understanding these five strategies, you can evaluate the situation and select the

most appropriate strategy.

1. NEGOTIATIONS DEFINED

First, we need to define negotiations to frame the discussion. A negotiation is not what

many envision – a “smoke-filled back room” where bare-knuckled deals are hammered out between

rival parties. Rather the process of negotiation is much more broadly defined. A negotiation is

really a communication process between two or more parties. This process may range from an open

and cordial discussion with a free exchange of information as parties cooperatively seek to satisfy

common interests to something closed and adversarial, where information is hoarded as parties fight

to satisfy only their own positions, and if needed, destroy the opposite’s ability to achieve theirs

(Note: in this primer, the other party in a negotiation is always referred to as the “opposite”). In

the middle is a bargaining option where you “give some and gain some.”

A negotiation tries to resolve conflict. The conflict may be categorized as a conflict over

“structure” (the process or how things get done), “data” (the interpretation of available facts, etc.),

“relationships” (working through the real or perceived reputation of the other), “worldview” (how

people see, assess and judge events around them, i.e. culture), and / or “priorities” (the importance

people place on things or ideas). This conflict is not always bad. From the ashes of conflict can

arise win-win solutions meeting interests of both parties. In many situations, conflict can actually

motivate people to innovate and solve their problems. In popular terms: “Necessity…is the mother

of…invention.”

Based on the above, let’s refine the definition. The AFNC defines negotiation as a process

where a conflict at some level exits between at least two parties and at least one of them is

motivated to resolve the conflict. The words in the definition’s second part “…at least one of them

is motivated…” are chosen deliberately. It illustrates the point that often, at the beginning of a

negotiation, not all parties are motivated to engage in the resolution process due to many factors,

such as low trust, information, power and / or options (TIPO, an acronym discussed later in this

guide).

2. CHOICES IN CONFLICT MANAGEMENT: The Relationship between

Task and People

Figure 1. The Negotiation Preferences and Styles Chart (NPSC)

There are two variables that form the structure for determining your choice of the five

negotiation strategies (see Figure 1 above). Every negotiation involves some sort of task (problem)

and requires the interaction of two or more people or groups of people (relationship). With the

NPSC’s two axes, People versus Task, you can visualize each variable’s relative importance. The

two variables’ (task and people) relative importance to each other forms the framework used to

visualize and understand the differences between the strategies. From that, you may select a

strategy reflecting those two variables. A description of these variables is provided below.

The first variable is people orientation, also called the relationship variable, and is

plotted along the horizontal axis on the styles chart. In other words, how important is it for you

to develop and/or maintain a productive, trusting relationship with the opposite. This should not be

confused with a friendship. Although it may be beneficial, it is not necessary to like someone to

work with them. However a positive relationship value means that you intend to consider the

opposite’s needs and desires concerning the topic of the negotiation as well as intending to provide

the opposite truthful information and expecting to receive truthful information in return. On the

other end of this spectrum, if you disregard or even want to harm the relationship, the people or

relationship orientation variable takes on a negative value. This means you intend neither to

consider the opposite’s needs and desires nor do you trust the information the opposite provides.

Additionally, although you shouldn’t lie to the opposite when providing information (adherence to

standards of conduct, honor, and ethics should always prevail), you probably won’t provide full

disclosure, even to the point of being vague or in the extreme, misleading. A fine ethical line exists

and due diligence is needed when negotiating in a “dis-trusting” environment.

Trust is central to the relationship variable – actively managing a trusting relationship (or

disregarding the relationship) should be a deliberate decision. When deciding which strategy to

pursue, the frequency of interaction is an important factor. For example, sometimes you may

negotiate a “one-time” deal with little or no chance of ever re-engaging with the opposite. This

might guide you to disregard the relationship as you pursue your goals. However, if interaction is

expected to re-occur, perhaps in the agreement’s execution, or if multiple negotiations may occur

over a period of time, trust-building becomes much more important and may steer the strategy

selection. Likewise, if maintaining your positive reputation is important, the relationship

orientation variable may take on a high value even if multiple negotiations are not expected with the

current “opposite.” You might not ever deal with that “opposite” again, but you may be dealing

with his / her friend, associate, or in a cross-cultural environment, a family/tribe member. The

classic example is the local car dealer who prides themselves on honest deals and service for a

lifetime. They will often accept a lower short-term profit to gain a long-term customer relationship.

In DOD, “office reputations” ranging from he/she is “good people” to “what a piece of work –

beware the dark side” can often predispose the working relationship, aka the negotiations.

Another factor to consider when you assess the relationship’s importance is how much you

may need the opposite’s involvement in the negotiation process. If you need the opposite’s power

(referent, expert, reward, coercive, position power, etc.) and/or you need the opposite’s participation

to develop potential options, you need to maintain or build a positive relationship. This will guide

your strategy selection. Conversely, if you don’t value the opposite’s power (or you have sufficient

power to act unilaterally) or you don’t value the opposite’s participation in the process (basically

you have already determined the single solution and have the ability to impose the solution), your

people orientation may be low or negative and as such will guide your negotiation strategy

selection.

The second variable is task orientation and is plotted along the vertical axis on the

styles chart. In the NPSC, task orientation refers to the importance of resolving the problem to

meet your needs. In the military context, it is getting the mission done. A high task orientation

means that you are very motivated to resolve the problem in a way that satisfies your interests.

Conversely, a negative task orientation means that you don’t seek a resolution to the problem

(perhaps you are satisfied with the status quo), you have no preferences with any of the possible

solutions on the table (anything would work for you), or you may not understand the problem (have

poor task/mission clarity).

It is understandably difficult for military leaders to imagine a time when they would not seek

immediate “mission success.” Past operational environments fostered this singular thinking.

Today’s and tomorrow’s more complex environments now present a situation where only “getting

today’s mission done” could result in a negative value. Your mission directive may allow you the

flexibility to decrease your emphasis on the immediate task orientation to gain the actual objective

in the longer term. Not forcefully imposing a solution today that demands absolute compliance may

allow you and the opposite an opportunity to discover a cooperative settlement in the future. This is

illustrated later in the discussion of the five negotiating strategies.

3. ESSENTIAL TERMS

Every skill set comes with its own language, from maintaining ground equipment, managing

a satellite or flying an aircraft or UAV. A negotiation has its own language. In the next few

paragraphs, the essential terms are outlined, to enable a more complete understanding of the TIPO

and NPSC concepts.

A robust glossary of useful negotiation terms is attached as Appendix 1.

a. Position: a position is “what you want;” what you envision as your best possible outcome.

However, to be useful in negotiations, this “best possible outcome” must be rationally bounded.

Getting a new car for free may be a fantastic position, but it is not rationally bounded. To be a

viable position, it should meet some standard for reasonableness, and also be accepted as reasonable

by the opposite. If not, negotiations may stall or be broken off.

b. Interest: An interest is one or more underlying reasons for why you are aspiring to your

position. To help determine interests, investigate your position through a series of interrogative

questions. Interrogative, or critical thinking (CT), questions are the “who, what, when, where, how

much” and especially “why” questions. Answers to these questions help reveal the underlying

reasons and rationale for a position. If these interrogative questions cannot be successfully

answered, then the validity of the position may be in question.

As an example, your position in a negotiation with HHQ may be for more flying hours.

Asking the interrogative questions may reveal the reasons behind the position: flying safety,

equipment maintenance, aircrew proficiency, a desire for upgrades, or a myriad of other reasons.

For example, perhaps one of the responses to the “why” question was for more training on the

upgraded equipment just installed in the aircraft. The position (what you want) may still be more

flying hours, but this interest (the need for more training on the upgraded equipment) is why you

want the hours. Understanding the interests may open up a discussion for alternative ways to get

the training – i.e. other ways to get the job done than just through “more flying hours”.

There are three basic types of interests; procedural, psychological and substantive. Effective

negotiations depend on understanding the types of interests. Procedural interests are those

concerning how a process is conducted. Negotiators with procedural interests are highly concerned

with how the outcome is determined, and not as concerned with the actual details of the outcome.

For example, if an employee files a formal complaint due to non-selection for training, a savvy

negotiator will ask if they think the outcome was unfair or if they think the selection process was

biased. If the employee feels the selection process was biased, they have a procedural interest.

Proving to the employee that the selection process was fair would probably resolve the issue, even

though the outcome (non-selection for training) didn’t change. The second type of interest is

psychological (sometimes called relationship interests). It concerns how people feel, are perceived

and how they relate with others. A person negotiating for a job might be focusing on a specific job

title. This is a psychological interest, because it deals primarily with a relationship need, not a

physical one. Finally, and most important, are substantive interests; having to do with things,

schedules, prices, salaries, etc. This is the bulk of most negotiations; however, negotiators should

always work to identify and categorize the interests and then work at developing solutions that

address the type of interest. Offering someone a high salary (substantive interest) might not work if

the top interest of the prospective hire is a large corner office (psychological interest).

c. Aspiration Point: An aspiration point is the best each party hopes to get out of a

negotiated agreement--what each party aspires, or desires, to achieve.

As with a position, setting a

rationally bounded aspiration point helps create a positive negotiating environment. However, more

aggressive negotiations tend to be marked by a wide divergence in parties’ aspiration points. For

example, when negotiating your holiday work schedule in a unit that runs 24/7, you might have an

aspiration point of getting to take leave during the entire Christmas holiday (from Christmas Eve to

New Year’s Day), while the unit scheduler’s aspiration point might be two days. To be useful, an

aspiration point should be rationally bounded.

d. Reservation Point or Bottom Line: In many negotiations, the reservation point is the

least favorable option or offer either side might accept (for example, the lowest price a seller will

accept, or the highest price a buyer will pay). If the agreement doesn’t fall between both parties’

reservation points, then the likelihood of entering into the agreement is low and negotiations may

cease as one party elects to execute its best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA).

e. Bargaining Range and Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA): The area between each

party’s aspiration and reservation points defines their own bargaining range.

Critical to this

definition is understanding that any overlap between two parties’ bargaining ranges defines their

ZOPA. If there is no overlap, there is no ZOPA.

As an example, let’s say you are negotiating that holiday break. Your aspiration point is

getting the entire holiday period as leave, a total of 8 days. Your reservation point may be that

you’ll agree to only three days, Christmas Eve through the 26th of December (the 26th being your

spouse’s birthday). The scheduling office’s aspiration point may be to give you no more than two

days off total during this holiday period from Christmas to New Year’s, but as a reservation point,

would accept as much as five days off total, as long as it didn’t include both the 24-25 December

(Christmas Eve / Christmas Day) and 31 December – 1 January (New Year’s Eve / New Year’s

Day). The ZOPA would then range from three days (to include December 26th) to five days (but

can’t include both of the holidays as described above).

f. Anchoring: Anchoring is a common negotiating tactic. When a person makes an offer,

they are providing the other party some indication of their aspiration point and bargaining zone.

Anchoring is a tactic that creates an offer that is at the limit of (or slightly beyond) the rationality

test assigned to the aspiration point. The expectation is that the anchor will reduce the other side’s

expectations. Research strongly suggests that in simple bargaining situations, known as the Settle

strategy in this article, the stronger one’s anchor, the closer the final agreement is to that

negotiator’s aspiration point.

Negotiators who make modest offers do not usually do as well as

those who open with more optimistic anchors. This is common in the retail business, especially for

big ticket items. Retailers will set an “anchor price” in bold print (such as the MSRP or the

“Package Value” of bundled items) and then offer you a significant discount – and usually do much

better than if they would advertise their actual cost for that product and add their mark-up.

g. Demand: A demand is a statement of terms with no room for adjustment. It is very

positional and embodies the most precise use of a “take it or leave it” option. A demand is presented

at face value, allowing no opportunity for adjustments or adaptation to new information, ideas, or

options. When making a demand, the negotiator is stating a reservation point and an aspiration point

simultaneously. A demand is a feature of the Insist Strategy.

h. Offer: Like a demand, an offer is a statement of terms, but it anticipates counter-offers,

counter-proposals, and modification. It is much more flexible than a demand since the negotiator

anticipates that once the offer is made, it’ll be adjusted to some degree. Sometimes offers are made

that exceed the aspiration point, as in anchoring, with the anticipation that the counter-offer will

probably shrink expectations.

i. Divergent / Convergent Thinking: All people can operate in either thinking process, but

operating outside one’s preference requires deliberate effort. As examples, most engineers prefer

convergent thinking, and most artists prefer divergent thinking. Divergent thinkers tend to see

problems as opportunities. Convergent thinkers tend to see problems as obstacles. For divergent

thinkers, the problem is a starting point from which to imagine solutions. For convergent thinkers,

the problem is a target to be destroyed, managed, or overcome.

