Negotiations should be held in a separate room. Negotiators from the receiving party must take a seat in the negotiation room before representatives of the other party arrive there.

It is perceived as disrespect for a partner if the greeter introduces him to an empty room, and the recipient and his colleagues enter there after this and, moreover, not at the same time. Negative attitude cause absences or calls from the host from the meeting room. For visitors, this creates the impression that the visit was either untimely, although it was previously agreed upon, or disrespect towards them, or some unfavorable event for the receiving party. In any case, this leads to unnecessary nervousness, which is not conducive to business-like consideration of issues. Repeated behavior by a manager can be perceived as obstruction. The situation is also assessed when negotiations are conducted by an employee who occupies a lower official position and does not have the right to make decisions binding on the organization. This may mean that the receiving party is not interested in resolving the issues for which the meeting took place. The leader’s withdrawal from the negotiations is possible only when all the fundamental issues have been resolved and the parties only have to agree on certain details, but even in this case it is necessary to obtain the consent of the other party.

The host must warmly welcome his guests (in many reputable companies this is done “at the door”). At the same time, your gestures and smiles addressed to guests should express sincere pleasure from meeting them. Excessive enthusiasm and an insincere smile can make guests wary, while mannerisms and arrogance can cause offense.

The host must introduce his colleagues by name and position, including representatives of other organizations invited to the negotiations. Then the leader of the other side introduces his colleagues. If the participants in the negotiations do not know each other very well or are meeting for the first time, then they should first exchange business cards. By placing the cards in front of you in the order in which the negotiating partners sit, it is easy to carry on a conversation, addressing each other by name and at the same time having a good idea of the level of authority and competence of the interlocutors.

Traditionally, guests take seats facing the window, with their backs to the door. In an informal setting, mixed seating for meeting participants is preferable, as this facilitates a frank exchange of opinions. The leaders of the parties usually sit next to each other, the rest of the meeting participants sit by liking or by the principle of subordination. After everyone has taken their place at the negotiating table, access to the meeting room should be closed, except for those additionally invited, which is highly undesirable.

It should be especially emphasized that the presence of anonymous witnesses at negotiations is perceived with prejudice and causes alarming anxiety, which is not conducive to a frank business conversation.

Regardless of the importance of the negotiations, they should begin with informal phrases that emphasize the recipient’s attention to the interlocutors and his personal, benevolent interest in them. The effectiveness of the conversation depends on the style of its conduct, the content of the questions, the order and correctness of their formulation. Although there may be more than one person involved on both sides of the negotiation, the conversation generally should be between managers. It is unacceptable if the presenter is interrupted by his colleagues during negotiations. Of course, he can give the floor to one of them, especially on specific problems, but in most cases the leader must take on the entire burden of the conversation on the entire range of problems discussed.

During the conversation, on the one hand, you should avoid direct questions that require “yes” or “no” answers. On the other hand, formulate your questions clearly, don’t make your partner guess what you want from him, and don’t test his patience. You cannot openly push your partner to make a decision that is favorable only for you, but when differences are overcome, you should not delay in fixing the agreement, so as not to leave the interlocutor the opportunity for new thoughts and hesitations.

Negotiations should begin with the most important issues on the agenda, trying to gradually reach agreement on fundamental issues. Then they discuss issues that can be agreed upon relatively easily and without much time, and only then move on to key issues, requiring detailed analysis. Try to structure the conversation in such a way that the consideration of issues on which you are unanimous precedes the discussion of debatable issues. It is very important to conduct negotiations in such a way that at their first stage the interlocutor has no reason to give a negative answer. If a person said “no,” his internal logic encourages him to remain in this position, although he himself may feel unmotivated for his negative answer. By the same logic, the more positive decisions are made in initial stage negotiations, the more difficult it is later to take a categorically negative position, even if there are good reasons. It is useful, however, to remember that the answer to the correctness of their formulation is negative. Although there may be more than one person involved on both sides of the negotiation, the conversation generally should be between managers. It is unacceptable if the presenter is interrupted by his colleagues during negotiations. Of course, he can give the floor to one of them, especially on specific problems, but in most cases the leader must take on the entire burden of the conversation on the entire range of problems discussed.

It may seem paradoxical, but the success of negotiations often depends on the ability to listen to the interlocutor. Nothing flatters your interlocutor more than attention to his words. Attention must be sincere, since ostentation can be detected by him, offend him and lead to difficulties in negotiations.

Negotiations should begin with the most important issues on the agenda, trying to gradually reach agreement on fundamental issues. Then, issues that can be agreed upon relatively easily and without much time are discussed, and only after that they move on to key issues that require detailed analysis. Try to structure the conversation in such a way that the consideration of issues on which you are unanimous precedes the discussion of debatable issues. It is very important to conduct negotiations in such a way that at their first stage the interlocutor has no reason to give a negative answer. If a person said “no,” his internal logic encourages him to remain in this position, although he himself may feel unmotivated for his negative answer. By the same logic, the more positive decisions are made at the initial stage of negotiations, the more difficult it is later to take a categorically negative position, even if there are good reasons. It is useful, however, to remember that a negative response from your interlocutor during negotiations can only be a tactical device. If he gives not very categorical arguments, then this may mean waiting for a compromise proposal. Diplomats have a joke: “If a diplomat said “no”, that means “maybe,” if a diplomat said “maybe,” that means “yes,” if a diplomat said “yes,” that means he’s not a diplomat.” Therefore, Having received a negative answer, you should pose the question differently, with a different motivation, accepting the “blame” for the “inaccurate” formulation in the first case.

Various kinds of objections are a natural phenomenon. Without some resistance there can be no negotiations at all, but good preliminary preparation and their skillful management removes objections. Therefore, try to stick to time-tested tactics:

clearly explain your proposal;

do not promise anything impossible;

learn to reject impossible demands;

write down everything you agree to and promise;

do not believe the reason for refusal unless it is convincingly justified;

do not go into direct confrontation;

Discuss difficult issues at the very end, when agreement has already been reached on all others and when none of the negotiation participants is more interested in their unsuccessful outcome.

Be strict with your words and wording. Provide only reliable facts and logical, evidence-based reasons for your position. You should always assume that the other party knows the matter, possible solutions, your internal relationships are better than you think. At the first discovery of “inconsistencies” with reality, the interlocutor may doubt your professionalism, and in the future this may raise doubts about your business credibility. If you are wrong and you know that the other person felt it, then admit it immediately. By doing this, you will disarm your opponent and preserve the opportunity for normal business contacts, otherwise you will be forced to make excuses, which will damage personal prestige and negatively affect the course of negotiations.

