Negotiation and conflict resolution: the four step method. Ikuru Hope International School of Management MBA, International Business, 509-NGCR - Negotiation & Conflict Resolution, Professor Leslie Shaw April 2012
Jan 04, 2016
Negotiation and conflict resolution: the four step method.
Ikuru Hope
International School of Management
MBA, International Business,
509-NGCR - Negotiation & Conflict Resolution,
Professor Leslie Shaw
April 2012
Abstract
Conflict and negotiation is occurs daily, conflict is good and at the same time it’s bad, when
conflict is good it becomes beneficial to both parties and when bad, opportunities are missed out
on. This paper focuses understanding conflict and negotiation and a holistic view of the four step
method for negotiation.
Introduction:
Six hunters from six regions brought together and blind folded, asked to touch a fur and
say what animal it was, the first touched it and said it was the fur of a goat, the second said it was
a sheep, the third said it was a hyena and the fourth said it was a lion and they all had different
answers for it. The truth is that they were all right about their answers. They responded based on
their perception which was driven by their experience in hunting and probably based on the kind
animals obtainable in each region they came from. Then if one can get six different answers from
one question, this is conflict as everyone gives an answer based on their perception. Faure’s1book
describes how a belief system in Papau New Guinea called the cargo cult underwent a powerful
revival in their culture. According to this belief, all the wealth of the world promised to the
natives, that is the ‘cargo’ has been diverted on its way to them by the Whites before it could
reach its final destination. A number of rituals had to be accomplished according to specific to
enable the natives to get back what they were initially supposed to obtain, but this secret
information is carefully kept by the white people. Some Australian missionaries had
unsuccessfully tried to convince the believers that such an explanation had no solid ground.
Then, in order to eradicate as radically as possible this kind of magic beliefs, they have invited
1 Faure, G.O (1995) conflict formulation: going beyond culture bound views
one of the main apostles in the cult named Yali to pay a visit to what he thought of as the
paradise, the place where the Cargo was stored, the Australian city of Sydney. Thus, Yali spent
several weeks in the city, getting acquainted with the industrial, materialistic and rational
civilization.
However, the final result was opposite to what was expected. Yali, far from having his
system of beliefs collapsed while confronted with the objective truth, drew from the observation
he made during his stay, reasons to reinforce his initial beliefs. For instance the totems, animals
and plants that were so vigorously denounced as superstitions by the missionaries were seen by
him as carefully kept in homes in the form of bouquets on tables or other types of furniture.
Animals were accommodated in many houses, some of them being preciously kept in specially
designed places for such a purpose such as cages in zoos, so that they do not escape and deprive
the people from their beneficial influence. The nice words pronounced by the Whites had only
one goal, to hide the real importance of the totems and thus enabling them to keep all the cargo
for themselves.
Faure argued that “Such a case shows the difficulty of moving from one culture to
another that is from one system of beliefs with its hidden assumptions to another one. The
reframing is done here through the categories of the native and what may appear for some people
a little ridiculous or amusing is in fact, strictly what happens when one analyses events of a
society by means of using categories belonging to another society. To a certain extent, the way
western cultures scrutinize a number of social phenomena that takes place within other cultures
precisely refers to an approach similar to Yali’s”.
This case of shows how conflict starts from the innermost and then extends to the outermost by
influencing the perception of the Yali’s people, their perception has become a belief and the
quest to change that belief only made their apostle believe more.
Conflict starts internally by a perception, which is ones understanding based on an observation or
thought, then that person can spread that understanding and progressively it becomes a belief that
would be passed on from one generation to another.
Perception is the driving force behind every culture and belief system that further becomes a
norm and creates value for the society. A business dictionary defines perception as
2“The process by which people translate sensory impressions into a coherent and unified view of
the world around them. Though necessarily based on incomplete and unverified (or
unreliable) information, perception is equated with reality for most practical purposes and
guides human behavior in general”. With this definition, one can say that perception is often
equated with reality, which is true (like in the case of Yali) but to some other person (the
Australian missionary) the reality is different because his perception is different. What is
conflict? Why does it exist? Conflict is a disagreement through which the parties involved
perceive a threat to their needs, interests or concerns. As long as choices exist, then conflict must
play its role and resolving that conflict becomes a negotiation, which is the decision. An excerpt
from the bible shows a disagreement between two people that was resolved through mediation
(negotiation).
