FreedomWorks Cheers Trump Administration’s Support for Exempting Alaska From 2001 Roadless Rule

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In response to the Trump administration’s support for exempting Alaska from the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which established prohibitions on road construction and reconstruction, as well as timber harvesting on vast swathes of land, Dan Savickas, FreedomWorks Regulatory Policy Manager, commented:

“For too long, bureaucrats in Washington have been violating the basic principles of federalism by dictating to states how they should manage their own affairs. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been one of the worst offenders, overregulating the use of vast amounts of private and federal lands across the country.

“For years, the State of Alaska has been petitioning the USDA for an exemption from a 2001 rule that prohibits any road construction or timber harvesting on more than 58 million acres of National Forests. The Trump administration’s decision to potentially grant Alaska’s petition marks yet another important deregulatory victory. It would build on the success of the 2017 decision by the Department of Interior to give swathes of federal land up for state and local use. States are the best stewards of their own land and the federal government should let them, and private citizens, use the land to best meet their needs.”
CLICK HERE TO GET HELP

Image result for ORDER NOW IMAGES

Regulatory Action Center Review – October 18, 2019

Welcome to FreedomWorks Foundation’s twentieth regulatory review of 2019! Our Regulatory Action Center proudly updates you with our favorite tidbits from the swamp. We want to smash barriers between bureaucracy and the American people by delivering regulatory news straight to FreedomWorks activists. Check back in two weeks for the next edition.

1) Video of the Week: Earlier this week, President Trump signed two new Executive Orders that rolled back the opaque practice of regulating through internal agency guidance. But what is an Executive Order, and why did the President use this authority rather than asking Congress to pass legislation? This weeks video from TED-Ed breaks down this sometimes confusing practice and explains why Presidents have often chosen to use Executive Orders to govern executive agencies that are directly under the control of the President.

2) NASA paid SpaceX for safety review after Musk smoked pot: “SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s infamous pot-smoking incident last year prompted NASA to order a mandatory review of the federal contractor’s workplace culture — but taxpayers, not the company, are bearing the cost, according to contracting records reviewed by POLITICO. The space agency agreed to pay SpaceX $5 million in May to cover the cost of the review, which includes educating its employees and ensuring they are following strict guidelines for federal contractors barring illegal drug use.”

3) Senate Dems lose forced vote against EPA power plant rule: “Senate Democrats forced a floor vote Thursday to block the implementation of a Trump administration environmental rule that aims to weaken regulations on power plant emissions. The vote, which failed 41 to 53, was largely seen as a protest of the Trump administration’s rollbacks on several environmental protections and climate change mitigation efforts, and offers a roadmap of actions Democrats might take if they win back the Senate in 2020.”

4) Trump’s New Executive Orders Deserve Praise: “The discussion of President Donald Trump’s record on regulation is distressingly tribal. Emphasizing the importance of environmental protection, worker safety and civil rights, his harshest critics see deregulation as a dirty word. Complaining of regulation run riot in the past, his most enthusiastic supporters celebrate the smallest changes as heroic efforts to restore freedom to a nation that lies prostrate and humiliated before all-powerful bureaucrats. But on some occasions, the administration does something that all tribes should be willing to endorse. That was the case last week when Trump issued two executive orders designed to improve the operation of the regulatory state.”

5) Energy Secretary Rick Perry tells Trump he plans to resign, sources say: “Energy Secretary Rick Perry notified President Trump on Thursday that he intends to leave his job soon, two administration sources familiar with the matter said. Perry was traveling with the president to Texas when he shared the news aboard Air Force One. Speaking to reporters later Thursday, Trump called Perry “outstanding” and announced, “We already have his replacement.” But, Trump said Perry would stay on until the end of the year.”

6) Succession at DHS up in the air as Trump set to nominate new head: “President Trump is expected to announce a new Homeland Security secretary this week, amid chaotic turnover in the department’s top ranks. Trump wrote Friday that acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan would resign, adding that he “will be announcing the new Acting Secretary next week.”

