Strategy and Tactics How to Plan Strategies
What is strategy It is the relation between Ways- Means- and Ends Strategy in deal making: is a directed Plan It defines the approach, it links the overall goals with operational tactics. The better your Strategy , the Better ur Goals
Competitive advantage Strategy is the Search for Competitive advantage. Assessing mutual strength and weaknesses is the Key to formulating the best Strategy in the Context of Deal Issue. The result of this assessment is a series of alternative strategies.
Ways of thinking incremental thinking and strategic thinking The Incremental: in this mode the dealmaker begins reactively by recognizing an immediate problem, some unexpected shock. Then he searches selectively through a series of a variety of potential solutions, making marginal movements from the status quo, evaluating each tiny step in order. Bounded rationality concept: problems in real world need only solved satisfactorily , not perfectly.
Strategic thinking In this mode. Dealmakers begin Proactively by defining general goals and setting specific objectives. First: Scan the deal making environment, exploring opportunities and risks, and analyze them in relation to points of weakness and strength in a search for a competitive advantage. Secondly: alternatives are set, every one evaluated for probable consequences, a choice is made( which set of strategies) tactics best matches goals and strength, implementation ( step and time sequencing), feedback and review complete the process. Neither incremental is not bad, but in its own arena, nor strategic is always good.( learn when to stay incremental and when to jump strategic)
Strategy and Surprise To be really strategic, Strategic thinking must deal with Surprise So it more a TALENT and an ART and a matter of experience. The unanticipated must be anticipated, the unseen must be seen. Strategic deal making must be concerned with radical change discontinuitySharp breaks even violent twists from current plans.
When to Strategize When negotiating or Structuring your deal, do not focus on building tricky tactics first. Negotiating deals is a continuous series of course corrections and target shifts ( always there is a room for maneuvering)
Strategic Attitudes Simple and direct: Coming right to the point. Say what u mean. The straightforward approach may be startlingly effective, disarming the other side and driving u to a quick solution. When to be: • U have worked with other side before. • The deal is bogging down. • Immediate closure is a goal.
Press and Push Sensitive points are squeezed. Press and push when your side is stronger The other side needs a quick close You want to asses limits. Cool Aloof It uses a reverse psychology. Play hard to get. Let the other side sell you buy. avoid tempting ur opponents. Be cool and aloof when The other side is stronger Your side is under pressure You have alternative deals.
What to Consider? Consider both Relation Ship and Substance Generally: The best Strategy depends on desired Outcome. Traditionaly:2 approches: Game theory: Maximize Outcomes. Win Win Problem Solving: maximize outcomes for both Parties aand maintain positive relationship.( Compromise).
But Not both approaches will work in all situations. The Systematic Model for Strategic Situation: Accounts for both Substantive and Relationship Outcomes
How ? Asses the Negotiation Context: The aspects of the situation and negotiation episode that shape relationship and substantive outcomes. 1-Existing power and level of Conflict 2-Negotiaton Strategies implemented through tactics during negotiation episode. 3-Monitoring each episode of negotiation with the changing levels of power and conflict 4- Risk assessment.
Types of Strategies Unilateral Negotiation Strategy: Considering only the negotiator interest or the organization. The first two imp questions- which is more important the relationship or the substantive outcome? 1-Trusting Collaboration( when both outcomes are important) 2-Firm Competition( Substantive very important) 3-Open Subordination( relationship is the priority) 4-Active Avoidance (neither type is important).
Negative effects Unilateral strategies could lead to grave problems if the other parties priorities differ. Negotiation can be vulnerable to exploitation if the other party is concerned about substantive outcomes. So consider the History of executive relation with the other party The influence of key individuals and groups on the manager and other party. Both affect the negotiation strategy to use.
Interactive nego. strategies Examine the neg. from each party perspective and precisely the other party interest. Negotiator should anticipate the other part substantive and relationship outcomes. Principled collaboration: rather than relying on trust and reciprocity the negotiator persuades the other part to conduct neg. based on a set of mutually agreed upon principles that would benefit each negotiator. Focused subordination: the other party may have little interest on sub. Or rel. outcomes. So by discovering these realities, the negotiator can still gain sub. Outcomes while assuring relatively positive relationship outcome.
Soft competition: Softening firm competition. From ur perspective the relationship might not be important for u, but it is important for the other party. If the other party is powerful and potentially threatening. Use competitive strategy that maintain relationship, avoid bad tactics. Passive avoidance: u don’t consider any of outcomes as important, but the other part considers the relationship outcomes, u should probably delegate negotiation , for keeping the hostility out of the relationship. Delegation ensures possible opportunities not ignored, while freeing u from what appears as a low priority negotiation.
Responsive Avoidance: U do not consider both outcomes. The other party considers only the substantive outcomes. Direct interaction is not necessary. U can still be responsive but avoid negotiation… apply standard operating procedures for example. Or develop new policies that address the other party concern.
Monitoring an evaluating tactics After implementing interactive strategies , u should monitor the other party tactics. How the other party acts signals his/her strategy. Based on his/her tactics, u can: 1- Determine if their assumptions and expectations about ur strategy are accurate. 2- Modify if needed ur strategy during this and subsequent negotiations episode.
Monitoring tactics View tactics in two ways: 1-Cluster of specific actions associated with the implementation of one strategy or another 2- Action that come out of a strategic impact from a particular phase of negotiation in which they are used.