Do not rush to impose your “valuable” ideas and “ideal” solutions on your interlocutor. They can become such if they “arise” in his head. To do this, you need to learn to present ideas as if by chance, but in such a way that the interlocutor perceives them and can later express them as his own. With such psychological phenomenon We meet often, but rarely use this technique in business relationships.

Before submitting your ideas to your partners for consideration, it is advisable to look at your proposals and arguments through their eyes, anticipate their doubts and objections, and provide alternative options. Such preparation for negotiations will shorten their duration, avoid tension in relationships, and maintain a calm business environment until the end of the meeting.

Do not ignore details, self-evident “little things,” especially if the interlocutor is indecisive. It is quite obvious that in general view the other person may know the problem as well as you do. But he may not know some specific details, and people rarely agree to the incomprehensible. It is advisable in negotiations to completely avoid topics and expressions that may seem to the interlocutor to be fraught with hidden subtext (new conditions, obligations), which he is essentially not ready to consider.

Respect the opinion of your interlocutor. Try not to interrupt him. Hundreds of books and thousands of articles have been written about the art of negotiation, but in the end, what matters is not what the speaker says, but what his interlocutors hear and understand. This is especially important when speaking in foreign language. Therefore, the speaker must evaluate his words from the position of the listeners, while simultaneously noting what reaction they cause. This once again emphasizes the need for careful preparation for negotiations. Equally important is the ability to listen. The listener, unlike the speaker, cannot allow himself to be distracted even for a moment, since the spoken word is irrevocable, and the logical connection of speech is lost with it. A person who cannot or does not want to listen demonstrates disdain for his interlocutor, disrespect for him as an individual, and people need empathy even in the sphere of business relations.

It is useful to learn to highlight and remember (write down) the main points in the interlocutor’s speech, analyze his proposals, try to predict the further course of his argument and the conclusions he can draw. But while giving the interlocutor the opportunity to speak, we must not forget about the prepared negotiation program. The art of conversation also lies in the ability to ask questions in a timely, clear and logical manner, to encourage the interlocutor to talk not only about problems, prospects, plans, but also about the means of solving them and practical implementation; not only about difficulties, but also about the reasons for their occurrence, the possibilities of overcoming and preventing them.

You should never make comments to your interlocutor, much less lecture him. If he expressed some thought and you consider it wrong and are even absolutely sure that it is wrong, do not cut him off, especially in front of colleagues or strangers. At the first pause in his monologue, acknowledge that his arguments may be the result of an erroneous (fuzzy) formulation of the question by you, and offer to calmly sort out the facts. This will immediately stop the dispute, force the interlocutor to admit the possibility of a mistake on his part, and move the meeting into the direction of a business analysis of the facts. It is advisable to speak calmly and quietly even in the most acute situations. The ability to restrain yourself and manage your actions and emotions is an indispensable quality of a business person. Follow the “golden” rule: negotiate convincingly, but unobtrusively.

Refrain from empty promises and assurances. It would be an illusion to believe that negotiating partners can be outsmarted. Remember that they are also well prepared and can logically argue their proposals without falling for all sorts of tricks.

At the same time, you should not allow your consciousness to be manipulated. There are two systems of manipulation: direct and hidden. When they know you well, they act openly, and you can become a victim of ordinary language turns. It is difficult not to fall under the influence of people who base their speech on value judgments. And there is “Socratic” manipulation: a person goes all the way and only then realizes that he did not walk himself, but was led by the hand. There is no recipe for salvation here. It's like in a war - you either win or you lose. It all depends on your experience, awareness and motives of the other party.

In business negotiations, you should not use the “you” address, although it is considered good form to use personal names (“my friend Helmut”).

During a conversation, there is no need to move your hands, drum your fingers, tap your hand or foot, play with facial expressions or show your emotions in any other way. During a conversation, it is completely unacceptable to take your interlocutor by the button or lapels of his jacket, pat him on the shoulder, tug at his sleeve, vigorously gesticulate in front of his face, and obsessively return to issues already discussed. It should be remembered that all manifestations of your emotions, be it a gesture of uncertainty, a feeling of annoyance, grief or jubilation, may be incorrectly assessed by your interlocutor and cost you lost profits, the opportunity to establish business relationships, and deepen mutual understanding. Of all possible manifestations emotions during business contacts, only a smile is welcome. The easiest way to make people like you is to smile more often. Eastern wisdom says: “Before you enter the house, put on a smile!” Naturally, she must be sincere.

Any negotiations, even if they did not meet your hopes, should be ended in a friendly tone. In business relationships, you should never burn your bridges: business problems may require new contacts with the same people.

It is advisable to maintain normal relations with everyone with whom you communicate and exchange greeting cards at least once a year.

If the negotiation plan provides for refreshments in the office space, it, with the exception of tea or coffee, must be prepared in advance and placed in the negotiation room on a separate table under a napkin. For greater confidentiality, especially with a small number of participants, the negotiator himself or one of his colleagues can provide refreshments at the leader’s audible request. If alcohol is consumed, it is poured either by the head of the receiving party or by his colleague.

Do not rush to drink before the guest, especially pour yourself a new portion if the guest has not finished the first one, even if he does not finish it before the end of the meal. And when you are visiting, do not create a situation that encourages the host to pour you a drink again and again, and especially do not ask for more if the host does not offer it. Don’t go too deep into the food, but be sure to thank them for the food and beautiful serving. Do not smoke if there is no visible ashtray in the room, if others present have not yet finished their meal, or if your host has not lit a cigarette himself and has not offered it to you. During this rest period, do not express your opinions on issues not related to the negotiations. Usually the pause is short, your opinion may not be developed, and the business atmosphere created by interrupted negotiations may be disrupted. Etiquette does not allow taking off jackets or loosening ties during negotiations, except when the head of your partners’ delegation suggests doing this, making it clear that the time has come for informal communication (no tie session - “meeting without ties”).

Negotiations are the most important part of business contacts and, of course, the most meaningful. But if we want to make it the most valuable, we must learn to confidentially handle information received in confidence during negotiations. In negotiations and correspondence with other partners, even from the same company, the source of such information should not be named, and the information itself, if there is a need for its public use, should be prepared in such a way that it is not associated with the source. And, of course, you should never use confidential information against the source itself (“taking it at its word”).