7) Forest Service recommends lifting Roadless Rule for the Tongass: “The U.S. Forest Service announced today that it’s seeking a full exemption from the Roadless Rule of the Tongass National Forest. The rule, which has applied to Alaska for more than a decade, makes it difficult to build new roads through national lands. But the U.S. Forest Service is proposing changes that could make Alaska the only state that doesn’t have to follow it. Of six alternatives listed in the plan, a full exemption is the Forest Service’s recommended choice.”
CLICK HERE TO GET HELP

Image result for ORDER NOW IMAGES

The Right Way to Regulate Emotion in Negotiation

Emotional flooding – when strong, specific, and often negative feelings overwhelm us – poses obvious hazards to negotiators, who need to be able to think clearly when faced with the complex, strategically demanding task of creating and claiming value.
For this reason, emotional regulation can be an essential component of negotiation.
But different types of regulation create different results.

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

In a 2000 study, James Gross, Jane Richards, and Oliver John explored the social and cognitive costs of two forms of emotional regulation: suppression, or controlling one’s emotions by not expressing them; and reappraisal, or controlling emotions by changing the way one thinks about the situation.
When your counterpart makes a personal attack against you, you might suppress your emotions in an attempt to resist “rising to the bait.”
But if you expect your opponent to try to put you off balance at key moments, you can use the attack to help you identify important issues.
Comparing the effect of these two regulation strategies, the researchers found that negotiators who suppressed their emotion experienced impaired cognitive processing.
What’s more, they were less well likely by their counterparts, a fact that may have diminished their ability to engage in future joint value creation.
It’s unwise to suppress emotions in negotiations, and not just because suppression is likely to lead to worse outcomes and greater rancor.
Trying to suppress a feeling that comes on strong – such as the outrage you may feel after being issued a threat – can be almost impossible.
Emotions provide both you and your counterpart with unique information that may lead to mutually beneficial outcomes.
Instead of trying to suppress your feelings, consider when you may be subject to strong emotional experiences in advance and reappraise the situation before experiencing the emotion.
Through reappraisal, you can focus on the meaning of a situation and anticipate your emotional reaction.
What if you decided ahead of time to view a threat as providing important information about what the other side values?
Rather than reacting emotionally, you could use the information to adjust aspects of future proposals.

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Adapted from “Emotional Strategy” in the February 2005 issue of Negotiation by Margaret A. Neale.
The post The Right Way to Regulate Emotion in Negotiation appeared first on PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER NOW!

Key Vote NO on the Affordable Clean Energy Rule CRA Resolution of Disapproval

On behalf of FreedomWorks’ activist community, I urge you to contact your senators and ask them to vote NO on the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule CRA Resolution of Disapproval. This resolution would provide for congressional disapproval to undo the ACE Rule — the Trump Administration’s replacement of the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) — and reinstate the disastrous and ineffectual Obama-era rule.

First unveiled by the Obama administration in 2014, the Clean Power Plan was a textbook example of regulatory overreach by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Obama-era rules sought to reduce carbon emissions by 32 percent before 2030 by mandating states produce a plan of action subject to EPA approval. As if this weren’t enough top-down regulatory overreach, the Clean Power Plan also granted the EPA sole authority to govern emissions reduction, including the power to unilaterally impose a federal plan upon any state whose plan did not meet the Administration’s arbitrary standards.

Beyond simply the ideological arguments against the CPP, reverting back to the Clean Power Plan would be economically devastating. Analysis by the Heritage Foundation underlines just how disastrous the Obama-era rule would be if it were to go into effect. Along with an extra $400 billion in additional energy expenses every year, the CPP would directly result in the loss of around 500,000 manufacturing jobs. Most significantly, the plan would cause per capita income to drop by an estimated $7,000. That drop is a staggering 14.5 percent of the average American’s income. Clearly, if we care about economic prosperity, the CPP is not the right direction.

The Obama-era Clean Power Plan, for which this resolution is effectively advocating, was an unmitigated disaster that should not be returned to. Not only did Congress initially express its vehement disapproval for the plan through a resolution of disapproval that passed both houses only to be vetoed by President Obama, but the courts also demonstrated their objections. Ten days after the final rule was announced, 27 states had already signed onto a petition to halt the implementation of the rule. The various cases surrounding the Clean Power Plan eventually resulted in a historic Supreme Court decision that stayed the regulation while the lower D.C. Circuit Court heard constitutional arguments.

Though these cases never truly reached a definitive decision — in no small part due to the Trump administration’s repeal of the plan in late 2017 — they demonstrate the degree to which the Obama plan was fraught with confusion, questions of constitutionality, and extreme regulatory overreach. Voting to overrule the repeal and replacement of the Clean Power Plan would only serve to reinvigorate litigation that is likely to result in the overturning of the rule anyway.