1st Kings, chapter 3:
16 Now two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him.
17One of them said, “My lord, this woman and I live in the same house. I had a baby while she
was there with me.
2 http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/perception.html retrieved 12-05-2012
18The third day after my child was born, this woman also had a baby. We were alone; there was
no one in the house but the two of us.
19“During the night this woman’s son died because she lay on him.
20 So she got up in the middle of the night and took my son from my side while I your servant
was asleep. She put him by her breast and put her dead son by my breast.
21The next morning, I got up to nurse my son—and he was dead! But when I looked at him
closely in the morning light, I saw that it wasn’t the son I had borne.”
22The other woman said, “No! The living one is my son; the dead one is yours.”
But the first one insisted, “No! The dead one is yours; the living one is mine.” And so they
argued before the king.
23The king said, “This one says, ‘My son is alive and your son is dead,’ while that one says,
‘No! Your son is dead and mine is alive.’”
24Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword for the king.
25He then gave an order: “Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.”
26The woman whose son was alive was filled with compassion for her son and said to the king,
“Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him!” But the other said, “Neither I nor you
shall have him. Cut him in two!”
27Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is
his mother.” 3New International Version (1984)
Within oneself daily there’s always a disagreement found when choices exist, the point when we
disagree on what choice to make a mediation process begins to negotiate the choices by
weighing the benefits of the choices and finally we agree by choosing the choice with the highest
3 New International Version (1984)
benefit. Conflict is as old as mankind; it still continues and would continue till the end of time if
there’s any.
Conflict And Negotiation
Pruitt and Rubin (1986), defined conflict as “the perceived divergence of interest, or a
belief that the parties’ current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously4. When interest
differs by, conflict is bound to set in and the projected goal cannot be achieved by the either
party with interests. Conflict is the result of opposing interests involving scarce resources, goal
divergence and frustration. This frustration can change the course of Conflict into Rebellion, or
in its more extreme form, insurrection, is a dangerous endeavour, which people are going to
engage in only if the expected payoff is worth taking the risk5.
Gregg Walker, Professor of Speech Communication at Oregon State University developed a
table providing a sampling of various scholarly definitions of conflict from 1950’s.
Coser 1956 Social conflict is a struggle
between opponents over values
and claims to scarce status,
power and resources.
struggle, opposition,
scarcity
Schelling 1960 Conflicts that are strategic are
essentially bargaining situations
in which the ability of one
participant to gain his ends is
dependent on the choices or
strategy, bargaining,
dependence
4 Pruitt, Dean G. and Jeffrey Z. Rubin (1986). Social conflict: escalation,
stalemate, and settlement. New York: Random House5 The Redistributive State and Conflicts in Africa by Jean-Paul Azam 2001
decisions that the other
participant will make.
Deutsch 1973 A conflict exists whenever
incompatible activities occur . . .
one party is interfering,
disrupting, obstructing, or in
some other way making another
party's actions less effective.
incompatibility,
interference effectiveness
Wall 1985 Conflict is a process in which
two or more parties attempt to
frustrate the other's goal
attainment . . . the factors
underlying conflict are
threefold: interdependence,
differences in goals, and
differences in perceptions.
goals, interdependence,
perceptions
Pruitt and
Rubin 1986
Conflict means perceived
divergence of interest, or a
belief that the parties' current
aspirations cannot be achieved
simultaneously.
interests, aspirations,
beliefs
Conrad 1990 Conflicts are communicative
interactions among people who
communication,
interdependence
are interdependent and who
perceive that their interests are
incompatible, inconsistent, or in
tension.
tension
Tjosvold and
van de Vliert
1994
Conflict--incompatible
activities-- occurs within
cooperative as well as
competitive contexts . . . conflict
parties' can hold cooperative or
competitive goals.
incompatibility,
cooperation
competition
Folger,
Poole, and
Stutman 1997
Conflict is the interaction of
interdependent people who
perceive incompatible goals and
interference from each other in
achieving those goals.
interaction,
interdependence
incompatibility
Source: http://www.campus-adr.org/cmher/ReportResources/Definitions.html
He conforms that the definitions “indicate the inevitability of conflict in human affairs. They
reveal key features of conflict situations. Many of the definitions, for example, stress that
conflicts involve interdependent parties who perceive some kind of incompatibility between
them”.
