I just had another debrief for my first negotiation - in fact, based on the second negotiation I learned some more stuff. Here is the feedback from the first negotiation, then my condensed analysis of it (without revealing the exact terms of the deal, nor any information pertaining to the deal since some of you might be doing a very similar exercise very soon).

This is the feedback from the second counterpart in this negotiation. Unfiltered

Worked well
- very good at playing war game with information. As soon as I spotted an attack from the other team, I was very economical with the truth and I undermined certain positions by sending small signals to indicate that I knew how bad their situation was - and that this offer was just plain stupid. Witholding information and throwing it on the table only when needed to keep them disciplined and to indicate that I was willing to negotiate but not if they started to play dirty tricks on me was my objective. I would NOT have played this game had they been more open.
- apparently I looked and behaved very professionally
- very good listener: articulate back concerns I was hearing, trying to understand what the issues were and formulate everything back at them. Also did not allow to move on from a position that we did not agree upon before we all understood which bits we could not agree on and why
- passionate: "I was moved" - it really made me want to try to get to an agreement. I really liked your perceived sincerity in your desire to see if we could make things happen and I wanted to work toward a deal, rather than give you hell"

Things I should do differently
- since the other party had not time to prepare as a team, they had different objectives, different tactics and strategies. One attacked me from the start and proposed a very low salary after 2 min. We had not even agreed in principle that our "clients" would work together. The other person on the contrary was always ready to reach a deal. I could have taken more of a leadership role in the negotiation since it was easier from my perspective.
- Use more of this passion and listening to make concrete proposals. My counterpart is pretty certain that they would have nearly been accepted since my body language, emotions (! - first feedback was that I did not use emotions well enough) - were strongly showing commitment
- be less defensive. It was obvious that there was an attack but the second party was willing to talk. I should have exploited this more and maintained my original strategy. According to my counterpart, there was no point in being tough. Since I signaled that I understood their game and was not willing to play, it might haeve been enough.
Also I showed that I was really taken aback by such a blunt attack on part of the one of their team members and could not quite understand what was going on since they were giving me very conflicting signals. The "attackers" played with my facial expression and signs of disarray.

Goals I could set for myself
- Prepare better all the options, translate them into "how does this fulfill the interest of the other party". Spend more time in preparation to come up with many different options, rather than many different arguments for each option.
- Recognize who's the deal maker on the other side and focus most of my airtime on getting an agreement with this person: manage better conflicts when they arise as to not give away my leadership position of the collaborative process. Really try to work toward a win-win situation. Easier said than done.
- Be a lot more open about sharing my interests - and about building on the information that I hear from the other side. In other words, instead of just repeating it back to the other party to ensure that we have a two-way communication, force myself to incorporate them into a new option.
- Use body language and emotions to support the substance of the negotiaion.

In this first negotiation, I faced a hardliner (who wanted to -I quote- "screw" me) and someone who had a clear objective which was very close to mine. Bottom line: we spent loads of time arguing over the opposite of one of their interests because they wanted to us this to lower a position and we had no energy left to explore option. We gave ourselves no flexibility and we got a deal that made all of us uneasy - since no trust could exist after the first 5 min when the other team started to lie.

In today's negotiation, for some reason, one of their team members attacked us. His Next Best Alternative was putting his client in a much worse position than what the outcome would look like for ours relatively speaking. Globally and absolutely speaking, both would have been much worse off than trying to find some common ground. So why was he so aggressive when we started putting so many potential happy deals on the table? Interestingly, the person who really negotiated, who examined all the deals, who was quick at explaining what was good about it and what was not, was the person who seemed to be no tough negotiator, in fact no negotiator at all. Yet she led the discussion, she accepted the highest possible option (for us - and it probably was for her too). She built on everything we said and we both got close to what we wanted. If there had no been a defensive attitude at any time, I am confident that we could have closed the same deal in half the time.

Appearances can deceive. Be collaborative (unless you are getting killed, then be FIRM, not necessarily tough). The relationship should be better, your chances to get a deal that's good enough for the two parties to have zero incentives in cheating are high - the discussion should be much more efficient and quick - and overall it should be a lot more fun.

And preparation is key. We spent close to three hours preparing for a 1 hr negotiation. We did not get bogged down on number discussion (although we were pushed into it), we had a large panel of options to propose. As a team it was easier, we could put ourselves in the shoes of the other party and run some simulations. And we had roles: lead, bad cop, number guru and substance back up if need be. In hindsight, I would transform the role of bad cop, on a role of someone who fences off attacks by indicating that they can be firm, that it would be in no one's interest but that this is something that will happen if there is no willingness to discuss in a constructive manner. (ok the prof helped me formulate this conclusion...)

Apart from these unwanted and seemingly unjustified missiles that were fired across the table, it was such a pleasant experience.

The professor makes us fill in a piece of paper with our key learnings. Trouble is I would now like to scrap the first piece of paper because this second negotiation gave me insights about the first one. I bet that he uses our continuous feedback as a way to adapt his teaching to our class. How is our prof accounting for this late learning? Should I e-mail him about that? Talk to him tomorrow about that as I have a debrief session about goals? Better face to face...It is getting late now, time to go home...