Divergent thinkers’ mental processes tend to be creative and spontaneous. They are

comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. They prefer flexible plans with as many options as

possible. “Divergers” tend to dislike settling on one solution and continually search for alternatives.

Divergers work at continuously adding options to the table.

Divergent Thinking strengths include:

1. Capable problem solvers when working novel issues.

2. Creative, not limited by conventional boundaries, such as budget, policy, and/or

precedent.

3. Comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity.

Divergent Thinking weaknesses include:

1. Dislike of finality may result in pushing or missing deadlines.

2. Most thinking is outside the box; in fact, often don’t even know where the box is.

3. Resist boundaries and limitations; see them as negatively impacting the creative

problem solving process.

Convergent thinkers’ mental processes tend to be reliable and rational, and principle-based.

They constantly work to reduce uncertainty and ambiguity. They prefer thorough plans that fully

address all contingencies; however, convergers are most comfortable when one clear solution has

been identified. Once a solution is identified, convergers prefer to discontinue considering

alternatives and focus on finding support for the preferred solution. Convergers work at

continuously taking options off the table.

Convergent Thinking strengths include:

1. Capable problem solvers in crisis or emergency situations.

2. Effective problem solvers within conventional boundaries, such as budget, policy,

and/or precedent.

3. See limitations as guideposts rather than impediments to the problem solving

process.

Convergent Thinking weaknesses include:

1. Once convergent thinkers have decided on a solution, and are marshalling support

for that solution, they often ignore or dismiss new or contrary information.

2. Starting point for problem solving is “inside the box.”

j. The Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA): BATNAs

are elegantly

simple in concept, but notoriously difficult to execute. A BATNA is the option a negotiating party

might execute should the negotiations fail. The key is you must be able to execute a BATNA

without the involvement of the opposite. A BATNA is not the negotiation’s “bottom line” – a

BATNA is something you may wish to do if an acceptable “bottom line” cannot be achieved during

the negotiations. You should always know and update or improve your BATNA and always

estimate (and attempt to influence) the opposite’s BATNA.

There are three keys to determining a valid BATNA:

1. It must be an option that you can execute unilaterally (without any action or

interaction with the other negotiating party). A BATNA is not a BATNA if it

requires the participation of the opposite.

2. It must be a real option. It must be something you can and are willing to do (you

have the time, resources, and will to execute).

3. Finally, it must be perceived as credible by the opposite. You may believe you

will execute your BATNA, but unless the opposite also believes your BATNA’s

credibility, it is useless. As an example, if you are negotiating with other base

personnel on an office move, and it is getting nowhere, a strong BATNA would be

that your current office space is adequate to do the mission, and it is available for the

foreseeable future. A weak BATNA would be that your current office area is

cramped, the electrical system unsafe, and it is due to be demolished in three weeks.

A useless BATNA is telling the other side your current office space is adequate to do

the mission, and they know the contract to demolish your building was just awarded

and begins in 14 days.

BATNAs may change during the negotiation as information and conditions change. For

example, you may be looking for a new car and currently have a good BATNA (your current car is

in excellent condition). However, your BATNA would change considerably if your car got

sideswiped in tomorrow’s commute.

BATNA is brought up here before the detailed discussion of the five negotiating strategies

because it is a useful tool in four of the five strategies (Insist, Evade, Settle, Cooperate but not

Comply). Of note, in the Cooperative Negotiating Strategy (CNS) there is an extra effort to identify

and manage both sides’ BATNAs. Additionally, since CNS has relatively more engagement (in

both depth and duration) than the other strategies, there is an opportunity within CNS to better

manage BATNAs. In short, BATNA has applicability in many negotiating strategies, but can be

exercised to its fullest potential using the CNS.

k. Distributive and Integrative Negotiations: There are two basic categories that virtually

all negotiation strategies fall into: distributive and integrative.

The distributive category assumes

resources are limited. The task of any distributive negotiating process is to divide up a fixed set of

resources. The distributive category is also known as “value claiming,” because the objective is to

claim a portion of whatever value is on the table. In distributive or value-claiming negotiations,

negotiators usually meet to exchange proposals, offers, and counter-offers.

Distributive negotiations are essentially zero-sum.

Because resources are seen as fixed and

limited, any gain by one side represents a loss for the other. Conflict is seen as inevitable, and

competition rather than cooperation guides negotiations. Parties to the negotiation often perceive the

other side as an enemy, a barrier to their success. In a competitive situation, information is regarded

as a source of power, and therefore protected. Because information is seen as a source of

negotiating power, deception may occur, so distrust is characteristic of this approach. This is one of

the most serious drawbacks of distributive bargaining for military negotiators. The zero-sum

approach can be executed through one of three negotiating strategies presented in this article;

parties can “comply,” “insist,” or “settle.”

Second, the integrative category, while still acknowledging that in the end, resources must

be distributed (there is “value claiming” at some point in any negotiation), does not see resources as

necessarily fixed. This means that integrative negotiations are not necessarily zero sum. Conflict is

not seen as inevitable; there is the possibility for mutually beneficial, “value creating” cooperation

between the parties. Negotiators see the other side as potential partners in the problem solving

process. Cooperation between the parties has the potential to “create new value” from the existing

resources under consideration by combining them in new ways or using the resources in different

ways. In this value-creating process, trust-building measures are actively pursued to help develop a

cooperative environment. Information is shared between the parties, and power is also shared. This

approach can be executed through a “cooperative” (or win-win) negotiations strategy. The

cooperative negotiator is concerned with maximizing absolute gains while simultaneously meeting

the counterpart’s interests, rather than maximizing their relative gains over the other party. In this

strategy, the negotiator’s goal is to arrive at an agreement that satisfies the most important interests

of all parties. As a general rule, except in cases of unambiguous emergency, the authors argue that

military negotiators will achieve better solutions by using the integrative category. One hallmark of

integrative negotiation is asking questions of all sides about their interests, concerns, and

circumstances; this approach is advocated in AFDD 1-1 Leadership and Force Development, which

recently added fostering collaborative relationships and negotiating to the USAF institutional

competency list.

It is suggested that agreements reached by integrative means will be more sustainable, and

will tend to enhance relationships, whereas distributive negotiation tends to degrade relationships.

Lack of cross-cultural competence intensifies this harm. It is suggested that combining cross-

cultural competence with integrative negotiation skills leads to better relationships, better

agreements, and, therefore, serves tactical and strategic objectives.

4. TRUST, INFORMATION, POWER and OPTIONS (TIPO) Analysis

Framework

Before describing the five NPSC strategies, a simple framework may help you assess your

situation which, in turn, will guide your NPSC negotiating strategy selection. Also, the TIPO

(pronounced “typo”) framework can help you understand why your opposite selected the

negotiating strategy they may be using with you. The TIPO framework models how trust,

information, and power, influence the way you develop options to solve the current problem.

Figure 2. Trust, Information, Power, and Options (TIPO) Analysis Framework

TRUST

Process / Personal

INFORMATION

Yours / Theirs

OPTION(S)

One / Many

POWER

With / Over

TRUST: To start TIPO, you assess the type of trust between you and the opposite. In this

discussion, trust is defined as your belief /evidence that the opposite’s interactions with you are or

will be genuine and truthful. The more belief /evidence you have that the opposite’s interactions are

genuine and truthful, the more trusting you are of all the opposite’s actions and intentions. Trust

does not equate with confidence. Sometimes you may have high confidence that the opposite is

trying to deceive you – that might be a good thing to know if you intend to negotiate with them.

Usually, high trust is associated with positive outcomes, such as believing the information they

provide you is accurate or knowing they will run the meeting according to the agreed agenda and

not blindside you. Knowing how to detect trust is a challenge, but must be mastered.

Trust may be categorized into at least two major categories; trust in a process or trust in a

person. Process trust exists when both parties believe in and have faith in an institution that will

support the negotiations process. For example, process trust can exist in a real estate negotiation

when both parties trust that banking and real estate laws will support whatever agreement they

develop. They do not have to know each other to have trust in the process. Process trust also exists

in the military culture, such as the Inspector General complaint system, equal opportunity policies,

Air Force Instructions, etc. These provide a basis to support agreements between two people who

don’t know each other. The most fundamental process trust in the US Air Force is the culture’s

trust in its three Core Values – Integrity first, Service before self, and Excellence in all we do.

Many negotiated agreements between two USAF members who do not know each other are based

on the belief that the opposite will adhere to these core values in their dealings with you.

The other form of trust is personal trust. This form of trust is independent of any reliance on

an institution and / or third party. It is established at the most tactical level – between two people.

Trust can either be assumed, as when military people who share in their service’s core values first

meet each other, or is earned, through proving themselves trustworthy in deed (meeting obligations)

and/or word (being truthful).

Building this interpersonal trust is usually done through the “small things.” Checking on an

opposite’s reputation, observing the opposite’s non-verbal communication, and seeing how they

deliver on minor items such as punctuality, clarity in their communications, etc., are all tools to help

assess your trust in them. Caution is warranted here because you must assess trust through the

opposite’s cultural expectations. For example, if you are dealing with a culture with a different

perspective on time, you might misinterpret their late arrival to a meeting as being disrespectful

when, in their culture, they were on time; it was a happenstance encounter with an old friend on the

street outside your office that delayed them. Non-verbals are also culturally sensitive. Direct eye

contact might be seen as a positive thing in many cultures, but also as being aggressive in other

cultures. We could dedicate an entire guide to cross-cultural sensitivities and still not scratch the

surface. Also remember in the military context, personal trust will also reflect the opposite’s chain-

of-command – they may be a trustworthy individual, but their directive may not allow them to build

a deep relationship. The bottom line is this, after mastering the information is this guide, you will

also need to understand the culture you are dealing with and then assess whether the opposite’s

actions are really trustworthy.

Trust-building measures are another tool to help you establish and/or validate trust. Trust-

building measures are small steps taken at the beginning of the relationship demonstrating the honor

of your actions. These steps help set the expectation of honorable exchanges between you and the

opposite. Trust-building measures can be simple actions, such as providing good information in a

format and style the opposite understands, delivering on any promises made, and taking a genuine

interest in the opposite both as a person and the problem they are dealing with. Trust-building takes

time. However, once established, trust helps facilitate more effective communication and potentially

more effective problem solving down the road.

In most negotiations, both parties rely on some form of process and personal trust. The

focus is typically based on cultural perceptions (some cultures have almost no trust in central

processes like law and government and conduct business only with personal trust). As a

benchmark, Americans usually believe in process trust due to a well-established rule of law while

many traditional cultures (such as those in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and South America)

usually emphasize personal trust.

INFORMATION: The level of trust directly influences the next segment of the TIPO

framework, information. If you trust the information presented is truthful and complete, you have a

greater range of negotiating strategies available (to be expanded upon later.) If you believe the

information is incomplete, incorrect, or even intentionally deceitful, this will limit your options.

You must make decisions on whether to use third party sources to validate, directly confront the

opposite with your concerns over the information, and / or decide the information should not be part

of the current negotiation. On the other hand, total information trust would mean you are fully

willing to totally disclose all you know and expect the opposite to do likewise. This rarely occurs –

for example, no matter how much you trust your car dealer, you will never show him/her your bank

balance. However, many trusting relationships do allow for great amount of disclosure during the

negotiations, to include, at times, revealing unpleasant or unpopular information. Bottom line, trust

and information will influence the negotiating strategy you pursue, and will impact the amount of

power you need to draw upon to execute your strategy.

POWER: Power comes from many sources in a negotiation. Additionally, some forms of

power are dependent of the relationship between the different parties. These forms of power may

be applied as “Power Over” or “Power With.” “Power Over” is applying one of the sources of

power in a manner that gain you an advantage over the opposite. For example, “pulling rank” at a

negotiation to gain an advantage is using “Power Over.” “Power With” is applying one of the

sources of power in a manner that improves both party’s opportunity to benefit from the use of that

power. For example, sharing useful information with an opposite during a negotiation to help build

options is using “Power With.” Distinguishing whether a source of power is “Power Over” versus

“Power With” will help determine which negotiation strategy will best achieve your objectives.

The most predominant forms of power are:

1. Expert: having expertise in a process or subject matter gives you power. For example, in

a FOB civil engineering meeting about electrical grids, the deployed electrical engineer probably

has tremendous influence, especially if the other people in the negotiation trust that the civil

engineer’s information is accurate and valid.

