NEGOTIATION SKILLS FOR EFFECTIVE PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCACY ACTIVITY

The development of open democratic procedures in government naturally encourages the emergence and participation of many interest groups, both within and outside of government in public policy decision making. While on the one hand, the involvement of these interests can produce balanced solutions to policy questions that represent the perspectives of many stakeholders, they can also incite battles among interest groups that feel threatened and can engender conflicts between government agencies and ministries, the executive and legislative branches, government and the public, and government and external organizations, such as advocacy groups. These conflicts can escalate if stakeholders perceive that their interests are at grave risk. In the worst of cases, stalemate on important policy issues can result.

Because of these tendencies, conflict resolution approaches have also become an integral element of democratic decision making procedures. The most frequently used of these conflict resolution mechanisms are negotiation practices. Formal or informal negotiation among stakeholders provides an outlet for conflicts of interest and opinion to be voiced, for these differences to be contrasted and debated, for common ground among the stakeholders to be sought, and for practical solutions to be found that accommodate the interests of all parties.

Negotiation is a mechanism that promotes the coordination of differing stakeholder interests in a constructive way; it is not a vehicle to force or coerce the capitulation of one side or the other. If practiced effectively, negotiation can help disputing parties find mutually acceptable agreements where the priority interests of each party are creatively cobbled together so that all perceive themselves as winners in the process.

Well-crafted negotiated agreements offer face saving provisions for stakeholders who may have compromised on lesser issues to achieve goals that are higher on their agendas.

Ultimately, negotiation is a process of democratic decision making that facilitates the practical imperative of “getting things done.” If the stakeholders have the political willingness to seek a solution to their differences, the negotiation process provides a mechanism for coordinating interests, resolving conflicts, and averting deadlock, thereby promoting more inclusive policy formulation and more effective policy implementation.

Negotiation is the essence of democratic decision making in government. Making public policy, requires compromise between the desires of all stakeholders. Government decision making is not a process that can tolerate rigid or inflexible positions; responsible legislators and government managers in a democratic system must practice flexibility, the willingness to adjust and modify positions to find mutual accommodation among stakeholders in a pluralistic society.

This is not to say that government decision makers or public policy advocates must abandon their principles, values and beliefs. It is just that the “art” of getting things accomplished within democratic procedures requires that a way be found for multiple perspectives and interests to be represented and balanced, rather than having one interest overpower all alternative positions. Mutual concessions through the give-and-take of the negotiation process is the way this can be achieved.

What does it take to get disputing parties to the negotiating table? Two factors are influential –the willingness of stakeholders to negotiate based on their perceptions that the issue is ripe for resolution and the capacity of the stakeholders to negotiate. Together, these factors combine to create a level of “negotiation readiness.” Negotiation readiness is defined as the motivation to resolve conflicts, as well as the ability to do so through negotiation processes. If any of the principal parties are not ready to negotiate, policy formulation or implementation may come to a halt and conflict may emerge.

Willingness and capacity are equally important in generating the decision to negotiate. Parties must believe that it is in their best interest to negotiate an agreement rather than to continue the conflict. If the disputing parties lack a sufficient level of capacity, they are not likely to decide to negotiate their differences, fearing a concessionary, or worse, an exploitative, interaction, even if they are motivated and the conflict seems ripe.

To be negotiation ready, the parties must view the policy issue as being ripe; this depends largely on the magnitude of the costs which will be imposed or the rewards that will be foregone if a negotiated agreement is not achieved. Proposals offered by advocacy groups must be persuasive and demonstrate that government interests, as well as the public’s interests, will be well-served if they are accepted and implemented. Thus, the willingness to negotiate is influenced by this cost-benefit calculation. The willingness to negotiate is also determined by the relative power of the parties. Government authorities are usually viewed as possessing the power of the state, but they can be convinced to join in negotiations with advocacy groups if these groups can demonstrate that they have broad and committed public support, public opinion is on their side, the law is on their side or their position is upheld by the facts.

In addition, the parties must have sufficient capacity to negotiate, which depends on their skills, experience, and resources to perform adequately in the negotiation process -- to be able to identify, defend and promote their own interests effectively. They must be able to plan, strategize, persuade, advocate and lobby on their own behalf.

Perceptions that benefits do not currently outweigh the costs or sensing asymmetry in capacity among the disputing parties can dissuade them from coming to the table to negotiate. On the other hand, better information and more realistic cost-benefit assessments, along with capacity building activities to enhance the negotiating skills of stakeholder groups, will increase the readiness of parties for negotiation and encourage them to come to the table.