During negotiations various factors factors of a market nature may play a decisive role. But the significance of these factors fades over time, and then one of the parties develops a feeling of injustice, disadvantage and resentment. The result is that the agreement is canceled unilaterally or requires its revision.

Negotiations are not a one-way street, so each side must consider the other's interests and work together on options that are mutually beneficial. If passions flare up beyond all measure, then established practice allows for the possibility of interrupting negotiations for several days to allow the emotional intensity to cool down.

The art of negotiation is to achieve more than what can be achieved without negotiation. The likelihood of success increases if you do not hide your interests. Oddly enough, the other side may not know about them, just as you may not know what their true interests are. One of the main principles is to be as precise as possible when outlining the boundaries of your interests, and in order for your arguments to make the proper impression on the other side, you need to justify their regularity.

After each conversation during commercial negotiations, a record is drawn up, to which a previously approved negotiation plan is attached. Of course, it is impossible to record a conversation during negotiations, unless a special employee is invited to do this (except for specific negotiations, inviting a stenographer to them or turning on a recording device, as some Japanese business people do, is considered unethical in relation to the other party). But during negotiations, especially if they are multifaceted and touch on fundamental issues in which all the nuances are important, it is necessary to take brief working notes. There should be no tricks or ambiguities. The recording should be made openly by the negotiator himself or one of his employees participating in the negotiations and officially introduced to the partners. In any case, it is useful to inform them in advance that you will be recording the conversation. The working notes themselves must strictly correspond to the content of the negotiations: it is possible that a representative of the other side sitting opposite the writer can read the notes across the table. An official recording of a conversation, in addition to facts related to the problems discussed, may contain some psychological details of the partners’ behavior: gestures, remarks, negotiations between themselves and your assessment of this. The recording must objectively reflect everything said, seen and heard during the negotiations. It is unacceptable to record only what you want to hear, and, moreover, what was not mentioned at all.

A recording of a conversation is an informal document. Based on it, not only decisions are made on operational issues, but long-term plans can be developed and approved, involving many organizations and at significant costs.

Negotiations will be successful if you follow these guidelines:

focus on interests, not positions;

separate the negotiators from the subject of negotiations.

Negotiation skills are one of the the most important qualities modern business person. There is no ready-made recipe, but there are certain rules, following which helps to achieve the desired result:

be punctual and obligatory;

value your partner’s trust;

listen carefully to all arguments;

avoid superficial answers;

Know how to compromise in time;

Value your reputation.

There are no small details in negotiations. Even the environment and service can affect their progress.

During negotiations, flowers, fruit and mineral water in bottles, open but with a cork, and wine glasses - upside down (a sign of their unused state). If the negotiations drag on, tea and coffee are served with sandwiches and cookies.

Sometimes several days are allotted for negotiations. In this case, techniques are practiced on both one side and the other. The reception is held for friendly communication between the negotiators in an informal setting. A number of issues can be resolved here, but the reception should not be turned into a continuation of negotiations. Negotiations are considered successful if both parties value their results highly.

A conversation with a sales consultant, a conversation with my wife about moving to another area, attempts to convince a child to do homework, concluding a major deal. This is all negotiation. We need the art of persuasion every day.

Successful negotiations are about achieving a goal (or compromise) through polite and business-like conversation with well-honed reasoning. You don't have to be a great speaker to conduct such negotiations.

We have collected and tested nine rules of negotiation from successful businessmen, managers and speakers. Participated in compiling the list ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, business analyst Bernard Marr and Skolkovo business school professor Moti Crystal.

Rule 1 - clearly set a goal.

Decide what would be the ideal outcome of the meeting for you, what would be a compromise and possible, and what would be completely unacceptable. Knowing the boundaries, you can build on them.

It is important to know: there can be several goals. Each of them has its own boundaries.

Rule 2 - make sure that the negotiations are interesting to all parties.

Talk to your opponents ahead of the negotiations - via email or phone. Even if they set up the meeting, it will be useful to find out what interests they will defend. If you are calling the negotiations, it is important to make sure there are common interests.

Rule 3 - arguments must meet the needs of the opponent.

A common mistake is to think that your opponent wants the same thing as us.

Try to look at the negotiations from your partner’s side - perhaps your goals are close, but there are additional factors (less finances, lack of time due to the launch of another project, family circumstances). Think about what arguments your opponent might have that contradict you. Formulate your counterarguments in advance.

It is important to know: if you want to convince your opponent, start not from what your opinions differ on, but from what you agree with him on.

Rule 4 - find weak points.

The ideal scheme for constructing an argument: strong arguments - at the beginning, average ones - in the middle, one strong one - at the end. It is better to identify weak arguments in advance and ignore them so that the enemy cannot use them as his tool. Remember - the interlocutor is carefully looking for your weak points.

Important to know: for different people The strength of one argument varies. Assess their “weight” from the point of view of the interlocutor.

Rule 5 - when agreeing to a concession, put forward additional demands.

By increasing the transaction amount, increase the number of conditions for the execution of the contract. Possible concessions and additional conditions, which (may) need to be added to the contract, think about it in advance.

Rule 6 - use proven tools

A very small percentage of people prepare for negotiations in terms of rhetoric. Therefore, the two-thousand-year history of this science is completely at your disposal.

For example, use the Socratic rule: to achieve a goal, formulate it in three consecutive interrelated questions. The first two should be as simple and clear as possible. They should assume a positive answer. The third one will hit you in the forehead.

Do you want more profit?

Do you want to collaborate with official suppliers of the best products in your industry?

So why don't we make this deal?

The example is simple but illustrative. Please note that the first two questions contain arguments.

Rule 7 - use non-verbal tools.

Keep your back straight: bending back shows arrogance, bending forward shows aggression.

Look into the eyes of the person who is speaking. If you speak, look into the eyes of the person making the decision. Looking to the side and up indicates a lie.

Don't nod too much.

Excessive gesticulation indicates an aggressive paranoid person.

Smile every now and then.

Rule 8 - Assemble a support team

The persuasiveness of negotiations depends on the status of the interlocutor. If you are an ordinary employee, enlist the support of your boss or an authoritative expert in your industry. It is not necessary to drag him into negotiations by the hand: it is enough to provide an exact quote or refer to his opinion.