Finally, many members of Congress might be tempted to stray from principle and support this resolution in the belief that President Trump’s plan would result in greater environmental degradation. These fears are unfounded. The Affordable Clean Energy Rule — the Trump administration’s replacement for the Clean Power Plan — is market-based and tackles many of the same issues that the Obama administration was also concerned with.

Yet, unlike the Clean Power Plan, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule is based around incentives rather than mandates — carrots, rather than sticks. It is also important to note that, according to the EPA, “CO2 emissions from the electric sector [are expected to] fall by as much as 35% below 2005 levels in 2030,” under the new Affordable Clean Energy Rule. These projections are similar, maybe even better, to those under the Clean Power Plan but without as much government interventionism and regulatory overreach.

Acceptance of the Clean Power Plan amounts to acceptance of governmental paternalism and rejection of our founding principles of federalism. Though imperfect, the Trump administration’s willingness to reject the Clean Power Plan in favor of market-based solutions presents a major opportunity for positive policymaking. At the very least, it put an end to the Clean Power Plan, and that should not be reversed.

For these reasons, I urge you to contact your representative and ask him or her to vote NO on the Affordable Clean Energy Rule CRA Resolution of Disapproval. FreedomWorks will count the vote for the resolution on our 2018 Congressional Scorecard. The scorecard is used to determine eligibility for the FreedomFighter Award, which recognizes Members of the House and Senate who consistently vote to support economic freedom and individual liberty.

Sincerely,

Adam Brandon, President, FreedomWorks
Files:  KVN_10_16_2019_ACE_Rule_CRA (1).pdf
CLICK HERE TO GET HELP

Image result for ORDER NOW IMAGES

PON Film Night: Gaza

The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School and
the Religion, Conflict and Peace Initiative of Harvard Divinity School are pleased to present:
Gaza

A documentary film screening and discussion with:

Garry Keane, Co-Director
Andrew McConnell, Co-Director
Yousef Alzaeem,
Master of Public Administration candidate, Harvard Kennedy School
Entrepreneur and Social Advocate in Gaza Strip
and
Soledad Rueda
Former Deputy Head, Sub-delegation in Gaza, International Red Cross
Moderated by:
Professor Alain Lempereur
Alan B. Slifka Professor, Director of the Conflict Resolution and Coexistence Program
Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University
 
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
6:30 PM
 Langdell Hall South, Harvard Law School
1545 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge
Free and open to the public; refreshments will be provided.
Add to calendarGoogleiCalOutlook
 
About the Film:
The documentary film GAZA takes audiences to a unique place beyond the reach of television news reports, to reveal a world rich with eloquent and resilient characters. TV director/producer Garry Keane and photographer Andrew McConnell wanted to address the disparity between perception and reality of a land that is so much more than its portrayal in the media.
Their Gaza is a place where smiles, joy and even brief moments of hope are woven with threads of despair, frustration and fatigue, where life moves in cycles, with the weight of the past bearing down on any hope for the future.
See the trailer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSoG8CpTi_s&feature=youtu.be
About the Speakers:
Garry Keane studied film at the London College of Communication and at the Irish National Film School. After graduating in 1992, he worked as a Director of Photography in New York and London, before finally settling in Ireland, where he has been a documentary filmmaker for the last 25 years. In that time Mr. Keane has directed over 100 hours of TV documentaries for European and American broadcasters in over 20 countries worldwide. In 2011 he set up Real Films and since then his documentaries have been nominated for 11 Irish Film & Television Academy Awards; of these, his films have won four, including two in the “Best Director TV” category in 2013 and 2018.
Andrew McConnell is an award-winning photographer who has been covering world events for over 15 years. His work often focuses on themes of conflict and displacement and has appeared many of the world’s top publications. Mr. McConnell has worked in-depth on issues such as the Syrian refugee crisis, conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the forgotten Sahrawi people of Western Sahara, for which he was awarded 1st place at the World Press Photo awards. Based in Beirut, Mr. McConnell has worked throughout the Middle East for the past 8 years. GAZA is his first work as a film maker and follows on from his photographic projects in the besieged territory that began in 2010. Among numerous honors, he has won two 1st place prizes at the World Press Photo Awards, 4 National Press Photographers Association awards, including the prestigious Best of Show, 1st place in the Pictures of the Year International, and 2 Sony World Photography Awards.
Yousef Alzaeem is a current Mid-Career/Master of Public Administration student at Harvard Kennedy School. He recently also earned an Executive-MBA degree from Kellogg School of Management-Northwestern University. Mr. Alzaeem was born and raised in Gaza-Palestine, where he founded Everest Trading Group to manage diverse growing businesses under one investment portfolio. Despite the devastating political and economic deterioration in the Gaza Strip in the last decade, Everest Trading has become a market leader in cement trading and construction and pharmaceutical fields. Prior to establishing Everest, Mr. Alzaeem worked in the telecom industry for nine years where he served as the Sales Manager for the Palestinian Telecommunication Company Paltel. He is an active member at the Palestinian businessmen association, the Palestinian-American Chamber of Commerce, the Gaza Chamber of Commerce, Gaza Sporting Club and Give Gaza Association.
María Soledad is a dedicated professional humanitarian with over fourteen years of management and technical experience, working in some of the most challenging parts of the world. Most recently, she led operations as Deputy Head of the Sub-Delegation in Gaza for the International Committee of the Red Cross from 2016 to 2018, where she negotiated agreements between Israeli and Palestinian authorities on behalf of the population in Gaza.
Born and raised in San Gil, Colombia, Ms. Soledad has also managed the influx of thousands of refugees along the border of Somalia and South Sudan in Ethiopia and ensured safe conditions at prisons and labor camps in Myanmar. She helped lead relief efforts for detainees in the conflict-stricken Central African Republic and fought the spread of Ebola in Liberia.
In 2019, Ms. Soledad graduated with honors from Harvard Kennedy School, receiving a Master’s degree in Public Administration.  She also holds a master’s degree in development studies with a specialization in peace and conflict from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. Ms. Soledad was recently recognized by the Congress of the Republic of Colombia and the Santander Regional Government with the Meritorious Citizen award for her leadership and humanitarian work.
The post PON Film Night: Gaza appeared first on PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER NOW!