2. Referent or charismatic: People give you power because they either have a high

identification with and / or respect / admire you.

3. Position or Legitimate: This is self-evident in the military context. Position or legitimate

power is the power available to you when others see your authority as legitimate / legal / acceptable.

4. Coercive: People having the perceived potential to harm or withhold a reward from

another have coercive power. This power’s key feature is it’s perception as real in the person being

influenced. If you have all the firepower in the world, but no authority to discharge a single

weapon, the coercive value of this power is nil.

5. Reward: The power to reward action. This too must be perceived as legitimate in the

person you are trying to influence. Reward power may also be punitive if you reward someone who

will ally with you against the opposite – thereby giving you more power. For example: If you can

award security badges allowing for free movement in an area, and access to these badges benefits

the holder, then awarding these badges to the opposite’s competitor is an exercise in reward power,

but used to possibly coerce the opposite into complying with your interests.

6. Influence: This is a combination of reward and coercive power. In essence, you are

developing power by working with others. You build temporary or permanent coalitions by

influencing others to join your cause or abandon the opposite’s cause. This type of power is often

used in multi-party negotiations when several parties band together to do something they could not

do on their own. We often see governments with multiple, fractured political parties build

coalitions to help pass legislation.

Of these different types of power, you need to assess what types of power are available to

you, what types of power are available to the opposite, and how your power is perceived by the

opposite. It does little good to walk into a meeting thinking you have referent power, just to find

out the opposite succumbed to a vicious rumor that discredits you and your negotiating efforts.

Trust is the centerpiece of the TIPO model and will impact power execution. With

exceptional levels of trust, power may be actively shared, i.e. you may have expert power on a

topic, but are fully willing to listen to the opposite’s perspectives on how to solve the problem.

George de Mestral, the inventor of Velcro, was not an accomplished engineer, but he eventually,

after some laughter from the “experts,” convinced a French fabric company to produce his concept.

This company was a textile industry leader, but rather than using this expert power unilaterally, they

shared their power with is this relatively unknown inventor – and both became rich.

On the other hand, if you have low trust in the opposite or you believe his / her actions are

against your interests, you may liberally apply power to overcome them. You may use your expert

power to discredit whatever data they bring to the table, a tactic familiar to trial lawyers. You may

use your process knowledge to derail their efforts. You may also threaten them with coercive

consequences if they do not agree with your plan of action. In essence, power can be shared or

hoarded, all depending on the type of trust you have with the opposite.

OPTIONS: Your final piece of this assessment framework considers how the foundation of

trust and the influence of information and power impact the development of negotiation options.

How you plan to develop these options will influence the negotiation strategy you select. Strategy

selection will be discussed in detail after we explore the general idea of option development.

Options are just different ways potentially to solve the problem. The options may be easy

or hard, cheap or expensive, but they are all nevertheless options. Option building requires two

elements: first is defining the problem that needs solving and second is identifying possible

resources (information, power, time, people, money, etc.) that may be applied to solving the

problem. Usually when more resources are available, more options can be developed. Note the

first two words in the previous set of parenthesis were “information” and “power.” Information is

key to developing options and power is key to making the options “operational.” The more

trustworthy information you have from and about the opposite, the greater the range of possible

options. A trustworthy opposite can provide a perspective you have not considered. Going back to

the Velcro example, many people in the late 1940s were trying to improve fastener technology

beyond the button, the zipper, tape, and glue. People wanted a strong, yet temporary bond,

especially between fabrics. If the companies that first dealt with Mousier George de Mestral had

trusted his information and shared decision-making power with him, they perhaps could have seen

what he saw, and reaped tremendous profit. He saw mountain thistles clinging to his beloved pet

dog with an amazing tenacity. Perhaps all the fabric company leaders saw was a mangy mutt.

However, the final company, the one that worked with Mousier de Mestral, took his idea and

combined it with their ideas on manufacturing technology. Together, they took fabric fastening

technology to the proverbial “next level.” They developed options together that neither could do on

their own because they decided to share power and information, thus coming up with novel options.

Conversely, when trust is low between parties and power is hoarded and / or information is

not considered truthful, option development becomes narrowed – in the extreme it narrows to the

information you have on hand and the power you have to operationalize a solution, possibly over

their objections. This imposed solution is a form of negotiations, and it does have its time and

place, especially in the military context. However, as will be developed in the following sections on

NPSC negotiation strategy selection, it may lead to suboptimal results and/ or significant problems

in execution and/or follow-on negotiations.

The TIPO Model worksheet in Appendix 2 will aid in framing the negotiation and assist in

selection of a negotiation strategy as described in the next section.

5. NPSC: NEGOTIATION STRATEGY SELECTION

The following five strategies combine the two variables (task and people) as seen above. It

is important to note, all five strategies have value and serve a purpose. Because negotiations occur

in such a wide range of circumstances, no single strategy will cover all the variables. Just as in golf,

picking the right club for the shot tends to improve your score. The same holds for negotiating,

selecting the most appropriate strategy for the situation should improve chances for success. When

the situation changes, a change in strategy may also be prudent.

In addition to the task and people variables, a TIPO assessment is also addressed in this

section. Picking up on variances in TIPO helps guide the selection and execution of a particular

strategy. Additionally, since trust, information, power, and options can and frequently do change

during a negotiations, awareness and critical evaluation of these changes can guide your shift in

strategies, if needed.

a. EVADE STRATEGY: The Evade strategy is a passive, unassertive strategy where you

do not have any motivation to work your expectations or meet their expectations. When might you

choose to “evade” or “kick the can down the road”? Evade works if the issue at hand is totally

unimportant to you, if you have higher priorities, or you lack the energy and drive to tackle the

problem. Often the status quo is actually preferred to any envisioned solution. Also, you may use

the Evade strategy if you are faced with an overwhelmingly competitive opponent and this forestalls

an outcome that would definitely not satisfy your needs.

In assessing TIPO, the Evade strategy may be appropriate when:

Trust: When trust is low, to the point you believe the opposite is not willing to work with

you or you believe they intend you ill will, the Evade strategy may buy you time. The passage of

time may allow for conditions to change in your favor.

Information: With low information, either you have too little information from the opposite

to work the issue, are not motivated to gain the needed information, or don’t trust the information

you do have. Sometimes the information you have may discourage you from engaging in the issue,

even if the opposite is interested in engaging.

Power: You have little or no effective power. Especially if your available instruments of

power are being diverted to tackle other pressing issues.

Options: To develop options, you need resources. In this situation, where trust and power

is low, your option is limited to what you can dream up on your own, trusting only the information

you can validate. Often, this results in a situation where the status quo is not only better than any

envisioned outcome of the proposed negotiations, but your only available option, since you have no

power to engage the opposite. The Evade strategy may be a good strategy, especially if you can

change the conditions down the road that would allow for the development of more palatable

options.

Evade Example: You discover that if you engage with the opposite, their solution would be

worse than your status quo, and you do not have the power to influence the process if you choose to

engage. In this situation, it might be prudent to use the Evade strategy, and delay action, while you

work the situation to make conditions down the road more favorable. This might be a delaying

tactic to get better information, gain more allies in your cause (more power) or to better investigate

possible flaws in the opposite’s proposals. In negotiating a staff package with an opposite in

conditions as those stated above, and you have no immediate ability to improve trust and work

things more cooperatively, and your suspense is later than their suspense, then you might “wait

them out” and see if they become more amenable to your needs as their deadline approaches before

yours.

Essentially, the Evade strategy is a delaying action and avoids any immediate meaningful

negotiations and seeks neither a “result” nor the development of a “relationship.” Although this

approach “manages” the conflict, it doesn’t seek to resolve it – its usefulness is extremely limited.

Using this strategy, however, must be balanced with what you anticipate the opposite might use on

you. See Table 1 below for some insights on how strategies might play out between negotiating

parties.

Evade Strategy Bumper Sticker: “Not now, can you come back later?”

b. COMPLY STRATGY: The Comply strategy tends to delegate the responsibility for the

conflict’s resolution to the other person or party. This (along with the “Evade” strategy) is a passive

approach to negotiations. This strategy is preferred when preserving the relationship between you

and the other party is the paramount concern even if it is at the “expense of the task.” The result of

this strategy is that the more assertive party gets what they want and you, as the compliant side, give

up whatever is at stake or grants a concession to the opposite.

In assessing TIPO, the Comply strategy may be appropriate when:

Trust: In assessing the situation, if there is a trusting relationship between the parties, and

there is a desire to continue trust-building, then the Comply strategy may be appropriate.

Power: If you have little power, or the power you do have is not perceived as legitimate by

the opposite, then your negotiating strategy choices are limited to what the opposite will allow you

to accomplish. However, you can be in a situation where you have high trust and no power. This

means you seek to work with the opposite, even to the point where the outcome may be worse for

you than the status quo. You may also have sufficient power to deal with the issue, but need to

devote that power to a more critical task.

Information: You may have information, be willing to share information, and have the

opposite trust your information (and you trust the opposite’s), but it is of little benefit to you

because the balance of power heavily favors the opposite. This doesn’t mean the opposite will

necessarily bludgeon you with this imbalance in power, although they have the ability to do that. It

means you cannot initiate or follow through on any implementation without the cooperation of the

opposite.

Options: Under the Comply strategy, options are lop-sided in favor of the opposite. This

does not always mean a bad outcome for you. If one of your interests is to build rapport and

goodwill for relations and negotiations later on, then the comply strategy may help you build it.

When employing the Comply strategy, you must however carefully evaluate potential impact on

long-term relations. If you are quick to comply, for example, your opposite may see it as a sign of

weakness that will set a challenging stage for future negotiations. (This can be especially evident in

cross-cultural negotiations)

Comply Example: Often, when dealing with a spouse, the Comply strategy builds “points”

with the spouse – it helps advance the relationship. For example, after a career of multiple and

short-notice PCS moves, long deployments, living on base or in “interesting” off-base housing, and

your spouse putting their career dreams on hold while you fulfilled yours, the decision as to “where

to retire” looms. If you want to advance the relationship, build more trust with your spouse, allow

them to pursue their career dreams and are flexible with your choices of where to live (essentially

you can live anywhere), you might adopt the Comply strategy and agree to the retirement location

of their choice.

Comply Strategy Bumper Sticker: “Yes, Absolutely, let’s do it your way!”

c. INSIST STRATEGY: The Insist strategy is useful when you believe that obtaining your

objective is paramount, regardless of the cost to the opposite’s interests or the relationship. The

Insist strategy is usually associated with a position and declared with a demand that leaves little

room for movement and / or compromise. Information is usually hoarded. Relationships are

usually put at risk and any long-term negotiating relationships are difficult to maintain. This style is

preferred when a “winner takes all” requirement is sought. Usually the Insist strategy is used when

there is a single issue (like price or security) and the possibility of future interaction between the

parties is unlikely. The Insist strategy is quick, and there’s usually one outcome: one party “wins”

and the other “loses.” At issue is which party gets to play the victor or the vanquished. Usually, the

party with the greater amount of power is the victor. We also describe the Insist strategy as a zero-

sum or distributive process where the negotiator perceives there are a finite number of “chips” to be

won—and each party wants to be the sole winner.

Some suggest this winner-take-all approach is a misunderstanding of negotiations. It is not a

misunderstanding, but a specific strategy available to achieve specific goals. The value of this

strategy lies in appropriately selecting it to meet a desired outcome. Because it is short-sighted and

does not consider relationships, etc., once the confrontation is won, the opposite is not likely to deal

with you again or perhaps not willing to execute (or create problems in executing) the agreement

you just imposed. The Insist strategy perhaps requires the most careful monitoring of the post-

agreement compliance.

In assessing TIPO, the Insist strategy may be appropriate when:

Trust: Trust either does not exist, is not needed or is not valued. Simply put, the Insist

strategy is not just IF you win, but HOW MUCH you win.

Power: The Insist strategy requires overwhelming power. In the assessment, you must

consider not only the power you need to win the negotiation and defeat the opposite, but to also

have sufficient power to ensure the agreement is executed. Too often, you might use all your power

in the negotiations to dominate the opposite, only to have the execution fail because the opposite, in

the execution phase, has more power than you, or has built a coalition of power to resist your ability

to enforce the agreement’s terms.

Information: Similar to the conditions in the power discussion above, your assessment

reveals that you do not need and / or do not trust their information. Even if you assess their

information to be truthful you make a conscience decision to ignore it. You are assuming you have

all the information needed for a decision and the information you have is of sufficient quality.