If possible, take with you to negotiations specialists who are well versed in the topic under discussion and have practical information.

It’s important to know: you shouldn’t hire employees who like to argue with you.

Rule 9 - make sure you understand each other correctly.

At the end of negotiations (or at an impasse), clearly state out loud all the agreements that were reached. After negotiations, send a summary of the meeting to the interlocutor’s e-mail address.

The following mechanisms are distinguished:

Coordination of goals and interests;

Striving for mutual trust between the parties;

Reflection, ensuring a balance of power and mutual control of the parties, empathy (empathy is the ability to take the point of view of another person, to be able to feel what he feels; reflection is thinking about one’s actions, introspection).

Alignment of goals and interests . Negotiations become negotiations or discussions due to the operation of this mechanism. Whatever the scheme of negotiations, they can achieve results only through the coordination of goals and interests. The degree of agreement achieved may vary: from full consideration of interests to partial. In these cases, the negotiations are considered successful. If the negotiations did not end with an agreement, this does not mean that there was no agreement. It’s just that during the negotiation process the parties could not agree.

Coordination of goals and interests is more effective if:

Orientation of the parties to solving the problem, “getting to work”;

Good or neutral interpersonal relationships opponents;

Respectful attitude towards the opponent;

Open positions, presentation of clear individual goals;

The ability to adjust your goals.

Striving for mutual trust . If the parties agreed to negotiations, then the confrontation has ended, albeit temporarily. The parties' awareness of the need to resolve the problem peacefully, that is, through negotiations, triggers a mechanism of mutual trust. Many experts consider trust to be key in negotiations. The stronger the trust between the parties, the greater the chances for a constructive solution to the problem.

If a person believes that his partner has no harmful intentions, is not going to harm him, and is ready to solve the problem (or is already trying to do so), then he will be more inclined to be frank and trusting during the interaction.

To establish and develop mutual trust between the parties, it is necessary to have a correct attitude towards each other, high degree openness, respect for status relationships and maximum fulfillment of previously assumed obligations.

Reflection. The implementation of this psychological mechanism has great importance for constructive negotiations to resolve the contradiction. In socio-psychological terms, reflection is the participant’s awareness of how he is perceived by his partner. The main meaning of reflection is expressed in the following interpretation: I know how he imagines me and why he perceives me this way. In order to provide an objective approach to solving a problem, it is necessary to analyze not only our own position and the position of our opponent, but also how he perceives our position.

Empathy as a socio-psychological mechanism of interaction is extremely important from the point of view of successful negotiations. Optimal interaction between opponents in negotiations presupposes the desire to emotionally respond to each other’s problems, feel them and, based on this, build their own line of behavior. A harsh, callous attitude towards your opponent will not resolve the contradiction. On the other hand, emotional acceptance of the position of another, empathy for his aspirations does not mean automatic readiness to make concessions or act contrary to conscience. Empathy helps you better understand the inner world of another, more accurately predict his behavior, adjust your strategy and tactics, and accordingly increases the chances of a productive solution to the problem.

Negotiation technology

The term “technology” comes from the Greek techne – art, skill, skill. This is a set of actions taken by the parties during negotiations and the principles for their implementation. It includes ways of presenting a position, principles and tactics of interaction with an opponent.

There are four ways to present a position that can be used by negotiators:

1) opening a position;

2) closing a position;

3) emphasizing the commonality in positions;

4) emphasizing the differences in positions.

If a speech characterizes one’s own position without comparing it with the partner’s position, then such an action is considered as opening a position. When a negotiator criticizes the opponent's position without comparing it with his own position, then this is closing the position. If a participant makes a comparison between two or more positions, then depending on what is being emphasized in the speech, this can be assessed as either emphasizing commonality or emphasizing differences. Emphasizing commonality and opening a position are analogues of “soft”, cooperative behavior, emphasizing differences and closing positions are analogues of a hard, competitive type of negotiation.

For constructive interaction with an opponent during negotiations, the following principles can be recommended:

Do not be the first to use techniques that cause confrontation;

Listen carefully to your opponent, do not interrupt;

Passivity in negotiations indicates poor elaboration of the position, its weakness, and reluctance to negotiate;

Do not convince your opponent that his position is wrong;

If your opponent agrees to make a concession, this should not be viewed as a sign of weakness.

It is difficult to negotiate with an opponent whose position is objectively stronger. The following recommendations are useful here:

Appeal to principle ( legal norms, principles of justice, equality);

Appeal to a long historical relationship with a given party;

Appeal to the future of relations with the opponent (benefit of cooperation in the future);

Linking different issues into one package. Being weaker in one, a participant may be stronger in another. Linking these issues helps balance the power of the parties;

Coalition with sympathizers of the position taken;

Appeal to public opinion;

Seeking help from a mediator.

Negotiation tactics

A number of tactics can be used regardless of what stage the negotiation process is at. The use of other techniques is limited to a specific stage.

A. Techniques widely used at all stages .

1. CARE. Leaving is associated with closing a position. An example of “withdrawal” could be a request to postpone consideration of an issue or reschedule for another meeting. “Leaving” can be direct or indirect. In the first case, it is directly proposed to postpone this issue. With indirect care, the question is given an extremely vague answer.

2. TIGHTENING. Tightening is used in those cases. When a party, for some reason or consideration, tries to delay negotiations. Presents a series of different types of care.

3. WAITING. Waiting is expressed in the participant’s desire to first listen to the opponent’s opinion and then, depending on the information received, formulate his position.

4. EXPRESSION OF CONSENT. Expressing agreement with a partner's already expressed opinions is aimed at emphasizing commonality.

5. EXPRESSION OF DISAGREEMENT. Expressing disagreement with an opponent’s statements is the opposite of the previous technique.

6. SALAMI. Salami is a very slow opening of one’s own position. The point of the technique is to drag out negotiations and get as much information as possible from the opponent.

B. Techniques that relate to all stages, but have their own specific application at each of them.

1. PACKAGING. Packaging consists of the fact that several questions are offered for consideration in the form of a package, i.e. It is not individual issues that are subject to discussion, but their complex. There are two types of package. One of them reflects the concept of bargaining, the other is a joint analysis of the problem with the opponent. Using a package within the framework of bargaining involves linking proposals that are attractive and unattractive for the opponent into one package. Often such a package offer is called a loaded sale. A package used as part of a joint discussion of a problem with an opponent involves an exchange of concessions and linking this exchange into a package.