Once parties decide to negotiate, the process moves forward through various activities. The prominent activities change over time across several stages - from the prenegotiation period, to the negotiations themselves, and finally to post-agreement negotiations.

In the prenegotiation stage, the parties prepare, plan and strategize for the upcoming talks.

Activities include the following:

• Conducting fact-finding
• Identifying their own interests
• Establishing goals
• Identifying acceptable fallback positions
• Assessing the interests and goals of the other parties
• Assessing the implications of differential power positions
• Developing strategies and tactics
• Testing alternative demands and proposals
• Preparing or influencing the structure and context of the upcoming talks
• Initiating confidence building measures with the other side
• Building coalitions.

In the negotiation stage itself, the parties seek accommodation on the issues that have kept them apart through direct interaction. Many of the pre-negotiation activities to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of strategies, tactics, demands, and proposals still continue into the negotiation phase.

New activities in the negotiation stage include:

• Presenting positions and interests to the other side
• Employing and modifying strategies and tactics to encourage the other parties to see benefit in your proposals
• Defending and promoting your interests
• Finding general principles of justice and fairness upon which all parties can agree (these are called “formulas”)
• Searching for acceptable provisions that add detail to the agreed principles
• Overcoming objections and impasses
• Conducting problem solving and finding creative approaches to find mutually acceptable solutions
• Working within coalitions to further your interests.

The post-agreement negotiation stage is important in solidifying the ongoing relationship between parties. No matter how detailed the negotiated agreement, its implementation will always require additional interpretation and give-and-take to resolve differences or make adjustments. Post-agreement negotiations can be viewed as a process of sustaining relationships between advocacy groups and government authorities that need to work together but which may have conflicting interests. These negotiations provide a mechanism for them to resolve their differences through compromise and creative solutions.

Post agreement activities include:

• Establishing and participating in an ongoing forum in which the parties to an agreement can continue to dialogue and negotiate details, adjustments and extensions
• Monitoring and evaluating compliance with negotiated provisions
• Finding ways to improve existing agreements
• Working with existing coalitions and developing new coalitions to implement agreements.

Across each of these stages, negotiation strategies and tactics are devised and employed by all parties. This bargaining behavior can be classified into a few basic categories, including: issuing threats and warnings, offering promises and predictions, making commitments, feigning incapacity, making concessions, and bluffing, among others. Closely related to these strategies and tactics is negotiation style -- whether the negotiator is tough (tendency to hold out for more) or soft (tendency to give in).

What needs to be done to regularize negotiations between advocates and government agencies? The readiness of the parties to negotiate must be developed and the institutional framework within which negotiation takes place must be established.

Building Negotiation Readiness. Advocacy groups and government agencies that need to work with one another must develop a perspective that the only way things can get accomplished and deadlock avoided is through continuing negotiation and compromise. There must be a mindset that greater benefits can accrue for the public good if advocates and government agencies work together to develop procedures to resolve their differences and get on with their work. The other part of the equation is to develop the abilities and skills at negotiation of their managers. This can be done through training, practice exercises, and observation.

Building Negotiation Institutions. Ongoing fora in which representatives of advocacy groups and government agencies can meet to negotiate their differences and find mutually acceptable solutions are essential. These can take the form of policy dialogue workshops or task forces. If these institutions have regularly scheduled meetings, negotiation norms and activities will likely become the favored approach over time to push progress on public policy issues.

Anticipated Outcomes

The anticipated benefits of promoting negotiation with government are threefold:

• Deadlocks in policy formulation or implementation can be averted.
• Better policy solutions can be designed by including the perspectives of all stakeholders.
• Policy formulation and implementation can be made more efficient through regularized processes of interaction between government agencies, the legislature, and the public.

Developing a culture of negotiation with government is an acquired skill, one that can be easily institutionalized where there is a desire to make government decision making the art of the possible. As policy issues increasingly require various government agencies, the legislature, and the public to interact and work in coordination with one another to get things done, each stakeholder must find a way to see beyond its own parochial organizational interests to avoid stalemate and find common ground that moves policy issues forward. Negotiation is the principal mechanism to resolve such conflicts of interest in an inclusive participatory fashion.

