2. CONFLICT IS INEVITABLE, BUT
COMBAT IS OPTIONAL. – MAX LUCADE
• Conflict seems to be everywhere these days.
• Conflicts between nations that can lead to wars.
• Conflict between people which can lead to one fatally
harming another.
• Conflict between team members at work.

3. Causes of conflict Conflict resolution scenarios
• Differing values can lead to • Ignore the conflict
conflicts
• Smooth over the conflict.
• Making assumptions can
lead to conflicts • Use your authority to settle
the conflict
• Differing expectations can
lead to conflict • Negotiate a resolution to the
conflict
• Differences in the way you
were brought up can result • Use collaboration to resolve
in conflict the conflict.
• Knowledge and ability to
deal with conflict can result
in conflict

4. NEGOTIATION
• Negotiating is the process of getting the best terms once the other side starts to
act on their interest.
On Negotiating by Mark H. McCormack
• To confer or discuss with another with a view toward
reaching agreement where some interests may be shared
and some may be opposed.
• And interactive communication process that may be used
whenever one person wants something from another and
seeks their cooperation in obtaining it.

5. GOOD NEGOTIATION
• Awareness of and ability to apply negotiation theory
• Development of an effective negotiation style
• Understanding of the negotiation process
• Improvement of critical communication skills

6. STAGES IN THE NEGOTIATION
PROCESS
• Preparation
• Relationship-Building
• Information Exchange
• Persuasion
• Agreement

7. CULTURE AND THE NEGOTIATION
PROCESS
• Interests and priorities
• Strategies
• Confrontational strategy
• Motivation strategy
• Influence strategy: BATNA as a power base
• Information strategy

8. "TREES AND FORESTS FOR WHOM AND
FOR WHAT?"
• Land-use competition between forestry, grazing, agriculture, and
minerals.
• Disagreements over the size, location, and composition of a
permanent forest estate.
• Conflicts between de jure (legal) and de facto (traditional) tenure in
forested regions.
• Competition between commercial and subsistence interests in
forested regions.
• Outdated laws on lands and forests, and conflicts among these laws.
• Overlapping concessions on public forest lands.
• Impractical laws and regulations for trees and forests on private lands.

9. THE GREEN FUTURE SOCIETY AND
THE MARTINEZ SAWMILL
• Suppose that the Green Future Society strongly opposes all logging in South Region on claims that logging causes
environmental damage. Green Future insists that your strategic plan must include the goal of stopping all logging in
South Region within the next two years. The two logging operations in South Region are the Martinez Sawmill and
the Bella Vista Plywood Company. They provide 200 paid jobs and a contribution to South Region's income.
Neither company is interested in stopping its operations. All three groups - Green Future, Martinez, and Bella Vista
- are important interest groups. What are your approaches to negotiate this conflict?
• Negotiation will not be possible if any of the parties aims to destroy another as its primary purpose (i.e., "winning
at any cost"). Green Future may use militant demands that anger the companies and your forestry agency.
Nevertheless, the situation is open to negotiation if Green Future wants to maintain continuing relationships with
your agency, or if it needs something from the forest products industries. In this case, you must convince Green
Future that it has no good alternative other than to negotiate an agreement that will satisfy Martinez, Bella
Vista, and your agency.
• You cannot negotiate with people who do not allow their views to be questioned. For example, Juan Pedro Martinez
may insist that each company has the "right" to harvest timber in the way it knows best. For Martinez, this is an
article of faith that is not open to debate. His dogma dominates his reason. You have to redirect Martinez away from
issues that for him are not negotiable towards others that offer hope for common ground. If you can get him to say
"yes" to other points (such as on the need for background studies), then perhaps later he will be more willing to
consider the central issue.
• Negotiation is impossible if one group feels powerless in relation to others. Suppose, for example, that Green
Future believes that forest industries always "win" with your forestry agency, and that environmental NGOs always
"lose." If this is its perception (whether accurate or not). Green Future has no reason to negotiate through your
agency. Instead, it will choose a more radical means to try to get what it wants. To prevent this from happening, you
have no choice other than to cede important procedural points to Green Future, and to tolerate its hostilities and
resentment. But even as you take exceptional measures to build a working relationship and show fairness, you have
to decide how far you will go before your relationship with Green Future becomes too expensive. What is your best
alternative to not negotiating with them? What will you gain and lose by walking away?

10. • Suppose that the Green Future Society continues to insist that logging be stopped
within the next two years, and that this position has wide popular and political
support. But what will Green Future gain and lose if its demand is modified to five
years, during which time all logging in South Region will be required to adopt low -
impact harvesting methods? If this compromise fails, is your agency willing to
tolerate the continued opposition of Green Future in the coming years? As a different
option, would Martinez and Bella Vista accept environmental impact assessment for
logging, and will this be their best alternative compared with the alternative of
closing down? These illustrate the types of questions that should define the
negotiation.

11. CHOOSE YOUR NEGOTIATING
STRATEGY
1. Cooperative strategy. - This is also called the "soft bargaining" approach. It
minimizes the degree of conflict by generating trust and kindness. You are
looking for common ground and joint interests, and you want everyone to benefit.
You compromise, and you expect other people to do the same. The approach is at
its best when other individuals similarly cooperate. But it does not work when
others regard your "soft" approach as a weakness that they can exploit.
2. Competitive strategy. - This is "hard bargaining" in which you give nothing and
demand everything. You apply pressure to get your way. This approach is
important when you absolutely must win, even if other persons will lose. The
approach works well when you face weak or confused negotiators. It is less
appropriate when a long-term relationship has to be maintained, or when your
opponents are well prepared.
3. Analytical strategy. - In this approach, negotiation is a problem-solving exercise
to create options that benefit everyone. This is sometimes called "interest -based
bargaining," or "principled negotiation." You try to: (1) separate the people from
the problem; (2) focus on interests, not positions; (3) generate options for mutual
gain; and (4) use objective criteria to make decisions.

12. • Finally, negotiating strength depends on credibility. You are
credible if the other side sees you as trustworthy, competent,
and dynamic:
• 1. Trustworthy - Credibility is achieved by making and
keeping commitments. A trustworthy agency is known for its
integrity. It always fulfills its promises, and it always carries
out its threats.
• 2. Competent. - A good negotiator prepares extremely well,
and argues from a base of reliable facts and analysis. He or
she speaks effectively, portrays confidence, and presents an
attractive image. The agency (or person) with a history of
negotiation failures - or no history at all - is not credible.
• 3. Dynamic.-The people who are credible deeply care about
their issues. They fight hard for their position because they
sincerely believe in it. Their passion signals the other side
that they face an opponent who does not easily compromise.