Negotiation Phase The Search for an arena and agenda formulation Stating of demands and offers Narrowing differences Competitive Seek to conduct neg. on ur home ground. Demand discussion of ur. Agenda items. Ignore or discount other party demands and requests Insist other party make initial demands or offers on all items Respond with very low offers or very high demands In every negotiation item, exaggerate ur position and discredit other party’s Demand other party make concessions; back up demand with threats. Magnify degree of ur concession; downplay other party’s Negotiation Tactics
Final Bargaining #Seek large concessions of the other party. #Concede only minimally on ur high interest items #Use concessions on ur own low intererst items as bargaining chips.
Search for an arena and agenda formulation Stating of demands and offers Narrowing differences Seek to conduct neg. on neutral ground. Incorporate both ur and the other party agenda items Consider the other party demands and requests Alternate initial offers and demands with other party. Respond with moderate offers and demands Indicate ur reasons for item outcomes, and the other part reasons Seek equitable exchange of concessions with the other party Delete, add or yield items if mutual interests converge Honestly asses ur and other party concessions Phase 2 Collaborative Tactics
Final Bargaining Seek equitable exchange of concessions from the other party Seek mutually beneficial outcomes when refusing or accepting concessions on items
The Search for an arena and agenda formulation Stating of demands and offers Narrowing differences Final bargaining Seek to conduct neg. on the other party’s ground Elicit the other party agenda items and subvert ur items Concede to the other party’s demands and requests Make initial offers or demands on all other party relevant items Make high offers or low demands Accept the other party commitments to items; explain ur commitments Concede to the other party demands Acknowledge the other party concessions; downplay managers concessions Yield to the other part’s relevant preferences by accepting low offers and low demands. Phase 3 Subordinative tactics
Hezb. Allah prisoners deal ( Discrepant levels of power- very high level of conflict) Negotiation Strategy: ( Unilateral Firm Competion…. Reactive- Focused Subordination) Rules of the Game(approch linked to Goals operational tactics) Simple and direct:Kidnapp soldiers for the Release of Soldiers. Start Just 4 lebanese prisoners. "These prisoners that we hold will never go home except in one way: indirect negotiations and exchange", not even if "the entire world" attempted to rescue them At the time, Olmert dismissed Nasrallah's warning and scoffed at his exchange proposal, declaring that Israel "will not be blackmailed and will not negotiate the lives of our soldiers with terrorist organisations".
First episode Unknown Balance of power – level of conflict goes Up with tactics making the significant surprises. Tactics a big surprise: Competitive advantage. The So called Israel: Extensive Air strikes, failed maritime siege, failed land invasion, succes in civilian death, great infrastructure destruction… no effect on israel negotiation strategy and outcomes. Hezb Allah:showers of rockets, tough standing, precision rocket strikes, neutralizing Airpower, neutralizing land forces, Media shows especially after extensive airstrikes and claims about his death. In the summer of 2006, Hezbollah fired more than 4,000 rockets at northern Palestine during a conflict with the so called israel, paralyzing the region for 34 days and forcing a million Israelis to hide in shelters or flee to cities in the south of Palestine.
Second Episode. Corrections Target Shifts In substance, the deal is both quantitatively and qualitatively lopsided to Hizbollah's advantage . For in addition to the release of four Lebanese fighters captured during the 2006 war, Hizbollah has wrung from Israel the emancipation of Lebanon's longest-serving Israeli prisoner, Samir Kuntar The real trade-off regarding Samir Kuntar seems now to be with the two Israeli soldiers abducted on 12 July 2006, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev - thus granting the two a clear precedence over the once iconic Arad. The widespread assumption that the two soldiers are dead would mean that Israel will soon be receiving "dead soldiers Another indication of Israel's decreased bargaining power vis-à-vis the hezb Allah is its reluctant approval to the freeing of an as yet unspecified number of Palestinian prisoners as part of the Hizbollah deal Nasrallah throws wrench in works of burgeoning prisoner-exchange deal by demanding Israel release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in return for kidnapped soldiers, thereby ending weeks of optimistic progress. Olmert vehemently rejects new stipulation The prime minister vehemently rejected the renewed demand. Israel has repeatedly said it would not consider including Palestinian prisoners in a deal for Regev and Goldwasser under any circumstances
Third episode Up until the last 24 hours of the war, just prior to the cease fire taking hold, Hezbollah made the Israeli Forces pay dearly when attempting to take towns just a few kilometers across the border Hezbollah caused the elite Golani Brigade to retreat from Bint Jubayl, and was able to continually fire rockets from areas in southern Lebanon despite a blanket of air coverage, counter-battery artillery and the close proximity of the IF. Hezbollah also repeatedly launched barrages of rockets against “Israeli” towns and cities, disabled an Israeli warship with a cruise missile and launched UAVs into northern Israel. the appearance of Hezbollah successfully repelling the IF and forcing the “Israeli” government to the negotiating table outweighs the reality that the Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert lacked the political will to meaningfully dismantle Hezbollah's military and political leadership Hezbollah started the war by attacking an Israeli outpost and capturing two Israeli soldiers. The Israelis stated the war would not end without the release of the Israeli soldiers and the destruction of Hezbollah's capacity to launch missiles into Israel. Neither of these objectives have been achieved via the cease fire.
Fourth episodeSubstantial outcomes Hezbollah achieved what it intended to do from the outset of hostilities: fight the IF to a draw, force negotiations and a cease fire in the United Nations, dictate the terms of the cease fire, obtain international recognition and acceptance, further erode support for Israel in the international community and remain a viable political and military force within Lebanon. and survived with his military forces largely intact.