When we hear of conflict, we assume it’s violent. However, conflicts should not be perceived in
terms of violence (behavior) or hostility (attitudes), rather it should be perceived as
incompatibility or differences in issue position.
Burton (1990) argues that there are different kinds of disagreement. Management
problems are those in which people sharing interests and values seek to solve a problem jointly.
However, when people disagree about what decision should be made because of how they feel
that decision will satisfy their interests, they are in a dispute. The third, conflict, occurs when
people feel that the disagreement touches upon basic needs or fundamental values.
Howard (2003), posits that ‘the biggest misconception that people hold about conflict is
that it is intrinsically bad. But conflict in and of itself is an inevitable social and organizational
reality. Whether one subscribes to the Bible or to Freud, conflict is rooted in the human condition
and is not necessarily an indicator of dysfunction’6. He expanded further by giving reasons why
and how conflict becomes destructive. conflict becomes destructive when it; Leads to a win/lose
game where one side wins at the other's expense, Diverts energy from important activities or
issues, Destroys people's morale, Polarizes groups and reduces cooperation, Deepens differences,
Produces irresponsible/regrettable behavior (i.e., personal attacks) and Leads to stalemates rather
than decisions. He described an old advertisement featuring near-mythic body-builder Charles
Atlas; He built an impressive physique through a process called" dynamic tension," which puts
muscle against muscle. In the same way, the dynamic tension that results when executives go
head-to-head can be a source of great creativity, excitement, and even strength. This means that
as long as conflict abounds, there’s another side to it which can be harnessed and used for the
benefits of both parties. Negotiation comes into play at this point to harness the conflict and turn
it into strength for peaceful co-existence of the parties involved.
6 When Goliaths Clash: Managing Executive Conflict to Build a More Dynamic Organization Howard M Guttman 2003
Negotiation7 is a dialogue between two or more people or parties, intended to reach an
understanding, resolve point of difference, or gain advantage in outcome of dialogue, to produce
an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, to craft
outcomes to satisfy various interests of two people/parties involved in negotiation process.
Negotiation is a process where each party involved in negotiating tries to gain an advantage for
themselves by the end of the process. Kathleen and Christianne8 describe negotiation as the back
and forth communication process designed to anticipate, contain, and resolve disputes so that
parties with some shared and some opposing interests can reach mutually acceptable solutions.
For every problem there’s a solution. Thus, every conflict has a resolution and that process of
resolution is negotiation. However, as people’s perception differs, cultures differ, situation
differs and what is obtainable for person ‘A’ may be offensive to person ‘B’. The approach of
person ‘A’ to conflict (issue position) is different from person ‘B’ and this can affect a
negotiation process.
Understanding the Theory: Conflict Styles9
In the 1970s Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann identified five main styles of dealing with
conflict that vary in their degrees of cooperativeness and assertiveness. They argued that people
typically have a preferred conflict resolution style. However they also noted that different styles
were most useful in different situations. They developed the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode
Instrument (TKI) which helps you to identify which style you tend towards when conflict arises.
Thomas and Kilmann's styles are:
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiation retrieved 14-05-20128 Conflict Negotiation Guidelines . Kathleen Novak, Christianne hall9 http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_81.htm retrieved 17-05-2012
Competitive: People who tend towards a competitive style take a firm stand, and know what they
want. They usually operate from a position of power, drawn from things like position, rank,
expertise, or persuasive ability. This style can be useful when there is an emergency and a
decision needs to be make fast; when the decision is unpopular; or when defending against
someone who is trying to exploit the situation selfishly. However it can leave people feeling
bruised, unsatisfied and resentful when used in less urgent situations.
Collaborative: People tending towards a collaborative style try to meet the needs of all people
involved. These people can be highly assertive but unlike the competitor, they cooperate
effectively and acknowledge that everyone is important. This style is useful when you need to
bring together a variety of viewpoints to get the best solution; when there have been previous
conflicts in the group; or when the situation is too important for a simple trade-off.
Compromising: People who prefer a compromising style try to find a solution that will at least
partially satisfy everyone. Everyone is expected to give up something, and the compromiser him
or herself also expects to relinquish something. Compromise is useful when the cost of conflict is
higher than the cost of losing ground, when equal strength opponents are at a standstill and when
there is a deadline looming.