2. MAKING LAST-MINUTE DEMANDS. Making demands at the last minute is used at the very end of negotiations, when all issues have been resolved and the agreement remains to be signed. In this situation, one of the participants puts forward new demands. If the opponent seeks to maintain what has been achieved, he may make a concession.

3. GRADUAL INCREASE IN COMPLEXITY of the issues discussed is used in a joint analysis of the problem.

4. DIVIDING THE PROBLEM INTO INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS consists in refusing to try to immediately solve the problem as a whole and isolating its individual components.

B. Tactical techniques used at certain stages of negotiations .

Position clarification stage . Suitable here the following techniques :

1) overestimation of requirements . Its essence is to include points in your position that can then be painlessly removed, pretending that this is a concession, and demand similar steps from your opponent in return;

2) placing false accents in one’s own position . It consists of demonstrating in solving an issue, although in fact this issue is of secondary importance. This is done in order to: the question is subsequently removed in order to obtain necessary solutions differently, more important issue;

3) silence taken to close a position and consists of creating uncertainty at the first stage of negotiations;

4) bluff – giving deliberately false information.

Opening positions while clarifying them can be done through the following tactics:

a) direct opening of a position in speeches or answers to questions asked;

b) opening a position by clarifying the partner’s position.

Stage of discussion of positions. Most of the techniques used at this stage involve emphasizing differences:

1) an indication of the weaknesses of the opponent’s position . Options for implementing the reception may be:

Indication of insufficient authority;

An indication of nervousness excited state;

Indication that there are no alternative options;

Indication of internal contradictions in statements;

Negative assessments of actions without reasoning;

2) proactive argumentation . A question is asked, the answer to which will reveal the inconsistency of the opponent’s position;

3) distortion of the opponent’s position , i.e. formulating the opponent’s position with distortions beneficial to oneself;

4) threats and pressure on an opponent in order to achieve concessions on him . Can be implemented in the following forms:

Warnings about consequences unpleasant for the opponent;

Indications of the possibility of interrupting negotiations;

Indications about the possibility of blocking with others;

Show of force;

Making extreme demands;

Presentation of an ultimatum.

A threat can be considered effective if the interest of the party resorting to it is sufficient to make the implementation of the threat inevitable, since it itself, and not its implementation, is the means of achieving the goal.

5) search common area solutions . It consists of listening to your opponent’s opinion and comparing it with your own, trying to find common points.

Position approval stage . The following techniques are useful here:

1) acceptance of proposals - agreement with the proposed decisions;

2) expressing agreement with part of the proposals;

3) rejecting the opponent’s proposals - a technique based on emphasizing differences;

4) introducing clearly unacceptable proposals is aimed at ensuring that, having received a refusal to accept it, then blaming the opponent for the breakdown of negotiations;

5) extortion. One side puts forward a demand that is undesirable for the opponent and indifferent to itself. The goal is to obtain a concession in exchange for the removal of this demand;

6) growing requirements. As soon as the enemy concedes in something, a new demand is immediately presented;

8) return for revision of proposals;

9) a return to the discussion can be used in two cases: in order to avoid the adoption of agreements and if for one of the participants some issues really remain unclear and he again proposes to discuss them;

10) double interpretation. The parties, as a result of negotiations, reached an agreement. Moreover, one of them included a double meaning in the wording, which was not noticed by the opponent. Then the agreement is interpreted in its own interests, without violating it. It is clear that such behavior may conceal the possibility of a new conflict.

32. What are the specifics of negotiations with criminals?

1. Negotiations with the enemy, and especially with criminals, are forced .

The main objectives of these negotiations, in order of priority, are: protecting the lives of people (hostages, civilians, military personnel); detention of criminals (neutralization of the enemy); return or protection of property.

1. Analysis of domestic and foreign experience negotiating with the enemy shows that they can be classified on the following basis :

Goals: release of hostages, exchange of prisoners of war, prevention of explosions, arson and other similar actions, return of stolen weapons, ammunition, maintaining law and order;

Motives for the actions of criminals: political, nationalistic, selfish, evading arrest, revenge;

Duration: short-term (several hours), medium-term (several days), long-term (from weeks to several years);

Number of parties: bilateral, multilateral;

Number of participants: one on one, several people on each side, between groups;

Level of representation: at the local level, at the regional, republican level, at the state level, mixed levels;

Nature of contact between the parties: direct (direct contact), through intermediaries (translators, third neutral party);

Degree of publicity: public (the public is informed), unspoken or secret (the need to not report them is recognized);

Conditions put forward by the enemy: acceptable, partially feasible, impossible.

Negotiating with an enemy requires assessing such characteristics of situations as:

Known or unknown location of the enemy or hostages;

The possibility or impossibility of using force against the enemy;

Availability of data on the composition of the enemy, his weapons, combat experience, intentions, etc.

2. It is the opponents who often choose those with whom they want to negotiate . Sometimes criminals choose a specific leader, trusting him to be a party in negotiations. Or they determine the department or organization (for example, social movement) that they want to do business with. In almost half of the situations, negotiations are conducted with the help of intermediaries not associated with criminals (aircraft crew members, passengers, or just random people). Positive influence The course of negotiations is influenced by those involved in their conduct: representatives of the public, the media, local authorities, clergy, relatives and friends of criminals. Their participation in negotiations must be preceded by a preliminary line of behavior.

3. The negotiating team plays a special role , serving as a link between the management bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB and terrorists. Experience shows the advisability of involving in the negotiation process psychologists, linguists, etc. . They can help determine the characteristics, ethnicity, profession, and place of residence of terrorists. This directly affects the definition of the objectives of the operation to apprehend terrorists. The experience of Great Britain, Germany, the USA, and France shows that when negotiating with criminals, it is effective to involve female specialists.

In Russia, negotiation groups appeared in the Ministry of Internal Affairs several years ago. They are included in the structures for deploying forces and means of law enforcement agencies in emergency situations, including for the release of hostages, preventing bomb threats, etc. The negotiation group is at the disposal of the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Internal Affairs Directorate, and during the activities for the release of hostages they act on the instructions of a senior operational officer.

Negotiations with the enemy include three relatively independent, but interconnected periods :

Preparing for negotiations, discussing the problem;

Promotion and discussion of proposals and conditions;

Reaching an agreement and ensuring its implementation.