How to Defend Against “Scope Creep” at the Negotiation Table

The following question was asked of Negotiation Coach and PON faculty member Guhan Subramanian in the February 2014 issue of the Negotiation Briefings newsletter:
Question: I run a small consulting firm that has a services contract with a major multinational corporation. The team we work with has a bad habit of continually adding items to the scope of the project. A few weeks ago, we presented what we thought was a final project that included several additional items, but the team nevertheless came back with “next steps.” What should we do?
Answer: The first line of defense against “scope creep” is to be crystal clear from the start about what is included in the contract and what is not. This may require more documentation up front, but it avoids a lot of headaches and feelings of resentment down the road.

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Services contracts can be input-based—stipulating the inputs that you as the provider will make, such as billable hours or manpower allocated to the account—or output-based—focusing on what you will produce, such as a market-segment analysis in the advertising world. In general, input-based contracts are better inoculated against scope creep than output-based contracts. For example, most law firms historically have focused on billable hours, at least in part to insulate against scope creep, but clients are increasingly asking for—and getting—project-based fees to gain more clarity around their expected costs.
As your question illustrates, in an output-based account, the client has a strong incentive to pile on more work, since such add-ons are effectively free. In addition to clearly specifying what the end product will include, a good defense against such incentives would be to have a “safety valve” hourly rate attached to any additional work.
Recently, for example, a European government retained a U.S. firm to conduct an investigation of a business transaction. After the U.S. firm issued its report, the governmental representative requested an executive summary, saying: “I did not find the 2–3 pages of the executive summary in your final report listing the findings and the remaining issues that require more detailed analysis. Could you please forward it to us ASAP.”
Because of the diverse topics covered in the report, the U.S. firm did not believe that an executive summary was warranted or that it would be useful. So the firm’s representative wrote back politely but firmly: “If you could tell me your area(s) of interest, we could provide an executive summary. … We could do this on the hourly basis that we discussed earlier, or we could do it on a project basis.” The safety valve had its intended effect of pricing the additional work; the European government dropped its request.
When a contract is not perfectly specified and the budget does not accommodate the client’s new requests, a candid conversation may be required. Be up front in expressing your opinion that the additional work would go over budget; if the client agrees, then basic principles of fairness would dictate that you should be paid for this work.
If the client doesn’t agree with your interpretation of the contract, you might consider doing the work without further compensation, especially if it is the first request of this kind, to preserve your relationship with your client. But if you go this route, make the concession transparent: for example, adding a line item to the bill for the additional hours spent, flagged as “NC”—no charge. This makes the concession transparent, maximizes goodwill, and reduces the likelihood that the first concession of this kind will lead to similar requests. Then, next time, negotiate a safety valve for any additional hours you might work.
Have you felt the need to defend yourself during a negotiation? Share your tips in the comments.

