Hey there folks. It’s been a long long time since I updated anything on this blog. I thought there was no real reason to not update this more frequently, but now that I think about it: There’s been a side project, from which I cannot disclose anything, I’ve also spent more time with physical conditioning and with learning music, and most probably because I’ve spent most of 2021 dedicated to do online courses. This post is my attempt to break the cycle, however, the problem is that I have dedicated less time to studying new papers or anything interesting related to engineering, hence I have no topic on Antennas or RF to put up. Still, I realized that the purpose to start this blog was to get me to write more, because it is something that I like to do, and since it is my personal space, I can use to write about anything I deem interesting and it doesn’t necessarily need to be about antennas anyway.

So I decided to write a new blog post and talk about some of the online courses I did last year, and what I learned from them. This is also a great practice to refresh the material and make sure I keep this knowledge for the future.

One of the online courses, from Coursera, that I successfully concluded last year was Successful Negotiation: Essential Strategies and Skills. This course is rather light, but really well made. The instructor, Prof. George Siedel, has a very clear and well paced discourse, with several examples, there’s also a simple practicing exercise and some videos on types of arbitration, which are used frequently on business negotiations. I ended up buying his book Negotiating for Success, which I got for a little more than 10€. Now, I’m no business man and I certainly don’t pretend to shift my career to sales or anything like that, but truth is we all need to negotiate at some point in our life, this already helped me last year when I bought my new house and had to deal with banks, calling several banks, discussing proposals and negotiating terms for the Home loan, therefore making sure I was getting the best possible deal from each bank.

The course breakdown into three major sections:

• Preparing the negotiation
• Using key strategies and tactics
• Closing the negotiation and establishing contract

In the first stage, while ‘Preparing the negotiation’ one of the first assessments is to actually decide if its wise/worth it to negotiate or not. In many situations we don’t negotiate at all, such as a trip to the supermarket, even though, apparently (at least in the USA) it’s possible to haggle in these establishments as well. We usually think about negotiations when we think about buying a used item from some listing on the internet, like a used car, bicycle or a kitchen robot. But even on new items, like buying a new TV for instance, where it’s more plausible to negotiate than a supermarket, particularly if you go to a specialized store and not a big retail, we often just pay the price tag because we think there’s no negotiation margin in these stores, while that’s most of the times false, be it USA or Europe. But here enters the other side of the question: Is it worth it? It’s a matter of time! Let’s suppose you’re on the hunt for a new vacuum robot (I am), you must spend time, preparing the negotiation such as getting well informed about the specs of these robots, you also need some time to evaluate the prices on several stores (even though there are websites these days that make it easier for you), take note of those, and then actually go to the store and bargain, maybe even move to another store. So this all takes time. Let’s say you spend 2 hours browsing info on those robots, then 1 hour collecting prices and making notes, then you go to two stores, spend 1 hour in each for negotiations to get a 50€ discount on that vacuum robot. This means you spent 5 hours to obtain 50€ discount, 10€/h is not a bad rating, but was it absolutely worth it? Or would you much rather simply pay the highest price and use those 5 hours doing something else? Well that’s the kind of exercise one should do in this stage.

The second step on ‘Preparing the negotiation’ is to determine the type of negotiation. There are two types of negotiation: Position-based negotiation and interest based negotiation, with two possible goals, either to do a deal or resolve a dispute. In a position-based negotiation, both parties set out with the goal to achieve an equality result out, while in interest-based negotiation, both parties explore how to get a more equitable result. These two types are also commonly referred to as “distributive” and “integrative” negotiations, in a sense that the former is the search for dividing a fixed sized cake towards all intervenient, while the later is a search to increase the cake by looking at each party’s interests in particular. In the course and book a pizza example is used, but I’ll use a cake to illustrate. Suppose there’s a cake, and there’s Chell and GLaDOS to share it. In a position-based negotiation, both of them want the cake, so a proposal would be that Chell gets to cut the cake in two parts, and GLaDOS gets to chose which piece it wants. But, imagine that actually GLaDOS just wants the cherries and the candle, because they’re pretty and she’s not into eating anyway, while Chell would like the cake’s bread, she’s most probably starving anyway. If the interests are known, then each party can have a better piece of the cake, since Chell gets more cake to eat and GLaDOS can get all the cherries and candles in the cake.