Preparing for negotiations . As a rule, preparation for direct negotiations takes place for a limited time . During this period, it is advisable to consider the following :

Personality characteristics of the invaders, motives and goals of the criminals;

Prediction of criminal behavior;

The desired procedure for negotiating with them;

Selecting a negotiator and a psychological consultant;

Organizing clear interaction between negotiators, management and the capture team.

This period is the most difficult. It is characterized by the suddenness of the actions of criminals, their desire to suppress the will of the opponent, and to impose forms of dialogue that are convenient for themselves. Threats, blackmail are used, ultimatum demands are made .

In such an extreme situation :

Negotiations may be delayed in order to gain time to clarify the situation.

The number of hostages, their location, relationships with the criminals, and state of health are determined.

The form of dialogue with criminals is determined.

Possible uses are weighed various forces and means, including special equipment and weapons.

It is important not to get confused, to calm the enemy, to lead the conversation into the mainstream of a long discussion. Threats made by criminals are usually demonstrative in nature. It is the threats (and not their execution) that are essentially the only argument of the enemy in the desire to achieve the intended result.

First, the initiative is with the criminals. However, efforts to establish contacts with them, find a common language, and instill in them a sense of trust in the negotiator allow, in most cases, to move on to a calmer discussion of the situation.

Promotion and discussion of proposals and conditions . The main problem of this period of negotiations is related to the consideration of the conditions that the criminals put forward. The pace of events may slow down here as the criminals have to consider the solutions offered by the conspirators. It is likely that the hostage takers will continue the psychological attack and create difficulties for considering the substance of the subject of negotiations.A tactical countermeasure that has proven itself is to offer the criminals to provide a representative in order to discuss the conditions they have put forward in a calmer atmosphere. This usually moves the negotiations in a calmer direction.

The subject of negotiations is usually :

Conditions for the release of hostages (it is necessary to constantly look for opportunities to reduce the number of hostages);

Food for hostages and criminals;

Conditions for granting freedom to invaders;

The question of redemption (it is possible to reduce the initially declared amount by two, three, and sometimes five times);

The question of organizing interaction between the parties.

During the discussion, an opportunity arises to seize the initiative, which ensures an increase psychological impact on criminals, inducing them to renounce illegal behavior. The success of negotiations is manifested in the fact that criminals reduce their activity, lose consistency in their demands, take a defensive position, and listen to the opponent’s arguments.

Dialogue makes sense if the criminals guarantee the life and health of the hostages. Otherwise, the use of force is lawful . Throughout the negotiations, it is necessary to maintain the conviction of the criminals that their demands can be met in order to deter violence against the hostages.

Reaching an agreement and ensuring its implementation – This is the final period of negotiations, when the appropriate decision is made. To ensure the implementation of the decision made, it is necessary to discuss the following issues:

1) is there confidence that the agreements are feasible?

2) is there mutual agreement on what should be done?

3) are actions carried out in such a way that the results achieved can be assessed?

IN extreme situations hostage taking by the enemy is necessary A complex approach to assess the prospects for negotiations and the need to use force, containing :

Assessment of the enemy, his weapons, aggressiveness, motives pushing for the use of violence;

Checking the reliability of information that criminal actions have already been committed against the hostages and whether they are not in the nature of false information;

Determining the permissibility of the use of force based on the safety requirements of the hostages and the capture team.

The effectiveness of negotiations is influenced by:

The negotiator’s possession of knowledge and skills in the field of the negotiation process, i.e. professionalism;

Knowledge of the psychology of the local population, its traditions and customs, respectful attitude towards people;

Psychological stability, the ability not to succumb to provocative attacks, illegal accusations, etc.

The negotiation process begins from the moment the parties begin to discuss the problem. At the first meeting, it is necessary to agree on issues that require discussion by both parties to the negotiations, these are the time frames of both individual meetings and, presumably, the entire negotiation process: agenda; the order of speeches of the negotiators; decision-making procedure.

The negotiation process is divided into three stages:

1. Initial or exploratory stage. Clarification of the interests and positions of the parties.

2. Main stage. Mutual clarification of the interests and positions of the participants, discussion of the proposed provisions, coordination of positions and the choice of agreements.

3. The final stage, or the period of formulating all the provisions of the agreement, contract. Reaching an agreement.

At the initial stage of negotiations, interaction between opponents consists, first of all, in the exchange of information regarding the most important controversial issues, interests of the parties, points of view and positions of each other on the existing problem. If negotiators choose a bargaining strategy, they try to immediately state their maximum demands. Even in conditions of cooperation, it is quite rare for a situation to develop along only one path - the one chosen from the very beginning. An initial tough position reduces the parties' chances of reaching an agreement. The main purpose of the first stage is to identify the opinions of the negotiators as fully and deeply as possible. The more detailed the exchange of views is, the more actively delegations participate in it, the more effectively it will be possible to prepare for the next stage.

The main stage of negotiations is discussion. At this stage, the negotiators, during which they must formulate the basic parameters of a joint solution to the issue. the main objective this stage is to achieve mutual understanding, common approach to solving the problem. The main rule that participants in the negotiation process must adhere to is a clear separation between the essence of the problem and the relations of the parties. This involves identifying the interests of partners, their positions and objectively considering mutually beneficial options for implementing these provisions.

The main stage of business negotiations consists of three successive stages:

1. Mutual clarification of the interests, concepts and positions of the participants. clarification is taking place general concepts, ideas and disagreements on the merits of the issue under consideration. It is at the beginning of negotiations that information uncertainty should be removed by clarifying the positions of the participants, a common language should be developed with partners, and a constructive dialogue should be organized between partners.

2. Discussion of the proposals and positions put forward. Work at this stage is aimed at realizing one’s own position or objecting to a partner. To do this, the party puts forward arguments and evidence that can be used to firmly defend their positions or to show the partner what concessions and why the party cannot make, what cannot be included in the final document, what the negotiators do not agree with and what issues may be subject to further discussion.

Factors influencing the discussion process:

Ability to ask questions. This is an important component of effective discussion of the parties' proposals. A correctly formulated question allows you to clarify the interlocutor’s point of view and get from him Additional information, direct the discussion process in the right direction.

Listening skills. To correctly perceive and comprehend information, negotiators need to master the techniques of non-reflective and reflective listening.

The ability to persuade is required in order to achieve the agreement of the interlocutor with the expressed point of view. Persuasion is addressed to the human mind and is carried out through argumentation, i.e. a system of statements intended to substantiate or refute an opinion.