Option: Option development under the Insist strategy is one-sided – your side. Since trust

may be low, power is high, and the opposite’s information is scarce or not valued, you are

essentially negotiating with yourself to come up with the preferred solution to meet your interests

and ignore, either intentionally or unintentionally, their interests. An Insist strategy may be

appropriate in a crisis, when time is short and even though you might trust the opposite, there is not

enough time to gather information, share power and take the time to mutually develop options for

consideration as potential solutions. “People are dying, aircraft are crashing and / or buildings are

burning down”

situations that may call for quick action with little or no consultation. In this

strategy, position or expert power is needed in quantities sufficient to execute the solution. Often in

a crisis situation, the Insist strategy predominates at the outset, and then as the crisis subsides, other

negotiating strategies are adopted to develop and execute a more durable, long-term solution.

Insist Strategy Bumper Sticker: “Take it or Leave it” or “Today -- Do it My Way!”

d. SETTLE STRATEGY: The Settle strategy may be an option when you seek resolution

to a situation, but see little chance for you to really get it “your way” (e.g. the Insist Strategy) or you

don’t want to “give in” (e.g. the Comply Strategy) to the opposite. By using the Settle strategy, you

may minimally satisfy both side’s task interests through the process of compromising with your

opposite; usually in the form of splitting the difference “…somewhere down the middle”. The

Settle strategy usually opens not with a demand (a hard position with no wiggle room), but a softer

“offer” (a position leaving some room for you or the opposite to maneuver the other to a solution).

Each party “gets something”, but usually not what you really need or what fully satisfies you.

Additionally, the people orientation is not strong, as you expect the opposite to take care of their

interests as you are taking care of yours. It is not antagonistic; neither is it nurturing the

relationship.

Settling usually results in a quick negotiation (Settle is an efficient process), but rarely

delivers an optimal outcome (Settle is usually not an effective process). Also, the Settle strategy is

usually most useful where only one variable is at stake or being considered (like price). A quick

tutorial on the Settle strategy is available in any segment of “Pawn Stars” or “American Pickers”

series on cable television. Observe how they intuitively use TIPO in these cable television

programs.

In assessing TIPO, the Settle Strategy may be appropriate when:

Trust: A certain amount of trust is needed to use the Settle strategy. It will impact the way

you perceive power and information. Sometimes trust can be found in the process, like a third party

(examples are Blue Book or Edmunds.com for vehicles or Zilla.com / public tax records for

estimates of property values).

Power: When power is evenly divided between parties, and trust is not high, the Settle

strategy allows both parties to exercise some control over the process, but not to the total detriment

of the opposite. In this situation, especially when expert and / or official power is diffused (there

are experts and / or rank on both sides of the negotiation), compromises are necessary because

neither party is willing to either move to the opposite’s offer or take the time to explore options, as

in the Cooperative Strategy.

Information: Because there is some trust, you perceive the opposite is providing

reasonably accurate information, although you are not sure if they are partially or fully disclosing

information. Because trust is neither strong nor weak, you protect yourself by slowly sharing

information. This is usually observed by the tradition of “I’ll come down $5.00 if you’ll match me”

back and forth bargaining style until the total difference is somewhat evenly split. Caution is

advised, because the tradition of equitably splitting things “50/50” is culturally dependent. Some

cultures expect the two parties, regardless of their background or means, will split the differences

evenly. In other cultures, parties from different social classes may have a different expectation of

reciprocity when dealing with each other and / or with Americans.

Options: Option development is somewhat limited, but is based on your perception that

there is some element of trust, a belief that the opposite’s information is truthful (perhaps

incomplete, but accurate), and some acknowledgement that neither side has the power to

unilaterally conclude a deal. You also acknowledge that you must consider some of their interests.

In the Settle strategy planning phase, you still determine what you need, but then establish some

wiggle room between what you would like to settle for (aspiration point) and what the worst you

would agree to (reservation point). The range between the aspiration and reservation points is your

bargaining range. The same goes for the opposite if they adopt the Settle strategy. They too have

aspiration and reservation points. To illustrate, you see a car on EBay – the seller is willing to let it

go for “…$25,000 or best offer”. You only want to pay $20,000 (your aspiration point), but would

be willing to pay up to $23,000 (reservation point). The seller’s “Buy it Now” price (opposite’s

aspiration price) is $25,000, but deep down inside, they have information on other on-line auctions

where similar cars were moved for as little as $22,000. So they are also willing to move it for that

amount (their reservation price). Your bargaining range is from their reservation price ($22,000) to

your reservation price ($23,000). That range is known as the Zone of Possible Agreement.

Settle Strategy Bumper Sticker: “Let’s just split the difference and call it a day”

e. COOPERATIVE NEGOTIATION STRATEGY (CNS): CNS is the Air Force

Negotiation Center (AFNC) enhanced version of the business world concept known as Interest-

Based Negotiations (IBN).

CNS depends on each party’s desire to achieve both a mutually

satisfactory outcome while simultaneously managing the relationship. For this to occur, trust must

exist between the parties, they must be willing to share information and decision-making power,

and suspend judgment on possible solutions. The AF AFNC also suggests that all five NPSC

negotiation strategies are “interest-based” – and none should be disregarded when contemplating or

executing a negotiation. For example, in certain situations your “interests” must drive your strategy

selection (such as using the Insist strategy in a crisis) or in other situations, your interest may be for

the opposite to “have it their way” (using the Comply strategy to help build a relationship), etc.

CNS, however, has the potential to address multiple issues within a negotiation. The basic

premise is that the “game” is not inherently zero-sum, as in the Insist Strategy, but there is a

potential to create new value for each party involved while building an enduring relationship to

handle the inevitable problems that crop up during the execution of nearly every negotiated

agreement. CNS is particularly effective in diverse situations – such as the military environment.

Agreements in the military must be reached with people and groups that are often very different —

culturally, socially, politically, etc. To get beyond the obstacles to an agreement, CNS suggests

learning of and then focusing on the underlying, basic, and perhaps common, interests behind each

party’s initial positions. From these interests arises the potential to also find common ground and

generate opportunities to create new value. Reduced to its essence, CNS proposes that two groups

working together will come up with a solution that is better than what either party could generate on

their own.

In assessing TIPO, the CNS may be appropriate when:

Trust: A great deal of trust must exist for CNS to succeed. Although process trust may be

evident, personal trust is also critical, because CNS is based in sharing information and power.

Trust building is also a foundational tool of CNS.

Information: The amount and level of information revealed is based on the strength of the

trust between the parties. With stronger trust, more information can be freely and reliably shared.

Full, unconditional trust (primarily personal trust) could result in the revelation of deep secrets that

you would never otherwise divulge. However, process trust could also result in full disclosure, such

as an institutional assurance that everything you say in a negotiation would be confidential

information and any public disclosure of information by the opposite would result in punitive action

against them.

Power: With great levels of trust, defensive mechanisms are not as important and people

feel less vulnerable to manipulation. Lowered defensive mechanisms means you are willing to

share power, both in the negotiation process and ultimately in selecting the option to be executed.

At times, you may select an option that more completely satisfies the opposite’s interests, knowing

that in execution, you trust they will be looking out for your best interests if something unusual

should arise.

Options: Because there is an exchange of information, there is also an exchange of ideas –

resulting in multiple ways to possibly solve the problem. CNS works best when parties develop

multiple options and then explore which of the proposed options, either in its original or modified

form, might best solve the problem. Unlike the Insist strategy, where there is only “my way to solve

my problem,” CNS might find “our way to solve our problem.” Ultimately, one option must be

selected for execution, but that option is selected from a pool of likely candidate options that were

mutually developed.

Key CNS Features: The following sub-sections highlight concepts that are especially useful when

considering CNS. To help develop these concepts, we often contrast CNS with examples using the

Insist strategy. This was intentional, because DOD leaders are most familiar with the Insist

strategy.

This is not an error. Military doctrine, training and culture re-enforces decisive action –

an essential element of a hard power culture. This is not to discredit the use of the Insist strategy or

the need for a hard power culture – every one of the five negotiating strategies has its time and

place. The Insist strategy is used here as a familiar benchmark for comparison with the CNS.

1. CNS Changes Negotiation from a Contest of Wills to a Search for Solutions

: By focusing

on the problem, especially the underlying interests, while actively managing the relationship, CNS

gets you to treat disputes and issues as problems to be mutually solved rather than a contest of wills

and personalities. It shifts the negotiation dynamic away from the primary focus of making

concessions, the Insist strategy’s hallmark, to a genuine search for solutions where both parties get

their interests met (win/win solutions).

2. CNS not only Focuses on the Problem but Actively Manages the Relationship: In a

negotiation, developing a friendship is not the goal. You do not have to like your opposite, but you

need to respect them, and they need to respect you. Respect helps develop trust, which helps open

communication channels so that information about interests may be shared and used to develop

potential solutions. By framing the search for solutions as a cooperative venture rather than a

competitive sport, it shifts the negotiation dynamic away from an Insist strategy, where concessions

by the weaker side are expected. Key in the military context is finding ways for leaders to properly

identify what the problem really is all about. It is one thing to say in the business world that you

need to negotiate a delivery date. It is quite another matter for two military leaders, who at one time

were fighting each other in a conflict, to see eye-to-eye on a matter such as “security,” or “building

partnerships,” etc.

Actively managing the relationship means paying attention to the opposite’s verbal and non-

verbal cues. For example, if you propose an idea and the opposite crosses their arms and / or rolls

their eyes, engage them with a question. Something like “I think you have some issues with this

idea, can you help me understand what they might be?” Also pay attention to what they are saying.

If they propose something that is clearly out-of-bounds by most standards, ask questions as to why

they proposed the idea. Something like “Wow! Talk about out of the box thinking! I never saw

that one coming. Can you tell me what you considered when you proposed this idea?”

3. CNS Focuses on Understanding the Underlying Interests: CNS recognizes that parties’

underlying interests are at the heart of the dispute. It recognizes that it is more important to the

negotiation that the parties know WHY they want something (the interests) rather than focusing on

just WHAT they want (the position). The interests are the underlying desires, values, concerns,

fears and limitations that motivate the parties to posture over their positions. CNS requires each

party to focus on their own interests AS WELL AS focusing on uncovering and understanding the

opposite’s interest. Critical to this discovery process is not only identifying and sharing interests,

but also prioritizing the interests from least to most important. This will become important when

selecting a final option or solution.

4. CNS Allows for Solutions Based on Differences: CNS recognizes that parties have differing

interests, priorities, preferences, and organizational needs. Understanding these varying interests

and preferences may help improve the development of options as potential solutions because the

brainstorming has focus; a focus on the priorities that each party has shared with the opposite. This

search for options based on declared priorities changes the negotiation from a pattern of concessions

to a genuine problem solving effort to find the best solution that is most likely to meet both parties’

differing interests. For example, a systems operator’s position might be to demand a fully mission-

capable device. Conversely, the systems maintainer’s position might be to provide minimally-

capable equipment, based on his / her severely constrained maintenance personnel and parts

resources. Both are interested in generating equipment to execute the mission (this is the

underlying common interest). In exploring options, the two leaders may develop an option which

generates a partially-capable device (meets the maintainer’s interest of resource conservation), but

sufficiently capable to meet the mission requirements (meets the operator’s interest of getting that

day’s task done).

5. CNS Recognizes that Information Sharing and Critical Thinking Are at the Heart of

Problem solving: CNS rests on a skill set that includes open communications, active listening, and

critical thinking. These skills are needed for parties to understand perceptions of events, interests,

priorities and possible options to enhance the search for viable solutions. In CNS, sharing

information and thinking critically to better understand the information is in sharp contrast to the

tendency to withhold and manipulate information that characterizes other negotiating strategies.

6. CNS Focuses on Expanding Solution Options (Expanding the “Pie”):

An Insist strategy

creates a battle of wills rather than a meeting of the minds. In contrast, CNS allows parties to

conceptually sit side-by-side in a search for value-creating opportunities. Both parties have the

potential to create new solutions that neither of them could have imagined on their own. By

focusing on expanding the solution field and creating as much value as possible, the division of the

expanded pie becomes more reasoned and logical, rather than simply being a result of manipulation

and hard-ball negotiation tactics.