Basic forms of negotiation:

1. The power play is an authoritarian approach that's considerably less than true negotiation. The side that's “higher” on the authority scale might pay lip service to cooperation, but is usually prepared to steamroll over all objections and ignore others' contributions.
2. The fixed positions approach is a “take-it-or-leave-it” approach in which both parties adopt rigid positions and are reluctant to compromise. Most of their energy goes into defending their individual positions.
3. The haggling approach takes place when bargainers ask for more than they expect to get. They offer options favorable to themselves only, and they try to create an obligation by giving the other party a little something.
4. The collaborative or value-adding approach is always more likely to result in win-win outcomes. You achieve your objectives while helping others achieve theirs.

Stages of Negotiation

In order to achieve a desirable outcome, it may be useful to follow a structured approach to negotiation. The process of negotiation includes the following stages:

1. Preparation : Before any negotiation takes place, a decision needs to be taken as to when and where a meeting will take place to discuss the problem and who will attend. Setting a limited time-scale can also be helpful to prevent the disagreement continuing. This stage involves ensuring all the pertinent facts of the situation are known in order to clarify your own position. Undertaking preparation before discussing the disagreement will help to avoid further conflict and unnecessarily wasting time during the meeting.

2. Discussion: During this stage, individuals or members of each side put forward the case as they see it, i.e. their understanding of the situation. Key skills during this stage are questioning, listening and clarifying . Sometimes it is helpful to take notes during the discussion stage to record all points put forward in case there is need for further clarification. It is extremely important to listen, as when disagreement takes place it is easy to make the mistake of saying too much and listening too little. Each side should have an equal opportunity to present their case.

3. Clarifying Goals: From the discussion, the goals, interests and viewpoints of both sides of the disagreement need to be clarified. It is helpful to list these in order of priority. Through this clarification it is often possible to identify or establish common ground.

4. Negotiate Towards a Win-Win Outcome: This stage focuses on what is termed a Win-Win outcome where both sides feel they have gained something positive through the process of negotiation and both sides feel their point of view has been taken into consideration.  A Win-Win outcome is usually the best result. Although this may not always be possible, through negotiation, it should be the ultimate goal. Suggestions of alternative strategies and compromises need to be considered at this point. Compromises are often positive alternatives which can often achieve greater benefit for all concerned compared to holding to the original positions.

5. Agreement: Agreement can be achieved once understanding of both sides’ viewpoints and interests have been considered. It is essential to keep an open mind in order to achieve a solution. Any agreement needs to be made perfectly clear so that both sides know what has been decided.

6. Implementing a Course of Action: From the agreement, a course of action has to be implemented to carry through the decision.

7. Failure to Agree: If the process of negotiation breaks down and agreement cannot be reached, then re-scheduling a further meeting is called for. This avoids all parties becoming embroiled in heated discussion or argument, which not only wastes time but can also damage future relationships. At the subsequent meeting, the stages of negotiation should be repeated. Any new ideas or interests should be taken into account and the situation looked at afresh. At this stage it may also be helpful to look at other alternative solutions and/or bring in another person to mediate.

In any negotiation, the following three elements are important and likely to affect the ultimate outcome of the negotiation: Attitudes, Knowledge, and Interpersonal Skills

Attitudes: All negotiation is strongly influenced by the underlying attitudes to the process itself, for example attitudes to the issues and personalities involved in the particular case or attitudes linked to personal needs for recognition. Negotiation is not an arena for the realization of individual achievements. There can be resentment of the need to negotiate by those in authority. Certain features of negotiation may influence a person’s behaviour, for example some people may become defensive.

Knowledge: The more knowledge you possess of the issues in question, the greater your  participation in the process of negotiation. In other words, good preparation is essential. Doing your homework and gathering as much information about the issues is critical. Furthermore, the way issues are negotiated must be understood as negotiating will require different methods in different situations.

Interpersonal Skills: There are many interpersonal skills in the process of negotiation which are useful in both formal settings and in less formal one-to-one situations. These skills include: Effective verbal and oral communication; Listening and Active Listening; Reducing misunderstandings through reflection and clarification; Building working relationships based on mutual respect; Problem-solving; Decision-making; Assertiveness; Dealing with difficult situations through the art of tact and diplomacy, Communication in difficult situation, dealing with criticism.

Note: Owing to the importance of having acquired the necessary negotiation skills for effective public policy advocacy activity, AALEP's Executive Certificate in Public Policy Advocacy has one Unit that concentrates on this very topic.