Ability to think creatively. The stereotyped thinking of negotiators interferes with the search for the maximum number of options for solving the problem. Therefore, they need the ability to think creatively, i.e.: abandon stereotypes; move from one aspect of a problem to another; find unexpected solutions.

Actions used in situations where negotiations reach an impasse.

· do not end negotiations at a time when their participants are too emotional;

· Negotiations should be interrupted only after a detailed analysis and assessment of the situation;

· it is necessary to clearly and reasonably explain to the interlocutor the essence of the disagreements that forced decisive action to be taken;

· if resuming negotiations makes sense, it is necessary to inform the opponent about this.

Finding a positive way out of the current situation involves continuing negotiations. In this case, it may be effective to use pure technical means- announcing a break in negotiations. This allows participants to analyze their progress, assess the state of affairs, hold consultations within their group or with someone from the outside, reduce the emotional intensity of the situation during negotiations, and think probable options exit from deadlock. As a result, there is a real chance to resume the negotiation process. If the parties try to resolve the issue jointly through negotiations, then the result of the discussion stage is the identification of the main options for such a solution, and the parties move on to the third stage.

3. Coordination of positions and development of agreement on each issue. Depending on the problems being discussed, when agreeing on positions, a compromise concept may be raised (as an option for solving the problem), or simply a range of issues from among those raised during the negotiations, which may be included in the final document. There are two stages of agreement of positions: first general formula, then detailing. Detailing should be understood as editing the text and developing the final version of the final document.

The third stage of negotiations is the final one. The parties are moving on to developing final agreements.

Negotiation space is the area within which agreement can be reached. The boundaries of acceptable decisions for each of the negotiating participants may be quite far from the initially designated positions. Therefore, reaching an agreement is most possible in the central zone of the negotiation space. In this case decision is perceived by the negotiators as quite satisfactory.

The final one concludes the negotiation process and includes the resolution of the following organizational issues.

1. Selecting the type of decision to be made. The decision that can be made during business negotiations depends on their progress and the goals that are set for the participants. The following types of decisions made during the negotiation process are distinguished:

Compromise, when the parties make mutual concessions, is backed by approximately equal satisfaction of interests;

Finding a new solution during negotiations that appears if we consider a specific problem in a broader perspective;

An asymmetric solution when the concessions of one of the parties significantly exceed the concessions of the other. Such a decision should be avoided even when one of the partners is weaker and dependent on the other. The asymmetric solution is unlikely to be implemented, since it is forced.

2. Signing the established documents.

3. Analysis of the results of negotiations and implementation of the agreements reached. After completion of business negotiations, it is necessary to conduct a detailed analysis, which is based on an assessment of the agreements received by all participants in the negotiation process. A signed agreement does not mean that the negotiations were successful, just as the absence of an agreement does not indicate their failure.

Criteria for successful negotiations:

The degree of solution to the problem. The agreement reached during the negotiations indicates a solution to the problem. The result of interaction can be the achievement of a mutually beneficial result, which

completely solves the problem and creates a solid basis for further relations between the parties.

Subjective assessments of negotiations and their results. Negotiations are considered successful if both parties are satisfied with the results and regard the agreement reached as the optimal solution to the problem.

Compliance with the terms of the agreement. The outcome of the negotiations will be jeopardized if there are problems with fulfilling the commitments made.

The best way to ensure the long-term effect of negotiations is to include in the agreement a plan for its implementation. It should consider the following points: what needs to be done, by when, by whom. In this case, a system of monitoring the implementation of the agreement is necessary. The final document can also consider the procedure possible change agreement or its individual parts.

4. Monitoring the fulfillment of contractual obligations. In practice, negotiators may face non-implementation of the decisions that were approved and signed during the negotiations. Therefore, the final conclusion about the success of the meeting and the reliability of the partner is made only at the stage of monitoring the implementation of agreements.

Introduction

1. The concept of negotiations and the negotiation process

2.Psychological mechanisms of the negotiation process

3.Methods of negotiations and ways to optimize the negotiation process

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

The art of negotiation is specially taught all over the world. Most of our entrepreneurs have not only never been trained in the negotiation process, but also have no experience in participating in them. And therefore, negotiations often slow down, or even reach a dead end, break down, and partners lose the opportunity to establish mutually beneficial economic relations. If our businessmen want to enter the civilized world, they need to try to master its rules as quickly as possible.

In a market economy, the costs of conducting the negotiation process constitute an integral part of the transaction costs of any economic agent. Indeed, almost any transaction is preceded by negotiations on the terms of the economic exchange. Concluding and documenting contracts also requires the expenditure of significant funds. The main existing way to save costs of this kind is the use of standard contracts. However, at the stage of agreement between the parties on the terms of a contract or transaction, such standard solutions turn out to be of little use. Negotiations as a process of coordinating the interests of participants and resolving their potential or real conflict are a relevant object of study in many scientific disciplines: psychology, sociology, political science, economics, management theory, etc.

Over the past decades, there has been constant growth interest in negotiation research. The first work in this area appeared in the USA. Domestic research began in the mid-eighties of the last century and concerned mainly with international and foreign policy issues. The results obtained are of little use for the process of negotiations between economic agents, say, between two firms, and not only because of the fundamental changes that have occurred since then in the economy and society. Modern microeconomic situations that require resolution through negotiations are characterized by a smaller scale and different ways of achieving the goals of the parties than international ones. In the early 90s of the 20th century, practically no qualitatively new research was carried out in Russia; only within the framework of conflictology, interest in the national characteristics of the negotiation process arose.

Any negotiations are unique: each time there is a new subject for discussion, new conditions, new participants. But still, there is something in common that distinguishes them from other types of activities. This is the process of negotiations, its organization, compliance with all the conditions accepted in the business world for negotiations, the relationship of their participants.

Negotiations begin from the moment one of the parties makes a proposal to discuss the details and terms of the contract. When the other party accepts the proposal, one of the most important stages begins - preparation for negotiations. It is at this stage that the success of negotiations is largely determined. Not only their final result, but also the process itself depends on how carefully the negotiations are prepared: whether the negotiations will be long, protracted, conflict-ridden, or whether they will pass quickly, without disruptions.

1. The concept of negotiations and the negotiation process

Negotiation is an ancient and universal means of human communication. They allow us to find agreement where interests do not coincide, opinions or views diverge. Historically, the development of negotiations proceeded in three directions: diplomatic, trade and resolution of controversial problems.