For example, in a deployed situation, a coalition leader was negotiating with a local person

for water deliveries. The local vendor was trustworthy, had a strong reputation, but the negotiations

stalled. The vendor insisted on and continued to tell the story about his family in the nearby village

and how they could not get the annual crops into storage because their small truck had been

damaged beyond repair (he claimed coalition action damaged the truck). The vendor’s top interest

was the family while the coalition leader’s was water. By using critical thinking questions and

actively listening, the coalition leader negotiated with the vendor and discovered that for a few extra

liters of diesel fuel, he could allow the vendor to use the space on the empty coalition trucks as they

made their way from the parking area to the water pick-up point. The vendor could load the crops

on these empty trucks as they made their way to pick up the next shipment of water. In exchange,

the vendor sold the water at a discounted rate. It was a win-win. Had either party stuck to their

“positions” (water and crops), and used the Insist strategy, a solution might have been out of

reach.

7. CNS Focuses on Using Some Sort of Objective Standards and Legitimate Reasons in the

Option Selection Phase: Once parties have expanded and created possible options for solutions,

the pie must still be divided. Where the Insist strategy relies on posturing on many fronts to divide

the proceeds, CNS asks parties to find standards that justify the inevitable divvying-up that occurs

in most negotiations. Which option to select can become problematic in the military environment

because there is no benchmark such as “Edmunds.com” for military decision-making. The AFNC

suggests that parties agree to select the option best meeting each negotiating party’s top interest(s).

This has the secondary benefit of getting parties to reveal and prioritize their interest(s) early in the

negotiation, since they will be using those prioritized interests to select the best option to execute.

CNS Bumper Sticker: “Let’s work together and come up with an even better idea”

Some possible outcomes based on a cross comparison of negotiating strategies selected by you

and your opposite are outlined in Table 1.

Opposite’s

Strategy

Evade

Comply

Insist

Settle

Cooperate (CNS)

Your

Strategy

Evade

No Engagement:

Status Quo most

likely reigns

No Engagement:

Status Quo most

likely reigns

May result in

status quo. If the

opposite has

overwhelming

power, they may

gain their

objectives after a

delay

Possible solution

if the opposite

makes an offer

(with

information you

weren’t aware

of) that is better

than your status

quo

Possible solution if

the opposite

earnestly engages

you with ideas and

options that are

better than your

status quo

Comply

No Engagement:

Status Quo most

likely reigns

No resolution as

sides take turns

deferring to each

other

The opposite will

gain their

objectives

The opposite will

gain their

objectives

The opposite will

gain their objective,

and might work to

help you realize

your objectives

(relationship

development)

Insist

May result in

status quo. If you

have

overwhelming

power, you may

gain your

objectives after a

delay

You will gain

your objective

The side with the

greater power

wins and the other

loses their

objective

You will gain

your objective

You will gain your

objective unless the

opposite effectively

engages you to

change your

strategy to CNS so

they can meet their

interests.

Settle

Possible solution

if you make an

offer (with

information they

weren’t aware of)

that is better than

their status quo

You will gain

your objective

They will gain

their objective

You will get an

agreement that

generally “splits

the difference”

between each

side’s initial

offers

Possible solution

that is better than

“splitting the

difference” if the

opposite earnestly

engages you with

ideas and options

that you haven’t

considered

Cooperate

(CNS)

Possible solution

if you earnestly

engage the

opposite with

ideas and options

that are better than

the opposite’s

status quo

You will gain

your objective,

and you may

work to help the

opposite realize

their objectives

(relationship

development)

They may gain

their objective if

you can’t move

them to the CNS

Possible solution

that is better than

“splitting the

difference” if

you earnestly

engage the

opposite with

ideas and options

that they haven’t

considered

Solution that

maximizes the

exchange of

information and

ideas, thus

maximizing the

potential for each

side gaining their

most critical

interests in a

mutually agreed

upon solution

Table 1. Possible Outcomes for Various Negotiation Strategy Combinations

6. SOME NEGOTIATING PITFALLS COMMON TO ANY STRATEGY

Below are some pitfalls that might derail any negotiation. You should always keep these pitfalls in

mind as work the negotiation process.

a. Neglecting the Opposite’s Problem: The first mistake is to focus on your own problem

exclusively. You need to also understand the problem from the opposite’s perspective. Most

people have difficulty understanding the opposite’s perspective, and overcoming this self-centered

tendency is critical. Always try to put yourself in the other person’s shoes and try to understand, in

depth, what they really need out of the deal. If you want to change someone’s mind, you should

first learn what they are thinking. Then you can build a bridge spanning the distance from their

current position to your envisioned end point. The best tool for doing this is to actively listen and

follow up the opposite’s conversations and contributions with a series of critical thinking questions

to help deepen and clarify the message (A critical thinking question is any question that cannot be

answered by a “yes”, “no”, or “maybe”. The 5 “Ws+” are great critical thinking questions [Who,

What, When, Where, Why, How Much, If, etc.]).

b. Letting Your Positions Drive Out Your Real Interests: People in a negotiation have a

built-in bias to focus on their own positions rather than considering their deeper interests.

Remember, a position is what you want; an interest is why you want it. For example, demanding a

specific suspense date on a staff package (a position) from a subordinate unit without good insight

of when your HHQ needs it could negatively impact your real interest which is probably quality

staff work. Creating new value by reconciling your real interests with the opposite’s interests

requires patience and a desire to learn from your opposite. Remember to ask many questions and

actively listen.

c. Searching Too Hard for Common Ground: We negotiate to overcome the differences

that divide us. Typically, we are advised to find win-win agreements by searching for common

ground, and this concept is valuable. However, some of the most frequently overlooked sources of

value in a negotiation arise from differences among the parties. Remember, in difference there is

strength.

Understanding that you and your opposite often approach problem solving differently

(attitudes toward risk, saving face, time, control over the future, allegiances, priorities, etc.) is at

least as important as identifying areas of common ground. Remember the water vendor, the

solution was found not in ignoring the differences, but exploring how the differences could be

linked in a solution that satisfied each party’s interests.

d. Neglecting BATNAs: A BATNA reflects a course of action available to negotiating

parties. Know yours; do not forget theirs. Do not inadvertently weaken yours. The better your

BATNA appears to you and your opposite, the more leverage it provides you. In the military

environment, you often do not have a great BATNA – mission failure simply is not an option. But

mission failure is also not a likely option for your military counterpart – and is a point you can

leverage. If you come to an impasse in the negotiations, a conversation between you and your

opposite about BATNAs might be motivational. Something like: “We’ve made so much progress,

but we are hung up on this item. I don’t want to go back to my boss and tell him we couldn’t work

this out. How do you think your boss will react if you have to tell him the same thing?” In cultures

where face saving is important, the realization of this possibility might motivate your opposite to

work more closely with you towards a solution.

e. Failing to Correct for Skewed Vision: First, people tend to unconsciously interpret

information pertaining to their own side in a strongly self-serving way; they get caught in “role

biases”. Getting too committed to your point of view is a common mistake (never fall in

love…with your ideas!).

Second, is the concept of partisan perceptions. While we systematically

process our own side’s critical information, we do not carefully assess the opposite’s critical

information areas. In short, we tend to overvalue our information and undervalue theirs. This can

be corrected through self-awareness and seeking outside or third-party inputs and views. This often

happens when there is a dispute over the value of an item – just watch the next episode of Pawn

Stars to get insight on how sellers overvalue their “stuff” and how Rick Harrison consistently

undervalues the same “stuff”.

7. SUMMARY

An Internet search will reveal literally tens of thousands of articles, books, self-help guides,

and multi-thousand dollar seminars to help improve your negotiating skills.

This short article is

designed to give you the fundamentals – what you absolutely need to know before heading out to

negotiate an issue. Some take-aways to help reinforce the key points:

- Everything is a negotiation – sometimes you negotiate with yourself (like when to get up

on a Saturday morning after a tough week), but most often you negotiate with others to solve

problems. As with anything in life, a little bit of planning goes a long way.

- If you only have time to do one thing, always know your BATNA and protect it. If

possible, estimate your opposite’s BATNA and find ways to influence it. In a military environment,

your BATNA can often be used to motivate the opposite to stay in a negotiation.

- If you have time to do two things before a negotiation, do the above and a TIPO

assessment using the TIPO Worksheet in Appendix 2. It will give you a hunch on how to proceed.

Know the two types of trust: process and personal. During a negotiation, constantly reassessing the

TIPO within the negotiation might give you insight on what the opposite is using for a strategy.

Trust drives almost everything in a negotiation.

- If you have time to do three things, do the above, and work through the Basic Negotiation

Worksheet in Appendix 3 to prepare fully and to select a negotiation strategy. If circumstances

allow, try the CNS first.

- The Air Force Negotiation Center (AFNC) is a reach back resource for your use. Need

help, advice and / or training? Start with the web site: http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/AFNC/

Table of Contents Appendix 1: Glossary of Common Negotiation Terms

APPENDIX 1: GLOSSARY OF COMMON NEGOTIATION TERMS

Active Asking

Important negotiation and critical thinking

skill. Asking questions that allow the opposite

or other party to respond and frame an

answer that provides necessary information

to further the negotiation process.

Active Listening

Critical negotiation skill. First step in any

dialogue is to pay attention, but active listing

goes beyond this. Active listeners are

engaged in the communication process. The

provide feedback during the process and

avoid biases.

Anchoring

Establishing position based on subjective

information. Examples include the

Manufactures Suggested Retail Price on a

vehicle.

Aspiration Point

The best each party hopes to get out of a

negotiated agreement.

Authority

From Robert Cialdini's Influence: The

Psychology of Persuasion: People tend to

agree or follow others in perceived or actual

power positions or positions of authority. As

an example, advertisers will use actors who

play authority figures to endorse products

even though they have no legitimate

knowledge or expertise on the product.

Bargaining Range

The range between one party's aspiration

point and their reservation point. An

alternative way to define bargaining range is

the range from one's anchor (initial offer) to

one's reservation point. Depending on the

situation, the aspiration point and anchor

may be the same. Each party to a

negotiation should know its own bargaining

range, but the other party's (or parties')

bargaining range may not be known without

information sharing. For example, each

party's reservation point will not be shared in

a typical bargaining situation. Therefore,

each party will know its own bargaining range

Table of Contents Appendix 1: Glossary of Common Negotiation Terms

and can adjust it for each concession made

be either party.

Barriers

Actions or words that may prohibit successful

negotiations.

BATNA

Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement.

An alternative to negotiation that you can

execute independent of your opposite.

Bias

In negotiations, a personal or group tendency

or inclination that prevents rational or

reasonable decision making. Can be called a

prejudice. A barrier to critical thinking or

interest development during negotiations.

CNS

Cooperative Negotiation Strategy. Modeled

after classical interest base negotiation

principles, the Negotiation Center developed

CNS as a tool for the military negotiator. CNS

balances mission and relationships to choose

negotiation strategies including cooperative,

settle, insist, comply and evade.

Coercive Power

Power gained by perceived ability to harm or

withhold reward.

Comply Strategy

A negotiating strategy from the NPSC. The

comply strategy reflects low interest in task

orientation and high interest in people

orientation. The negotiator is concerned with

establishing, preserving or improving his/her

reputation or relationship. "We will do it your

way."

Concession

Something given up while bargaining or

negotiating with another party. It can be

substantive, such as a price adjustment in the

typical used-car negotiation, or it can be an

intangible such as a promise to do something.

Concessions can be unilateral without any

reciprocal concession by the opposite, or it

can be conditional. An example of a

conditional concession: I'll give up this, if you

give up that. Concessions reduce the known

bargaining range in quantifiable negotiations.

Consistency/Commitment

From Robert Cialdini's Influence: The

Psychology of Persuasion: Psychologists

Table of Contents Appendix 1: Glossary of Common Negotiation Terms

have identified that people are motivated to

and highly desire consistency. They want to

feel that they are following a logical and

similar path to others. One example of this

behavior is the use of the secret ballot. If you

were to use a show of hands in a public vote,

some may vote in a certain way to be

consistent with the largest voting group.

Convergent Thinking

Convergent thinkers tend to see problems as

obstacles. The problem is a target to be

destroyed, managed or overcome. They are

capable problem solvers in crisis situations.

Effective, but often set their mind on one

solution. Normally rational, and principle-

based.

Cooperative Negotiation Strategy

A negotiating strategy from the NPSC. The

cooperative negotiation strategy or CNS

reflects high interests in both people and task

orientations. Based on the classic IBN model.

The cooperative strategy seeks to create new

value within available resources. Not a zero-

sum process.

Critical Thinking

A challenging concept to define, but an

important characteristic to obtain. Simply put

a critical thinker looks at all parts of a

complex issue or problem with a fair, open-

minded, and unbiased perspective. The Joint

Staff Officer Handbook has a brief description

of the critical thinker and states the critical

thinker has a "willingness to see ambiguities,

multiple potential solutions to a problem,

recognition that few answers are black and

white, and an interest in exploring the

possibilities."