Third step on ‘Preparing the negotiation’ is to do a negotiation analysis. This is the step where one defines their BATNA (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement), this is the benchmark for entering a negotiation. Let’s say I want to sell my car and I put up an add online. I’ve looked at prices and established the reasonable price for my car is 6000€, but I’ll still need to keep my car for a couple more months while I wait for my new car to arrive, in the meantime my cousin which just got his driving license, can buy my car for 5000€ and can perfectly wait a couple more months. I have my BATNA already, which is 5500€, because for less than that I much rather sell to my cousin. Nevertheless, one should always define a stretch goal, which is the price for which one would actually like to sell. This should be ambitious, but not over-stretched with risk to loose credibility on the business.

This is a simplistic scenario but the BATNA is actually useful in dispute resolutions. Here enters the concept of decision tree. Let’s say you belong to company X and are currently under a litigation process with company Y, you’re looking at possibly 4M€ in compensation if the court decides in your favor, and your attorney states there’s a 50% chance you can get the case in your favor. If you don’t win, you’ll be looking at 300k€ in legal fees and expenses. In this scenario, company Y offers a settlement of 2M€ to avoid taking the case to court, should you take it? A simple decision tree can help decide what’s your BATNA. This case is layed out in the following figure.

In this case, if you go to court, the expected value you may get is the weighted average of the two possible outcomes. If you win you get 4M minus the expenses (3.7M), if you loose you just get the 300k expenses, since there’s 50% chance for winning, you arrive at an expected value of 1.7M€. Now, risk taking and emotional factors will impact your decision, but looking at this decision tree in a simple way, the settlement looks pretty good.

Last step in ‘Preparing the negotiation’ is related to ethical questions. That’s a whole world and in this course some main questions are raised, but it’s mostly common sense and regular morality. Ethics, however, can be a very complex subject.

Ok, now moving on to the point ‘Using key strategies and tactics’. The first one being developing relationships and power. That is, to get to know the other side on a more personal side, learn its aspirations and interests. Developing a more personal connection with the other party can render better results to the outcome of the negotiation (Who’d tell?). More precisely, the most effective way to build this relations and get better deals with a potential business partner is around a dining table, according to Lakshmi Balachandra.

One key takeaway from the course and the book itself which is reinforced deeply with the last exercise, is that when trying to built this relationship of power with the other side, the most important aspect is to ask questions, ask a lot of questions. Only by getting to know more information about the needs and aspirations of the other side one can build power based on the BATNAs. The first step being, understanding their BATNA. Then trying to find answer to the questions: How strong is the other side BATNA? Can I undermine it? Can I strengthen mine? Is there a possibility to make a winning proposition for both? Only by deeply understanding the other sides needs and goals, one can understand where is it possible to win, lose, or exchange, to get the deal.

On the ‘Using key strategies and tactics’, one section is dedicated to Key psychological tools and traps. As most of the material, this is only briefly covered in the course, but there’s references and pointers for a lot of books and materials on these topics if one ever finds the urge to dig deeper into them. In this section, nine tools are referenced:

