In supporting both Department of Defence and Defence Contractor enterprises over many years, ENS International has seen negotiation shortcomings and challenges.
These include narrow outcomes focus, competitive rather than collaborative behaviours, poor recognition of co-dependence, and the pitfalls of ‘winging it’. There is a clear need for more structured, strategic and enlightened approaches to negotiation preparation and conduct.
Narrow or Deterministic Outcomes Focus
One common issue has been a very literal, content-driven, single-party focus when defining required negotiation outcomes and objectives. Some parties have very firm fixed positions on the content or substance of artefacts. Robust outcomes and objectives require a consideration of both the content (what) and process (how) of the deliverables and relationships from the perspectives of all parties.
Defence is a content-rich environment. The focus is on capability needs, requirements, risks, specifications, contracts, deeds, attachments, schedules, milestones and so on. As negotiation consultants, we often have to counter these negative fixations on terms and conditions, artefacts, negotiation directives and risk assessments. Our work often involves re-framing these objectives at transactional and strategic levels to include common ground, long-term imperatives, collaborative outcomes (including behaviours and relationships), and building options for value-adding or flexibility.
Slow Recognition of Need to Shift from Competitive to Collaborative Behaviours
Positional stances on single issues, past history and relationship tensions often lead to competitive behaviours, resistance, and even adversarial pay-back or punitive mechanisms. Protracted use of competitive behaviours leads to the suppression of better options and settling for sub-optimal outcomes. Earlier transitions to collaborative behaviour, on the other hand, lead to earlier exploration of wider options, strategic concessions on both process and content, and more focus on long-term value-adding.
Poor Recognition of Co-Dependence
Defence work frequently involves prescribed relationships, single customers and single or limited providers. In these circumstances, historical barriers to cooperation and perceptions of difficult or demanding contractors and customers hamper negotiations. ENS’ work has often involved developing strategic common ground, recognising implications of co-dependence and prescribed relationships, and creating opportunities for collaboration and flexibility. This in turn has required strategies for relationship improvement, reducing dependence on templates and prescribed processes, and exploring process concessions to achieve better content outcomes. Building constructive behaviours – setting a better tone for delivering on future agreements - is fundamental.
In other words, we aim to make it easier for other parties in the Defence environment to say “yes” to better options and more difficult to say “no” by using re-framed outcomes and common ground to make those options mutually beneficial.
Value of Rehearsal and Systemic Preparation
‘Winging it’ may sometimes work. However, tight deadlines and just-in-time management often limit preparations. Whilst extroverts and intuitive types may enjoy this approach, it can bring pitfalls and sub-optimal outcomes. Strategic use of influencing opportunities both prior to as well as after formal negotiations can have high payoffs, with structured, systemic preparation and rehearsals building both competence and confidence, team unity amongst differing personality types, and cohesion particularly when under duress.
Note: Drew McKinnie CDRE RANR and Jennifer Kelly are colleagues working at ENS International, an Australia-based global consulting firm focussing exclusively on negotiation and influencing consulting and training.