Cross-Cultural Competence

As defined by the Air Force Culture and

Language Center - the ability to quickly and

accurately comprehend a culturally-complex

environment, and then appropriately and

effectively act to achieve the desired effect.

See

http://www.culture.af.mil/library/pdf/3c_fa

ctsheet.pdf

Culture

As defined by the Air Force Culture and

Language Center - the creation, maintenance

Table of Contents Appendix 1: Glossary of Common Negotiation Terms

and transformation across generations of

semi-shared patterned of meaning, sense-

making, affiliation, action and organization by

groups. See http://www.culture.af.mil/

Deductive Reasoning

A form of reasoning that arrives at

conclusions based on arguments anchored in

overarching principles. For example: if taking

a human life is considered unacceptable,

then the death penalty as a punishment in

the criminal system must also be

unacceptable.

Demand

Your take it or leave it offer. A statement of

terms with no room for adjustment. Often

used in positional bargaining.

Direct Negotiations

The process of negotiation directly between

two principles. Normally the least

complicated negotiation process.

Distributive Bargaining

Competitive or win-lose based on limited

resources where the parties work to divide

the resources to claim maximum value for

their side. Each party's goals are typically in

conflict with each other. A zero-sum

bargaining approach. Normally uses the

comply, insist, or settle strategy.

Divergent Thinking

Divergent thinkers tend to see problems as

opportunities. The problem is a starting point

from which to imagine solutions. They are

creative and spontaneous and are

comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity.

Often dislike settling on one solution.

Evade Strategy

A negotiating strategy from the NPSC. The

evade strategy reflects low interest in people

orientation or task orientation. The

negotiator seeks to avoid engagement or

negotiations.

Expert Power

Having knowledge in either how to do a

process or specific subject matter knowledge.

Framing

The way interests or desires are explained or

stated. Specific words and word patterns are

important in how items are framed verbally.

Table of Contents Appendix 1: Glossary of Common Negotiation Terms

High Context Culture

Edward Hall’s Beyond Culture is the basis for

a discussion on describing culture using the

high / low framework. Deals with the idea of

communications styles and messaging within

a culture. High context cultures communicate

in a less direct manner. They use messaging

through context and delivery with many

implied and non-verbal communications. This

messaging can be very complex, but is

normally well understood within a cultural

group, but not well understood outside the

group. This is especially true as a low context

culture attempts to understand a high

context culture. As with any model, this is a

rule of thumb. Example high context cultures

include those in Japan, China, Africa, the

Middle East, etc.

IBN

Interest Based Negotiations.

Indirect Negotiation

The process of negotiation that employs

agents to represent the principles. A typical

example would be the use of real estate

agents to represent the principles in the sale

of a house. Often used in initial diplomatic

negotiations. Agents may be needed for their

expertise, detachment of the principle, or

tactical flexibility for the principle.

Inductive Reasoning

A form of reasoning that arrives at

conclusions based on the observation and

gathering of data, evidence or circumstances.

For example: although taking a human life is

generally considered unacceptable, when the

evidence is compelling, such as the

reprehensible and senseless rape and murder

of an innocent girl is brought before the

criminal justice system, then the death

penalty can be justified as an acceptable

punishment based on the viciousness of the

crime.

Influence Power

A combination of reward and coercive power.

Developed through a working relationship.

Information

1. Facts, data, or instructions in any medium

or form.

2. The meaning that a human assigns to data

by means of the known conventions used in

Table of Contents Appendix 1: Glossary of Common Negotiation Terms

their representation. Source JP 3-13.1.

Insist Strategy

A negotiating strategy from the NPSC. The

insist strategy reflects low interest in people

orientation, but high interest in task

orientation. The negotiator wants to see all

his/her interests or outcomes met with little

regard to people or relationships. "My way or

the highway."

Interest

Underlying reason you are aspiring to a

position.

Integrative Negotiation

Synonymous with the Cooperative

Negotiation Strategy. This is a collaborative

or win-win approach that looks to create

value rather than just claim it (as in

distributive bargaining). Goals are not

mutually exclusive. A more partner-like

approach that uses concepts from interest-

based negotiations for both parties to

maximize their gains.

Interrogative Questions

Questions using "who, what, when, where,

how much, and why." Allows for answers that

can reveal interests.

Legitimate Power

In the military this is quickly identified

because of rank or position. Power gained

when you see the authority of others as

legitimate/legal/acceptable.

Liking

From Robert Cialdini's Influence: The

Psychology of Persuasion: People will agree

with other people that they admire or with

their group of friends. The use of "home

parties" to sell products to friends is one

example of using this concept to increase

sales. It is the same reason car dealers use

models to advertise their cars as an

endorsement by attractive people.

Low Context Culture

Edward Hall’s Beyond Culture is the basis for

a discussion on describing culture using the

high / low framework. Deals with the idea of

communications styles and messaging within

a culture. Low context cultures are opposite

of the high context with direct

communications and do not hold back in

Table of Contents Appendix 1: Glossary of Common Negotiation Terms

their messaging. Examples of low context

cultures include the United States, Canada

(English speaking), Australia, etc.

Multi-Party Negotiations

Negotiations between three or more parties.

Offer

A statement of terms which anticipates a

counter-offer. It is more flexible than a

demand.

Opposite

The person or group with whom you are

engaged in negotiations. Sometimes called

the negotiation partner, or even adversary,

the opposite recognizes the idea that you

lack agreement and must negotiation to solve

a problem or reach an agreement.

Personal Trust

Trust established between two people who

share interests. Example would be in a high-

context culture with a strong, informal tribal

structure that calls for trusting relationships

between leaders.

Position

What you want. Your vision of your best

possible outcome. A negotiating position is

not haphazard. It should be based on

carefully developed interests and desired

outcomes.

Power

Power has many definitions, but it can be

simply the ability to control outcomes or gain

desired outcomes. If you have power you can

get things done or achieve your desired

objectives. Power comes in many forms to

include expert, reward, coercive, legitimate,

and referent. Power is also gained through

information and relationships.

Power Over

The power is "fundamentally domination and

coercive in nature." The other party might

feel powerless or dependent if the opposite

is using "power over."

Power With

Power that is jointly developed and shares

power with the others involved. The other

party might feel empowered and

independent if sharing "power with." In the

Cooperative Negotiation Strategy this power

reflects the interests of both parties.

Table of Contents Appendix 1: Glossary of Common Negotiation Terms

Process Interests

Interest in establishing or reflecting a specific

and logical sequence for a desired outcome.

The problem solving effort will establish a

specific process or procedure.

Process Trust

Trust established in procedures, institutions,

or structures. Examples in a low context

system would be the legal system of the

United States.

Psychological Interests

Interest in an outcome that provides a non-

material reward such as an apology or

recognition of position.

Reciprocity

From Robert Cialdini's Influence: The

Psychology of Persuasion: Considered a

powerful means of influence, people can feel

obligated to return a gift or favor even if it is

given freely and without condition. This is the

idea behind free samples. If you are given a

small sample at the store, you may feel

obligated to purchase the product.

Referent/Charismatic Power

Power because people either have a high

identification with and /or

respect/admiration for you.

Reframing

Communicating an idea is a new way or

"frame" to broaden the view or perspective

of your opposite. Much more than restating

an idea, it is stating a concept or idea in a

new way to expand the perspective of the

discussion or interaction. A way to counter

"thin slicing."

Reservation Point

The least favorable option or offer either site

might accept. Your bottom-line in the

negotiation.

Reward Power

Power gained by perceived ability to

compensate the opposite.

Scarcity

From Robert Cialdini's Influence: The

Psychology of Persuasion: A classic way to

attract or influence. Often used in

negotiations as a tactic to pressure a

decision. You may be told that the "offer is

on the table for only the next hour." The

Table of Contents Appendix 1: Glossary of Common Negotiation Terms

opposite’s desire is to make you commit. In

sales it is the idea of a car advertisement that

says only two left in stock. This is trying to say

"There are very few of these left and this may

be the last one." You do not want to miss this

deal and are influenced to buy.

Settle Strategy

A negotiating strategy from the NPSC. This

option is used when task and people

orientation are similar or equal and the

desire to develop a compromise solution.

"Let's split the difference and call it a day."

Social Proof

From Robert Cialdini's Influence: The

Psychology of Persuasion: The classic

concept of "Everyone is doing it!" You will

look at the behavior of larger groups of

society and model your behavior after the

group. This form of influence can sometimes

explain positive or negative behaviors. This is

why groups will dress alike or purchase the

"popular" toy at Christmas.

Stakeholder/Constituents

People outside the negotiation process who

are impacted by the negotiation process.

Substantive Interests

Interest in material success in a problem

solving process. Reflects a desire for fiscal or

material reward.

Thin Slicing

A term used to describe decision making or

development of evidence based on limited

information or "thin slices" of reality. For

example, thin slicing limits one’s ability to see

the entirety of a complex situation, to see all

sides of an argument, or to fully consider the

interests of all parties in a negotiation.

WATNA

Worst Alternative To a Negotiated

Agreement. A WATNA is essentially your

worst estimate of your BATNA. In estimating

the WATNA, you are giving maximum weight

to the negative variables in your BATNA. For

example: if you are buying a car, a BATNA

might be to leave your current negotiation

and engage with another dealer. A WATNA

would be to realize that when you get to the

other dealer, they may have no car that you

are interested in.

Table of Contents Appendix 1: Glossary of Common Negotiation Terms

ZOPA

Zone Of Possible Agreement. The area of

overlap between each party's Bargaining

Range. See also Bargaining Range. When

there is no overlap of each party’s Bargaining

Range, there is no ZOPA, and therefore, there

is no reason to continue negotiations without

introducing a reason to adjust the Bargaining

Range of at least one party to create overlap

(ZOPA).

Table of Contents APPENDIX 2: TIPO WORKSHEET

APPENDIX 2: TRUST, INFORMATION, POWER, OPTIONS (TIPO)

WORKSHEET

YOURS

THEIRS

TRUST

High? / Low?

Type: Process or Personal

Trust building an option?

Time needed to build Trust?

INFORMATION

Source? / Value?

Who has more?

Sharing or Hoarding?

POWER

Power Over or Power With?

Source?

Sustainable?

How the Opposite values

your Power

OPTION(S)

Pursuing one / many Options

Mutual understanding of the

Problem?

Resources to support

Option(s)?

Limitations?

Time Constraints?

BATNA

Strong/Weak?

Can you protect yours?

Can you influence theirs?

WATNA?

Negotiation Strategy Recommendation Matrix

T-Trust

I-Information

P-Power

O-Options

BATNA

Recommended

Strategy

Low

Few/None

Weak or

Strong

Evade

Low

High

High Power

Over

Some

Weak or

Strong

Insist

High

Low

Few/None

N/A

Comply

Low/Med

Advantage

Some/Few

Weak

Settle

High

Willing to

High Power

With

Some

Weak

Cooperate

Table of Contents APPENDIX 3:

AFNC NEGOTIATION WORKSHEET

The AFNC Negotiation WORKSHEET

Below are two negotiation planning and execution worksheets. Annex A contains a basic

outline, and Annex B contains an expanded worksheet, to include critical thinking questions.

Although these worksheets are generally used to plan and execute the CNS in combination with a

TIPO assessment, these worksheets can help in any negotiation.

Annex B, the “Expanded” Negotiations Worksheet, has numerous critical thinking

questions. Not all the questions must be answered, nor can be answered, since the situation varies

from one negotiation to the next. However, there are some overarching themes. First, after reading

each question, determine if it is of value to your situation. If it is, the second question should be

“Do I have the time, resources, and ability to gather an answer that may improve my negotiations

planning?” If the answer is yes, then the question should be answered. Third, not only should you

be planning for your side, but you should also devote serious effort considering “the opposite’s

side,” in essence, planning the negotiation from their perspective. You may be making informed

guesses, but it will help you anticipate potential issues and plan the best course of action.

Annex A: AFNC Negotiation Worksheet

Annex B: AFNC Negotiation Worksheet (Expanded)

Table of Contents Annex A to Appendix 3: AFNC

NEGOTIATION

WORKSHEET

AFNC NEGOTIATIONS WORKSHEET

You

Opposite

Position

Aspiration /

Reservation

Points

Prioritized

Interests

BATNAs

Agenda

Develop

Options for

Mutual Gain

ZOPA

Select the

Best Option

Table of Contents Annex B to Appendix 3:

AFNC NEGOTIATION WORKSHEET (EXPANDED)

AFNC Negotiation Worksheet (Expanded)

You

Opposite

Position: What

do you want?