Accommodating: This style indicates a willingness to meet the needs of others at the expense of
the person's own needs. The accommodator often knows when to give in to others, but can be
persuaded to surrender a position even when it is not warranted. This person is not assertive but
is highly cooperative. Accommodation is appropriate when the issues matter more to the other
party, when peace is more valuable than winning, or when you want to be in a position to collect
on this "favor" you gave. However people may not return favors, and overall this approach is
unlikely to give the best outcomes.
Avoiding: People tending towards this style seek to evade the conflict entirely. This style is
typified by delegating controversial decisions, accepting default decisions, and not wanting to
hurt anyone's feelings. It can be appropriate when victory is impossible, when the controversy is
trivial, or when someone else is in a better position to solve the problem. However in many
situations this is a weak and ineffective approach to take.
A proper understanding of this approach can set the negotiation process rolling in order to
achieve optimum benefits for the parties involved. However, the culture plays an intrinsic role in
negotiation. Do you know who you are dealing with, what does he believe in, where’s he or her
coming from and where is headed to, what aim does he want to achieve, what are the reasons?
When these questions are clearly satisfied, then you would have an idea on what is expected in a
negotiation process and what possible concessions can be given in order to seal or break the deal.
Having an eye gazed at the objective the negotiation tends to achieve is essential to kick off the
negotiation process.
The Negotiation Method
Using the four step method framework on negotiation, one is set to negotiate a deal.
The four step Method to negotiate
Prepare Argue Propose Bargain
Identify Signal Package Close
OBJECTIVES
What are our
ARGUING
Speak firmly and briefly
PROPOSING
Are we arguing or
BARGAINING
Decide what we want in
priorities?
Can we really attain
our objectives?
Can we determine
their objectives?
INFORMATION
What are the main
issues?
What is the balance
of power?
What are the
straight facts?
What assumptions
are we making?
CONCESSIONS
Value concessions
from low to high
What is their trading
value?
What concessions
do we want from
them?
VARIABLES
Exchange information
Listen
Question
Summarize
Challenge
Look for clues
Build on their ideas
Talk too much
Interrupt
Score points
Attack and Blame
Debate
Defend
Threaten
Talk floppy
SIGNALING
Are there signs of movement?
Have we signaled our readiness to
move?
Have the signals been received?
Are they using qualified statements?
Have we asked them to elaborate?
Have we responded positively?
proposing?
Are we linking or
separating issues?
How much negotiating
room do we have?
Are we firm on
generalities, flexible on
specifics?
Are we using strong or
weak language?
Are our conditions
specific?
Are our proposals
tentative?
Are our opening
concessions small?
Are our opening
conditions large?
PACKAGING
Have we identified their
and reviewed our
objectives
conditions
exchange for concessions.
Put these demands at the
start of our presentation.
Signal what’s possible if
they accept the conditions.
Present the proposal,
restate the conditions.
Keep all unsettled items
linked.
Never give something for
nothing.
Lead with conditions.
Keep everything linked.
CLOSING
When will we stop
conceding?
What kind of close is
appropriate?
summary
conditional
concession
Do we need to
adjourn before the
What are our vital
interests?
Are we aware of
their interests?
Are there bridging
factors?
What must we give
to reach agreement?
What is our fallback
position?
STRATEGY
What is our basic
strategy?
Is it simple?
Is it flexible?
TEAMWORK
Team Leader
Main Speaker
Support Speaker
Questioner
Summarizer
Observer
Listen more, talk less
Respond and reciprocate
Reward signals not intransigence
concessions
inhibitions
Is there enough
movement to table a
package?
Can we address our
package to their
interests?
Does our current position
give us room?
What conditions will we
put in the package?
What concessions will
we make in it?
What exactly do we want
in return?
Are we giving away too
much, too soon?
Have we considered all
possible variables?
Can we create a new
variable?
Who gets how much of
final offer?
Have they said yes
or no?
Are there any
outstanding items?
What has been
agreed?
Do we need to
write draft clauses?
Have we specified
points of
explanation
clarification
interpretation
If the agreement is
verbal, confirm it
in writing.
what and when?
Make concessions work
for objectives.
Value concessions in
other party’s terms.
Negotiation strategies include;No strategy, Rational, Ethical, Emotional, Insight, Disturb
homeostasis, Conceal objectives, High Pressure, Low pressure, Avoid concessions
Use his arguments
Are you sure ?