Negotiations are mutual business communication with the goal of achieving a joint decision. Throughout our lives we negotiate, exchange obligations and promises. Whenever two people need to reach an agreement, they must negotiate.

Negotiations proceed in the form of a business conversation on issues of interest to both parties and serve to establish cooperative ties.

Negotiations differ significantly in their goals: concluding a supply agreement, for conducting research or design work, agreement on cooperation and coordination of activities, etc.

During negotiations, people want:

Achieve mutual agreement on an issue in which interests usually collide;

It is worthwhile to withstand the confrontation that inevitably arises due to conflicting interests without destroying the relationship.

To achieve this you need to be able to:

Solve the problem of;

Establish interpersonal interaction;

Manage emotions.

People with different negotiating experience can come together at the negotiating table. They may have different temperaments (for example, sanguine and choleric) and different special education (for example, technical and economic).

In accordance with this great diversity, the course of negotiations itself differs. They can proceed easily or tensely; partners can agree among themselves without difficulty or with great difficulty, or not come to any agreement at all.

Negotiation process - specific type joint activities. Its peculiarity lies in the fact that the goals and interests, and especially the positions of the parties, do not coincide. The specificity also lies in the fact that during negotiations each opponent is in close contact with the other and is forced to take into account his actions. Therefore, negotiations as a socio-psychological process have psychological mechanisms and technology. Psychological mechanisms are an integral set of mental processes that ensure movement towards a certain result in accordance with a frequently occurring sequence. This is a stable pattern of mental actions. We can say that technology provides the answer to the question “How?”, and psychological mechanisms answer the question “Why?”.

In negotiations, our interests collide with the interests of others. Some well-known authors have equated negotiations to a “deal from a position of strength” in which the needs of the other are not taken into account. But we are interested in overcoming differences in long-term interdependent relationships. Our interests are mutual. Negotiating from a position of strength destroys trust and goodwill. At best, such a strategy is short-sighted, at worst, self-destructive.

2.Psychological mechanisms of the negotiation process

The following mechanisms are distinguished: coordination of goals and interests; desire for mutual trust of the parties; ensuring a balance of power and mutual control of the parties.

Coordination of goals and interests. Negotiations become negotiations or discussions due to the operation of this mechanism. Whatever the scheme of negotiations, they can achieve results only through the coordination of goals and interests. The degree of agreement achieved may vary: from full consideration of interests to partial. In these cases, negotiations. are considered successful. If the negotiations did not end with an agreement, this does not mean that there was no agreement. It’s just that during the negotiation process, the opponents could not agree.

The essence of the mechanism is that the parties, based on alternately putting forward and justifying their goals and interests, discussing their compatibility, develop an agreed common goal.

Coordination of goals and interests is more effective if:

Orientation of the parties to solving the problem, “getting to work”;

Good or neutral interpersonal relations of opponents;

Respectful attitude towards the opponent;

Open positions, presentation of clear Individual goals;

The ability to adjust your goals.

Striving for mutual trust between the parties. As a socio-psychological phenomenon, trust is the unity of perception of another person and attitude towards him. Distinguish between potential and actual trust. If one person tells another that he trusts him, then this means that he knows how this other can act in a given situation, expects positive actions towards himself and therefore he treats him that way.

When a conflict has occurred or continues, it is difficult to talk about any trust between the parties. Opposition, negative emotions, and damage received can only produce distrust and the expectation of danger. But if the parties agreed to negotiations, then the confrontation has ended, albeit temporarily. However, coordinating interests, taking steps towards each other, weakening negative emotions, and correcting distorted perceptions contribute to the development of mutual trust. Many experts consider trust to be key in negotiations. The stronger the trust between the parties, the greater the chances for a constructive solution to the problem.

Another psychological mechanism of negotiations is to ensure a balance of power and mutual control between the parties. This lies in the fact that during negotiations the parties strive to maintain the initial or emerging balance of power and control over the actions of the other party. What is important is the power of one party relative to the power of the other party, as well as how each participant evaluates the capabilities of the other. Sometimes power is seen as the opponent's rank. Power determines the possibilities of influencing another.

The balance of power is significantly influenced not only by the real capabilities of the other side, but also by how these capabilities are perceived. In negotiations, what is often important is not the power that the participant actually has, but how it is assessed by the other party. Therefore, the outcome of negotiations may be influenced not by the actual, but by the apparent state of affairs.

In negotiations, each party tries to make the most of its capabilities. The range of funds involved is quite wide: from persuasion to threats and blackmail. However, thanks to maintaining the balance of power, negotiations take place. If one of the parties sharply increases its power, then the opponent either takes a time out or stops negotiations. A resumption of conflict is also possible.

Negotiation technology. (The term “technology” is derived from the Greek “techne” - art, skill, skill).

Negotiation technology is a set of actions taken by the parties during negotiations and the principles for their implementation. It includes ways of presenting a position, principles and tactics of interaction with an opponent.

There are four ways of presenting a position that can be used by negotiators: opening a position, closing a position, emphasizing the commonality in positions, emphasizing the differences in positions.

If a speech characterizes one’s own position without comparing it with the partner’s position, then such an action is considered as opening a position. When a negotiator criticizes the opponent's position without comparing it with his own position, then we have a closing position. If a participant makes a comparison between two or more positions, then depending on what is being emphasized in the speech, this can be assessed as either emphasizing commonality or emphasizing differences.

For constructive interaction with an opponent during negotiations, the following principles can be recommended:

1. Do not be the first to use techniques that cause confrontation.

2. Listen carefully to your opponent, do not interrupt.

3. Passivity in negotiations indicates poor elaboration of the position, its weakness, and reluctance to negotiate.

4. Do not convince your partner that his position is wrong.

5. If a partner agrees to make a concession, this should not be considered as a manifestation of his weakness.

It is difficult to negotiate with an opponent whose position is objectively stronger. The following recommendations are useful here (D. Rubin).

Appeal to a principle (legal norms, principles of justice, equality).

An appeal to a long “historical relationship” with a given party.

Appeal to the future of relations with the opponent (the benefits of cooperation in the future).

Linking different issues into one “package”. Being weaker in one thing, a participant may be stronger in another. Linking these issues allows us to “balance” the strength of the parties.

Coalition with sympathizers of the position taken.

Appeal to public opinion.

Seeking help from a mediator.