Aspiration

Point: What is

the best you

could hope for”

Reservation

Point: What is

the least you are

willing to

accept?

- What is “our” position?

-- Is the position unique to a single

organization, or must the scope of the

position include other organizations

(other stakeholders)?

- Is this a new situation or the

continuation of another situation?

- Are there any “in-force”

agreements?

- What does your organization / chain

of command / team want to have

happen?

- What is the rationale for this

position?

- What is the opposite’s position(s)?

- Do they present any “in-force”

agreement to support the opposite’s

position?

- Do they see it as a new situation

or the continuation of another

situation?

- Is there precedent / tradition?

- What does the opposite’s chain of

authority (COA) look like? What

do you think the COA desires as the

opposite’s “best position”?

- Rationale for the position?

Prioritized

Interests

Why do I want

above outcome?

How important

is each interest?

Which is the

most important,

least important,

etc?

- List (and prioritize) what your

interests are (and what is the context /

situation / conditions / environment

BEHIND the position that creates the

position)

1. From your perspective, what are the

overarching issues? What are other

stakeholders’ (if any) overarching

issues?

2. From your perspective, what are

issues specific to this region outside of

this individual case (economic,

political, cultural, etc.)?

List (and prioritize) what the

opposite’s interests are in this case

(what is the context / situation /

conditions / environment BEHIND

the position that creates the

position)

1. From the opposite’s perspective,

what are the overarching issues?

What do they think ours might

be?(avoid mirror imaging, strive to

put issues in the opposite’s context)

2. From the opposite’s perspective,

what are issues specific to the other

main party to the negotiations (and

/ or other interested parties with

power) outside of this individual

case (economic, political, cultural,

etc.)? What are the opposite’s

issues? Why might they be

interested in the negotiations?

3. From your perspective, what are

issues specific to this individual case

(for example: AFIs, SOFA, laws,

existing contracts / agreements,

maximize a gain or minimize a loss,

political issues, economics, tradition,

etc.)? Do you see this as an individual

case or part of a larger situation?

3. From the opposite’s perspective,

what are issues specific to this

individual case (for example: AFIs,

SOFA, laws, existing contracts /

agreements, maximize a gain or

minimize a loss, political issues,

economics, tradition, etc.)? What

might the opposite’s perceptions be

Table of Contents Annex B to Appendix 3:

AFNC NEGOTIATION WORKSHEET (EXPANDED)

Prioritized

Interests

(continued)

4. Identify your stakeholders. What

are the stakeholder’s positions and

interests? What are the opposite’s

relationships with the other parties and

with each other? Who has power, why

and how can it be affected?

5. Are there any interrelations

between issues? (For example, if I

execute an economic policy in response

to this case, what will the effect be on

other elements of my relationship with

the opposite’s government? Might

other parties (i.e. stakeholders)

relationships change (how and why?)

6. What does your side want the

situation to be AFTER the negotiations

conclude (what is/are the long-term

interest(s))? Do all stakeholders share

the same long-term goal?

7. What is your assessment of the level

of trust between you and the opposite?

Is it process trust, personal trust, or

some of both? Do they trust you? If so

why? What can you do to maintain

that trust? If not why? What can you

do to build trust?

of ours? Does the opposite see this

as an individual case or part of a

larger situation?

4. Identify the opposite’s potential

stakeholders. What are those

stakeholder’s positions and

interests? What are the opposite’s

relationships with your parties and

with each other? Who has power,

why and how can it be affected?

5. What does the opposite see as

the interrelations between issues?

(For example, if they execute an

action within their legal system,

what might be the effect on other

elements of the opposite’s

relationship with your

stakeholders?)

6. What do you think they want the

situation to be AFTER the

negotiations conclude (what is/are

the opposite’s perceptions of long-

term interest(s))?

BATNAs

(Best

Alternative to a

Negotiated

Agreement)

What do I have

the will and the

resources to do

if I don’t reach

an agreement

with the

BATNA: an action that may be pursued

by your side without any consultation

or agreement by the opposite.

- Determine your “unilaterally

executable options” if you “leave the

table”. What is the “best”? What

might be the “worst” (WATNA)?

- Within each of these unilateral

options, what is /are the desired

response(s) from the opposite?

A BATNA may also be pursued by

the opposite without any

consultation or agreement by you.

- Estimate the opposite’s

“unilaterally executable options” if

they “leave the table”

- Within each of these unilateral

options, what is /are the desired

response(s) they might want from

you

- Can they impact a stakeholder

that can, in turn, exert influence on

Table of Contents Annex B to Appendix 3:

AFNC NEGOTIATION WORKSHEET (EXPANDED)

opposite?

What might they

do?

- Within each of these unilateral

options, what action by the opposite

might trigger this event?

- Within each option, how might your

stakeholders respond?

- Within each option, what are some

possible 2

, 3

order effects that are

undesirable to your position?

- Within each unilateral option, how

will executing the option affect your

long-term relationship with the

opposite? With your stakeholders?

- Within each unilateral option, how

much does the opposite know about the

option? How much power / ability do

they have to weaken your BATNA

options?

your BATNA?

- Within each unilateral option,

what action by you might trigger

this event?

- Within each unilateral option,

how might the opposite’s

stakeholders respond? How might

your stakeholders respond?

- Within unilateral each option,

what are some possible 2

, 3

order effects that are undesirable to

the opposite’s position? To the

opposite’s stakeholder’s position?

To your position? To your

stakeholder’s position?

- Within each option, how will

executing the option affect the

opposite’s long-term relationship

with you? With your stakeholders?

- Within each option, how much do

you know of the details? How

much power / ability do you have to

weaken the opposite’s BATNA

options?

Table of Contents Annex B to Appendix 3:

AFNC NEGOTIATION WORKSHEET (EXPANDED)

AGENDA

Who should build the agenda? Location? Support equipment? Protocol?

Interpreters? Recorders?

- Should the proceedings be recorded (video)? If only written documentation

is allowed, in what language (both)?

What topic might be strictly “off limits”?

- Are these automatic de-railers? How might you avoid them?

What might need to be addressed “away from the table”?

How are trial balloons offered?

How do you say “yes”, “no”, and “maybe”?

What might the most appropriate approach for the body of the agenda?

Going beyond “full proposal” or “issue at a time”, consider:

- Broaden/Narrow – Should you add or subtract issues from the table help to

create a common interest?

Who should go first? What should go first? An easy issue (trust building?) or

a hard issue?

Is there an action you can take to help develop trust (provide information,

demonstrate sincerity)?

Is there a pre-emptive concession that is low cost to you but high value to the

opposite that would help build reciprocity expectations?

What will your opening statement be (the “first 90 seconds”? What do you

expect the opposite’s “first 90 seconds” to be?

Develop

Options for

Mutual Gain

Satisfying as many interests of both parties as possible.

- Where might your interests and the interests of the opposite coincide?

- Are there areas of mutual agreement?

- What actions (or combination of actions) might support the attainment of

these mutual interests?

- How might these actions be coordinated? Verified?

ZOPA

Identify your Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA). A ZOPA is the overlap

between two ranges. The first is the range from the least you’ll accept to the

best you can possibly hope to get. The second is the opposite’s range from

the least they’ll accept to the best they can possibly hope to get. How does

this change during your negotiations?

- Gather information & identify the ZOPA

- Test assumptions and motives

- Learn from the opposite. Listen carefully and ask clarifying and follow-up

questions. Separate assumptions from facts.

- Be prepared to learn/modify as facts are unveiled.

Table of Contents Annex B to Appendix 3:

AFNC NEGOTIATION WORKSHEET (EXPANDED)

- Understanding priorities and why the priorities are the way they are

- Brainstorming – is the opposite amenable to divergent thinking and

brainstorming?

Select the Best

Option

Which Negotiation Strategy offers the best chance of success?

Which strategy does the TIPO analysis recommend?

Low Trust, high Power Over: Insist Strategy

High mutual Trust, Information sharing, high Power With: CNS

Low or no Trust, Information, Power, Options: Evade

High Trust, low Information and Power: Evade, Comply, or Settle

Some Trust, some Information, no Power advantage: Settle

Objective Criteria

What criteria can parties agree to as objective measures of merit for each

option?

History, precedent, third party standards, industry standards, law, tradition,

etc.

Where are possible sources for objective selection criteria?

a. Within the respective parties’ constructs (civil, criminal, social,

political, economic, etc)? – What is the relevant law?

b. Within the region? – might there be regional criteria to consider?

Other examples within the region (especially if the example is of a regional

power that the countries both respect)

c. Within bilateral documents / agreements? (SOFA, etc.)

d. Within regional documents / agreements? (Might there be a regional /

coalition agreement?

e. Within international agreements / agreements?

f. Is there any precedent? (Where has this happened before?)

g. Does the culture consider “golden rule” type criteria “do unto

others….”? Is there other “quid pro quo” criterion that is part of the social

fabric and / or custom? How is it enforced?

h. For the military context, a potential tool to help select the best idea

from all the ideas is to see which option idea best supports the top interest(s)

of BOTH sides equitably (not necessarily equally)

Table of Contents APPENDIX 4:

AFNC NEGOTIATION EXECUTION CHECKLIST

AFNC Negotiation Execution Checklist

At the Table

Away from the

Table

Impasse

Managing the process at the table

- Managing your team – who will lead the discussion (you or many)? Who do you

think will lead the opposite’s discussion (one or many on the opposite’s party?)

- Sequencing – How do you want to sequentially organize your negotiation?

- Shaping perceptions

- Structuring the deal – is there a need for interim summaries / agreements?

- Closure – how do you plan on converting from divergent thinking (option

development) to convergent thinking (solution selection)?

Managing the process away from the table

How do you call an “intermission”?

How do you manage communication with the stakeholders (who are not at the

table) during negotiations?

Overcoming Impasse

- Cause of impasse? Positions? Can they be changed? Is there currently no

ability to see common ground?

- Need to move to distributive style?

- Influence of third party power?

- Mediation?

- Change location (perception of time court advantage?)

Change timing of certain events?

- Take a recess

- Defer issues that don’t require agreement now

- Build incentives

- Reframe issues to play to interests

Post-Negotiation: Evaluation

Goal is to self-

assess for future

skills

improvement

Can also act as a

tool for

mentoring others

on negotiations

Outcomes: Compare against entire range of outcomes – What is the best you can

hope to achieve vs. What is your “walk away” point?

Compare outcome to BATNA

What transpired during the negotiations that followed the plan? Were the initial

assessments / perceptions accurate?

What changes were you able to accommodate and why?

What changes were unanticipated? Could they have been foreseen with a

modification in the planning process?

Do you anticipate a good basis for follow-on negotiations should problems arise in

execution? If so why, If not, why not?

What lessons can you extract from this negotiation to help mentor others?

Successes failures, insights, etc.

Table of Contents APPENDIX 5:

AFNC NEGOTIATION CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS

Cultural Considerations / Perspectives Guide

The questions below ask you to examine and consider both the opposite’s culture as well

as yours. Perspective taking is critical in cross-cultural negotiations. It is suggested you

answer these questions first on how you perceive the opposite and then “mirror image” to

see how the opposite might perceive you. Then take the perspective of how you see

yourself and how the opposite might see themselves. Insights from these four

perspectives should be instructive to your negotiations. What is critical is not what you

think you are culturally, but what the opposite thinks you are – because that is what they

will base the opposite’s planning and action upon.

Cultural

Architecture

SECTION I: Cultural architecture

This is a series asking you to consider several general questions to help set the

architecture of both your culture and the opposite’s culture

Individualistic or communal culture (Individualist or Collectivist)?

- Individualistic / Egalitarian sets value according to what you do/individual

achievement. Independence is valued and compartmentalization of life is

accepted. Individual needs may take priority over group needs. Competitive and

rewards based.

Mantra: Live to work

- Collectivist: Communal/ hierarchical sets value on who you are and where you

come from. Lineage is valued as is association with groups. Groups’ needs take a

higher priority than individual needs. Life is not compartmentalized and is seen

as a whole of interconnected parts – you affecting all and all affecting you.

Cooperation is valued and rewarded with prestige.

Mantra: Work to Live

Negotiation’s Purpose: Is the priority on “sealing the deal” or to “cultivate / maintain

and relationship”?