• Don’t assume a fixed pie: There’s this notion that in a negotiation, for one side to win, the other side must lose. This is a reflection of our competitive world where there’s the winners and the losers. But truth is, in negotiations, most times this is not the case. It’s possible to simply enlarge the pie, that is, to meet the goals of all parties and reach what’s commonly referred as a win-win situation. To do this, we need to avoid falling for a Reactive devaluation posture, where all proposals from the other side are degraded, without proper consideration, simply because they come from the other side.
• Consider anchoring when developing a first offer strategy: Anchoring is a tendency we humans have with relation to values. There’s this experiment explained in the course, to take the last three digits of our phone number and adding 400, then guess if Attila the Hun died after or before that year and guess the exact year. This experiment was developed by Russo and Schoemaker (funny name), and the conclusions were curious, the guesses were higher, the higher the higher the initial number of 400 + phone digits where. Hence, the anchoring effect, when we have no idea about a numerical fact, we tend to anchor on numbers that are given to us. Why is this relevant? Well, most businessmen and strategists will tell that you should never make the first offer, but the truth is not so simple. Actually it is quite complex and there’s already several studies related to the topic. In the course they give a simple rule that can be followed: When the value of the item in negotiation is unknown to you, ask the other side to make the first proposal, so you can gather information about the item’s value (but try to avoid as much as possible to anchor yourself around that value). However, if the value of the item is well known to you, then move with the first offer yourself, hence trying to anchor the other side to your values.
• Avoid overconfidence: Well this one does not require much explanation. But, again, it’s a complex topic, overconfidence is bad, but can be good… and there’s literally tons (if you print and weight all the papers on the subject) of research on the topic. The course gives a good separation: Overconfidence is good for decision implementation, but for decision making, realism is the winning trait.
• Frame choices to your advantage: The way questions are framed and presented to people can trick them. If you’re slightly autistic and have a mind for numbers over letters, you’ll probably not have this problem. I noticed that about myself, during an exercise on the topic, I exclaimed to myself “Oh, but they’re proposing exactly the same thing, they’re just framing the solution in a different manner…”, and that was the exact trap, when I thought “what the heck, who’d not see that? They’re just swapping good for bad, but the numbers are exactly the same!”. I’m so naive, of course most people don’t look at the numbers, people are scared of numbers, people tend to shy away from a fraction or a % symbol, and try to find the answer somewhere in the words (fools). I always look for the numbers and don’t meddle in the words, so I don’t get lost in cases like this (but that comes at a cost on other situations). So, most people will tend to interpret the words without thinking deeply about the numbers, and this can be used as a tool - you should frame your sentences in a way that makes it seem like your proposal is better then it actually is and the other sides proposition has more flaws than it actually does.
• Look beyond easily-available information: People tend to think that information that is most often propagated is the most relevant. This is a huge trap, especially in the current days with the rampaging use of social-media apps full of ads and information shorts without proper context, most times coming from no authority, without any kind of revision, or ethics to follow. Don’t take that for granted, next time someone asks you if more people die of intestine cancer or car accidents per year, remember that approximately 670 people die due to car accidents in Portugal per year, while more then 3000 die of intestine cancer.
• Beware of dollar auction traps: This rule comes in three separate parts. Part one is to avoid escalation of commitment, that is, know when to drop out, don’t be afraid to do so. Part two is to avoid competitive arousal, that is, don’t bet! Don’t stick around to prove a point if there’s nothing to win. Part three is to see the other’s side perspective, easy to understand, very hard to accomplish.
• Encourage reciprocity: This one is a hard pill to swallow, even though I’ve seen examples of this to be true, sometimes. Principle is simple, be generous, give something to another, and others will want to repay you.
• Use the contrast principle: When I bought my first house, in a booming housing market, prices raising everyday and houses flying in and out of offer, I visited five houses in a single saturday and I called the real estate agent on the sunday confirming my intention to buy one of those, or I’d loose it the next day. I have zero regrets of that decision, mind you, but truth is, in another framework and in isolation, maybe I’d never have bought that house. It was the fifth house I visited that day. It was old, the kitchen was a wreck, one of the bathrooms was a mess, the floors of two rooms were in bad shape and the baseboard in the living room was lifting all around. You could be wondering, “Why did you buy it then?”, well, the four houses I visited before, where from slightly to astoundingly worst! Hence, by contrast, that house was the best house I’ve seen that day. Of course, there was a budget limit, and a time pressure, but still, in the end, that house didn’t look so bad compared to the previous examples. Contrast principle in a nutshell.
• Take a big-picture perspective: Easy to understand, hard to accomplish. Putting it simply - don’t get lost in the details and loose sight of the important goals.

The last chapter is ‘Close you negotiation with a binding contract’ and as the name suggests it is about finalizing the negotiation having in consideration the legal framework and creating a contract that not only encompasses the terms required by the parties but that also abides by the law, be it in the country of the parties, or international law in case the negotiation is between international parties. In this section it is mentioned the two major types of legal systems in the world, the civil law and the common law. The civil law is the type of legal system found in the countries of the European Union for instance, while common law can be found in England, the USA and India for instance (and most ex-British colonies).

One curious thing about contracts is that this should be in writing, but it does not need to be a special document for the effect. Even an agreement written on a napkin can be enforced as a legal contract, considering it contains all the required elements for it to be considered a binding contract. That is, the both parties are clearly identified, the date of the deal is registered, and all the elements of the negotiation are listed as well as all signatures are in place… And maybe get a few witnesses to testify that all people involved celebrated it willingly.

Well, there’s a wealth of material on this topic, both on the course as well as out of it. But this is my attempt at summarizing the contents of the course, which by the length of this text already, I clearly missed the summary part.

That’s it for this post, I hope not to take so long until the next one.

Stay tuned!