1.Use logic & reason to get him to accept your proposal.
2.Convince him of your integrity. Show he can trust you.
3.Appeal to the emotions is a powerful way to persuade !
4.Provide scattered information rather than systematic arguments. Allow him to see the
relationships himself.
5.Use statements to lead him to question the soundness of his present situation.
6.Use indirect & projective questions to orient him to identify his needs, then show you can meet
them.
7.Make clear & positive statements. Repeat them.
8.Use questions to lead him to a course of action so he feels he has made the decision to accept
your proposal.
9.Head off requests for concessions before they’re verbalized.
10.Acknowledge limitations, faults & problems before he does
This method helps us to question ourselves before we go into a negotiation process. Also, it
provides the parties involved with a clear objective of negotiation. However, the time frame of
the negotiation process can be agreed upon by the parties involved in the negotiation, but
negotiation is a back and forth communication which aims at achieving the objective of the
parties involved.
Negotiation Case
This case is typical of what vendors face in a competitive, hi-tech environment, and illustrates
the opportunity they have to reduce their price. Handled appropriately, a win-win outcome is not
difficult to achieve. From Dr Bob March's book "Chinese Negotiator"10.
Overview
HyperHawk, one of the world’s major providers of global supply management software
and services, helps companies reduce costs through efficient product and services sourcing. It
has handled more than $50 billion worth of products and services in the oil and gas, other natural
resources, retail, transport, finance, and industrial sectors for customers including General
Motors, Nestlé, Shell, Japan Energy, Mitsubishi, and Cadbury Schweppes.
Shanghai-based JJM, one of the biggest gaming and hospitality companies in Asia, is owned by
Chinese businessman Tan Wu Bo. We take up the story when JJM has been a HyperHawk client
10 http://www.negotiations.com/case/gaming-shanghai/ retrieved 18-05-2012
for six months, and the companies have signed an agreement to conduct two projects. The first,
completed in March 2005 and tremendously successful, saved JJM some $1 million, and the
second one is set to start. Impressed with the results, JJM wishes to explore the possibility of
other joint endeavors with HyperHawk.
To this end, a meeting is arranged between JJM’s Senior Vice-President of Finance Iris Ma and
HyperHawk’s Regional Managing Director Drake Dubois, and attended by JJM’s Vice-President
for Procurement Henry Chow and HyperHawk Sales Group Director Layton Pang.
Ma is keen to explore more projects with HyperHawk and has tasked Chow to follow up with
HyperHawk as soon as possible. The managing director of HyperHawk suggests that a session be
arranged with key stakeholders from both companies to discuss and assess possible opportunities
for other JJM projects.
The Scene
Ma and Chow agreed to the suggestion and asked that a proposal be submitted to JJM after the
opportunity assessment meeting that was attended by Chow, his assistant Mary Xie, who is also
the purchasing manager, and two members from HyperHawk. Both parties identified ten possible
projects.
Xie asked for a proposal to be submitted to JJM through her, and HyperHawk provided a
competitive price package that included services over a twelve-month period. As is to be
expected from a Chinese company like JJM, Xie asked for a reduction in the licensing fee,
additional program management days (at no extra cost), and an extension of the software term
from twelve months to twenty-four months.
In reply, HyperHawk put in writing its discussions to date with JJM:
1.JJM had agreed that HyperHawk could add value to the projects identified.
2.JJM would sign for a ten-project package to get a competitive price.
3.If HyperHawk could meet JJM’s demands, the latter would sign the contract by May-end
2005.
Xie agreed to point one above, but was noncommittal on points two and three. After much
discussion, HyperHawk agreed to lower its fee and provide JJM additional program management
days at no additional cost. However, HyperHawk said it could not agree to extend the twelve
month term for use of the software without charging extra.
Then, to complicate matters further, Xie suggested that JJM could not commit to an agreement
even if all the issues were resolved. The most recent negotiations were conducted quite hastily,
since HyperHawk knew that Xie was not the decision maker and approval had to come from her
top management. Many Chinese companies put in place a structure whereby the foreign
negotiator deals with multiple tiers of negotiators before working through the final deal with the
senior key decision maker.
This case study shows a deadlock in the negotiation. Probably in the first negotiation, the both
parties did not clarify their objectives and upon conclusion in the first negotiation, one party had
put in writing all agreements reached.