- Individualists see negotiations more as a problem solving method – process to

achieve an end state. Problems are dissected and solutions offered. Usually

Inductive reasoning is used (generalized conclusions from observing specific

events / instances). May prefer specific legalistic documents (contract law)

- Individualists may also consider the issue at hand in isolation “Let’s solve this

problem and move on”

- Collectivists may see negotiations as a necessary evil as other lower processes to

resolve issues have failed. May approach the process with deductive reasoning

(conclusions to the specific flow from general irrefutable principles). May prefer

general agreements without much detail

- Collectivists may also consider the issue at hand as one step in a seemingly

endless flow. Previous issues impact this issue (baggage) and this issue impacts

other unforeseen future issues. “This problem is but one in a series of problems,

let us examine the ideas to resolve it”. An Individualist based “solution” may not

Table of Contents APPENDIX 5:

AFNC NEGOTIATION CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS

be seen in a Collectivist culture as a true “solution”

Linear approach or relative approach to time?

- Individualists may emphasize punctuality and precise agendas. Time is to be spent

“wisely” on the task at hand. Time is a resource to be marshaled – each second

as valuable as the other. A schedule defines the process and at the end of the

process, the problem needs a solution.

- Collectivists may emphasize time as a gift to be shared to show respect for the

other. Time with friends is more important than time spent in other manners.

Punctuality is not critical, nor even desired. A social process defines the schedule

and since the social process may be never-ending, so a solution is not critical.

Org Culture

Regional

Culture

Low or High Context communications?

- Individualists emphasize the meaning of words and precise choice of words. Little

emphasis on non-verbal contexts. Direct, believes that the truth must be said, can

be blunt, but always precise. “Legalistic”

- Collectivists emphasize the environment of the communication. Indirect meanings,

hinting phrases are used so as to not offend either party (saving face). What is not

said is often as important as what is said. Non-verbal contexts critical to

understanding the message. “What is meant is not often said”

SECTION II: Organizational Culture

This series of questions looks at organizations. Gaining insight here is particularly useful

for examining across US cultures such as DOD, federal agencies, state and local

organization

- What is the organization’s mission? How are they organized to do the mission?

- How do they interact and function? Emphasis on hierarchy or egalitarianism?

- Where are the opposite’s allegiances? What are the opposite’s relationships with other

organizations?

- What is the opposite’s relationship with power organizations (Congress, etc?)

- What are the opposite’s priorities, what do they value the most?

- Who do they normally cooperate with? Who are the opposite’s antagonists?

- What is the opposite’s planning process?

- How do they garner resources? What is the opposite’s budget process?

- What is the opposite’s history with your organization?

SECTION III: Regional Culture

This series of questions looks at regions from a macro, then micro, perspective.

MACRO region

- Physical geography / climate

- Geo-strategic relation with its neighbors. Who are historic “friends” and “enemies”

- Are there outstanding “debts” (social, cultural, historical) owed to them or they might

owe others?

- Members of a coalition? (formal, informal, etc.)

- Economy, Trade, Currency, Exchange

Table of Contents APPENDIX 5:

AFNC NEGOTIATION CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS

GOVERNMENT – Distribution of power

- Type of government – how do the different branches communicate and decide?

- Nature of the executive system, bureaucracy, judicial system. Who holds power and why

- Nature of commerce and trade. Nature of transportation and communications

- Are the culture boundaries of the region and the political boundaries the same (in post-

colonial nation-states this is often not true)? If not, you political boundary (COCOM)

perspective may not be seen as germane to a negotiator who values the cultural

boundaries that were there long before the political boundaries were established..

HISTORY

- Development of land – how did they come to be?

- Who do they revere as national / regional heroes? Why?

- What are the opposite’s myths and legends? Do they have historical scores to settle?

- Relationship with the US and other western countries?

- Relationship with the emerging powers?

- Do they have a “colonial” experience? Were they the “colonized” or the “colonial

rulers”? If they were ruled, were they members of the elite or common sector of society?

- Relationship with the opposite’s neighbors?

Regional

Culture

(continued)

MICRO region

- Community layout / facilities

- Meeting areas

- Social opportunities

- Organizational relationships

- Local allegiances (tribal, hierarchy, government, etc.)

LOCALITY

- Is the “neighborhood” friendly or challenging?

- What are the relationships between the major groups of people?

- What is the nature of local power? Who answers to whom?

- What are the opposite’s priorities?

SOCIAL ORDER

- If something goes right, how do they distribute the credit?

- If something goes wrong, how do they handle it? How do they save face?

- Influence of Religion?

-- Central and directive or secular and guiding?

- Role of elders / children / women

INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN THE NEGOTATIONS

-Individual’s history /education /background /preferences

Insights into BOTH your culture and the opposite’s can help guide your

negotiations.

Note: These are not the only possible outcomes, these exemplify the ends of a spectrum of

cultural contexts, your situation may lie at one end or the other, or somewhere in

Table of Contents APPENDIX 5:

AFNC NEGOTIATION CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS

Culture

Summary

between.

Summative items:

- Top Consideration: How do they and the opposite’s people view you and your

“people”?

- Cultural underpinnings of this top consideration

-- Individualistic or collectivist?

-- Context/Communications: high context (indirect) or low context (direct)?

-- Time perspective: linear or circular?

-- May this issue be treated distinctly and separately or is this part of a larger series

of issues?

-- Relationships: formal or informal?

-- Agenda: full proposal or approaching the negotiations an issue at a time?

-- Are trust-building measures in order? Do they have to know you before they deal

with you (personal trust)?

-- Language: what language? The opposite’s / yours / an interpreter?

-- Outcome: Is the relationship more important as the outcome or the agreement?

-- Impasse: how might they respond to an impasse?

Table of Contents

ENDNOTES

Warrior / Negotiator: No Longer an Oxymoron, but a Necessity is accessible at http://culture.af.mil/NCE/.

“…yet the true creator is necessity, who is the mother of our invention.” Plato, The Republic. Translated by Benjamin

Jowett, Guttenberg epub version, 52 of 271, http://gutenberg.org/ebooks/1497 last accessed 15 Oct 2012.

Developed by the AFNC in December of 2007. It adapts to the military context several classic conflict management

models, among them the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Management model (see Thomas, K. W., and Kilmann, R. H. The

Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc., 1974)) and Rubin, Pruitt and Kim’s Dual

Concerns Model (see Rubin, J.Z., Pruitt, D.G., & Kim, S.H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and

settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill). The NPSC took these concepts and adapted them to some of the unique aspects

of the military context. One of the main features of the NPSC is that it can have negative values for task and

relationship – i.e. in a military environment, you may be tasked with destroying a relationship or denying the opposite

some or all of their objectives.

This section relies heavily on the “Essential Negotiating Terms” found in the NCE’s Warrior/Negotiator: No Longer

an oxymoron, but a necessity

Lewicki, Roy J., Bruce Barry, and David M. Saunders, Essentials of Negotiation, (New York, NY: McGraw Hill,

2007), 65-66.

Ibid, 115.

Roger Fisher and William Ury popularized this acronym in their 1981 bestseller, Getting to Yes: Negotiating

Agreement without Giving In, (New York: Penguin Books, 1991), pp. 97-106.

Lewicki, et al, 12.

Cohen, Steven. Negotiating Skills for Managers. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2002), 163-164.

Ibid, 119-124.

Ibid.

Fisher, Roger and William Ury. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. (New York: Penguin

Books, 1991), 97-106.

Raiffa, Howard. The Art and Science of Negotiation. (Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press, 1982), 33.

Lewicki, et al., 14.

AFDD 1-1 Leadership and Force Development, 8 Nov 2011, 53

Developed by the AFNC in May 2011. Based on extensive feedback by the DOD Special Operations Community.

The United States Air Force Core Values. 1 January 1997. Available at: http://www.e-

publishing.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070906-003.pdf . Last accessed 9 Oct 2012.

Lewicki, et al., 150-165

Bellis, Mary. The Invention of VELCRO ® - George de Mestral. Available at:

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa091297.htm. Last accessed 15 Oct 2012.

From a discussion with a MAJCOM/CC on his perspectives on the need for directness in decision-making. Included

in the discussions during the Group Commander’s Course, August 1996.

Cohen, Steven. Negotiating Skills for Managers. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2002), 163-164.

Fisher, Roger and William Ury. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. (New York: Penguin

Books, 1981)

Roberts, Wess. Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun. (New York: Warner Books, 1987), 82-84.

This is suggested due to the author’s use of an AFNC developed CD-based game where PME students voluntarily

revealed their NPSC preference. This CD is made available as part of the coursework for many AFNC sponsored

seminars and PME classes and electives.

Fisher, Roger and William Ury. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. (New York: Penguin

Books, 1981)

Fischer and Ury, 56-80.

Story related to the author from a recently returned American military troop. Discussion occurred in the summer of

2010. Name and location not revealed at the contributor’s request.

Attributed to American singer and songwriter Ani Difranco (1970). “I know there is strength in the differences

between us and I know there is comfort where we overlap.” http://www.songlyrics.com/ani-difranco/overlap-lyrics/ last

accessed 23 October 2012.

The author found this tactic useful when negotiating training programs with allied military organizations. Most of the

opposite’s didn’t want to inform their general officer that they couldn’t get to an agreement – especially when a

successful agreement would bring that general officer tremendous prestige.

Table of Contents

Adapted from a maxim from General (ret) Colin Powell. “Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when

your position falls, your ego goes with it.” Available at:

http://www.thinkexist.com/English/Author/x/Author_2573_1.htm. Last accessed 8 Jun 2011.

See http://www.gspawn.com/ for a description of the History Channel program. Last accessed on 8 June 2011.

A Google search “Negotiations training” resulted in 29,800,000 hits. Available at:

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=negotiations+training&aq=2&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=negotiati

ons&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=d2da7bf6259b98f9&biw=1419&bih=701 Last accessed 8 June 2011.

Table of Contents

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Air Force. AF DD 1-1 Leadership and Force Development. 8 November 2011. 2004

2. Bazerman, Max H., and Margaret Ann. Neale. Negotiating Rationally. New York: Free,

1993.

3. Breslin, J.W. and J.Z. Rubin (eds.). Negotiation Theory and Practice. The Harvard

Program on Negotiations. Cambridge, MA. 1999.

4. Cohen, Raymond. Negotiating Across Cultures. United States Institute of Peace.

Washington, DC. 1997.

5. Cohen, Steven. Negotiating Skills for Managers. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2002).

6. Crocker. C.A. et al. (Eds.), Herding Cats, Multiparty Mediation in a Complex World.

Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2001

7. Camp, Jim. No: the Only Negotiating System You Need for Work and Home. New York:

Crown Business, 2007.

8. Cialdini, Robert B. Influence: Science and Practice. Harlow: Pearson Education, 2008.

9. Corvette, Barbara A. Budjac. Conflict Management: a Practical Guide to Developing

Negotiation Strategies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.

10. Cohen, Herb. You Can Negotiate Anything. Secaucus, N.J.: L. Stuart, 1980.

11. Eisen, Stefan Jr. and Kimberly Hudson. Warrior / Negotiator: No Longer and Oxymoron,

But a Necessity. AFNC Publication, Maxwell AFB, AL. 2009.

12. Fisher, Roger and William Ury. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.

Penguin Books. New York, New York. 1991.

13. Fisher, Roger, and Daniel Shapiro. Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate. New

York: Viking, 2005.

14. Goodwin, Deborah. The Military and Negotiation: the Role of the Soldier-diplomat.

London: Frank Cass, 2005.

15. Howard, Nigel. Confrontation Analysis: How to Win Operations Other than War. Vienna,

VA: Evidence Based Research, 1999.

16. Johnston, Peter D. Negotiating with Giants: Get What You Want against the Odds. Victoria,

BC: Negotiation, 2008.

17. Kidder, Rushworth M. How Good People Make Tough Choices. New York: Morrow, 1995.

18. LaBrosse, Michelle A., and Linda Lansky. Cheetah Negotiations: How to Get What You

Want, Fast. Carson City, NV: MAKLAF, 2005.

19. Lewicki, Roy J., Bruce Barry and David Saunders. Essentials of Negotiation (4th Edition).

McGraw-Hill Irwin. New York. 2007.

20. Raiffa, Howard. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University

Press, 1982.

21. Salacuse, Jeswald W. Making Global Deals: Negotiating in the International Marketplace.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991.

22. Snyder, Scott. Negotiating on the Edge: North Korean Negotiating Behavior. Washington,

D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 1999.

23. Starkey, Brigid, Mark A. Boyer, and Jonathan Wilkenfeld. Negotiating a Complex World:

an Introduction to International Negotiation. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.

24. Ury, William. Getting past No: Negotiating with Difficult People. New York: Bantam, 1991.

5 Mar 2014