Using the four step method of negotiation:
A negotiation between two companies:
Company ‘A’ is a National oil corporation and a major oil and gas industry player in the
world. It has telecom asset worth millions of dollars in Nigeria. the assets include; fiber optic
cables (FOC), communication satellite, Transmission backbone capacity (FOC+STM-16 MUX)
(2.5Gb/s) 960 km of FOC on the company’s ‘A’ Right Of Way, VSAT Network, Network
Management System, 14 Telecoms Equipment Shelters for: Co-location of systems, Switching
System, Power systems: (Solar, Generator, Battery backup, PPMC Power source), Radio
Towers, Full compliments of Tools for FOC Maintenance, Mechanical workshop, Warehouses,
Office & Secured Space for erection of Telecoms systems and Training Centers. These assets
were installed to provide Telecoms services for the Oil and Gas industry, provide Unified
Communication Services for company and other oil and gas industry players, provide
Connectivity for Data, Video & Voice communications Contents to all customers (oil and gas
companies). However, company ‘A’ realizes that only 20 percent of their asset is utilized and
would like to outsource the assets to a telecom industry company.
Company ‘B’ is a leading telecom industry player, they provide and manage telecom
infrastructure for 10 major telecommunication companies. They’ve been in operation for over 20
years and counting.
Company ‘A’ approaches company ‘B’ with their problem of under utility of their assets and that
they would like outsource their assets giving the following condition;
The assets continue to service their business needs.
Generate revenue by providing services to the public.
Company ‘B’ seeing potential in this opportunity requested for a meeting. During the meeting,
company ‘B’ realizes that although the offer looked great, there are lots of expectations from
company ‘A’. Company B realizes that some of company ‘A’s assets would require a
turnaround maintenance to put it in use again since they were underutilized, and company ‘A’
requires all generated revenue when the assets are commercialized. However, company ‘B’
would be paid for managing the assets and generating revenues with whatever target given to
them by company ‘A’.
Company ‘B’s condition;
No targets for revenue generation
To company ‘B’, this seemed difficult but decides to negotiate with company ‘A’ on the terms.
However, company ‘B’ would like to manage the assets as for them it would of their interest to
be more profitable giving that the position and interest of both companies differs, negotiation can
help them both achieve their desired objective.
Before Negotiation Day 1: using the first of the four step method of preparation, both parties
prepare independently, identifying what objectives they tend to achieve, what information they
have concerning the other company, what concessions can be given, what are their variables,
what negotiation strategy are they using and set the negotiation team. The negotiation strategy of
a negotiating team depends solely on the team knowing who they are dealing with. It’s intrinsic
to know who and where you are about to negotiate with in order not to apply a wrong strategy in
which the resultant effect can lead to conflict or stale the negotiation process.
Preparing with this first step in the four step method, teams from both company ‘A’ and ‘B’ are
ready to begin their negotiation process. The negotiation teams on both company A and B carry
on a briefing before the meeting commences and after each negotiation carry on another
debriefing to review what they achieved at the end of each meeting. However, the first
negotiation meeting is more like an introductory meeting with the parties stating clearly what
their objectives are in respect to the negotiation.
Conclusion
Conflict arises in all spheres of life and negotiation is a fact that brings people together in
order to either resolve a conflict or create opportunities for the parties involved, either in
business or out of business. Having understood the different conflict style people tend fall into,
and the four step method for negotiating, this give one room to knowing the exact strategy to
apply during a negotiation process. In business, in order to ensure the success of the
organization’s business strategy there should be clear objective before negotiating the business.
Personal Action Plan
Current Skills Team work Packaging Collaboration Interpersonal
Skills To Work On Listening Questioning Bargaining
My Goals Improve listening
Empower team
Improve
questioning skills
Engage in more
bargaining
processes.
My Resources Time Analytical thinking
Action Plan Be more attentive in
a discussion process
without interfering.
Make it a habit – 3
weeks progressively
listening to people
without interfering.
Track my progress
daily by reviewing
daily events.
Empower with
skills and share
information.
Draw up an
analytical
questioning
approach.
Assumptions
Thesis + anti-thesis
= synthesis
Always question the
reasons behind
everything; whether
right or wrong.
Make it a habit- 21
days. This would be
applied in my daily
discussion.
Keep an open mind
in the process and
be objective and
logical.