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

The post How to Defend Against “Scope Creep” at the Negotiation Table appeared first on PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER NOW!

Body Language in Negotiation: How Facial Expressions Impact a Negotiation

When we’re deciding whether to trust a counterpart, his facial expressions matter a great deal, suggests a study by negotiation researchers Jeroen Stouten of the University of Leuven, Belgium, and David De Cremer of the Rotterdam School of Management, the Netherlands.

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

In one experiment, Stouten and De Cremer asked undergraduate participants to play an economic game that involved deciding how much to gamble on an opponent’s trustworthiness. A participant who took the biggest gamble possible would earn 10 euros if her opponent was trustworthy but would earn nothing if the opponent was untrustworthy. Some participants were shown a picture of a smiling opponent, and others were shown a frowning, angry-looking opponent. (The same person was depicted in both pictures, and unbeknownst to the participants, they were simply playing against a computer.) Some of the participants read a message in which their opponent (either smiling or frowning) stated that he wanted to cooperate in the upcoming game. Other participants read a message in which the same smiling or frowning opponent said he wanted to claim as much as he could for himself.
The results showed that participants viewed the “happy” opponent to be more honest, reliable, and trustworthy than the “angry” opponent, regardless of his message. As a result of this trust, the participants relied more on the happy opponent’s message than they did on the angry opponent’s message when deciding how much to gamble in the game that followed. Interestingly, even though they didn’t trust the angry opponent, participants made relatively high offers to him whether or not he was cooperative, perhaps because they found him intimidating.
Not surprisingly, we are more likely to trust the statements of someone who seems happy than those of someone who seems angry. Because smiles and frowns are an imperfect means of judging someone’s true emotions, let alone her trustworthiness, it’s smart to be attuned to this potential bias. In addition, beware the common tendency to concede too much to those who appear (but may not actually be) angry or stern.
Do you have a hard time controlling facial expressions? Has this negatively affected a negotiation situation? Leave a comment.

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Adapted from “Negotiating with All Your Senses,” first published in the Negotiation newsletter, December 2010.
The post Body Language in Negotiation: How Facial Expressions Impact a Negotiation appeared first on PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER NOW!

Deal-Making Negotiation Strategies: Short on Cash? Try Bartering

In an economic downturn, negotiation opportunities sometimes dry up because parties think they have nothing left to give. During times like these, bartering flourishes. This article will help you decide how and when to include bartering as a component of your negotiations. Here are four guidelines to help you bargain successfully at the negotiation table.

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Innovation During Trying Economic Times: How to Create Win-Win Negotiation Scenarios in Times of Difficulty
Here’s a prime example of negotiator innovation during difficult economic times. Eager to retain its top talent but low on cash, Zurich, Switzerland–based financial-services company Credit Suisse Group included millions of dollars of its own toxic assets in the 2008 bonus packages of its 2,000 top bankers. Typically, investment banks use cash and company stock to pay end-of-year bonuses.
But with Credit Suisse facing a net loss for the year 2008, the firm’s distressed assets comprised up to 75% of traders’ bonuses, according to the Wall Street Journal, which documented the story.
Some of the bankers, who were depending on cash bonuses to finance new homes or school tuition, complained bitterly about the toxic assets, which landed like lumps of coal in their year-end portfolios. (Note that some of these bankers were responsible for acquiring Credit Suisse’s debt-ridden mortgages and bonds in the first place.)
But many of them were pleasantly surprised to learn in August 2009 that the assets had realized 17% returns since January—a better performance than the major stock indices, though well below the 75% jump that Credit Suisse shares achieved during the same time.
The decision to move the bad debt, which Credit Suisse had acquired during the boom years of the early 2000s, off its balance sheets and into a bonus pool was designed to help the bank and its employees ride out the bear market and give the loans time to recover. It was also classic bartering behavior—the practice of trading assets (even toxic ones) and services in lieu of money when cash is in short supply.
The Bartering Craze
With the unemployment rate soaring and many organizations on the brink of bankruptcy, bartering has exploded. The ever-popular Craigslist.org reports that the number of postings on its bartering pages has doubled in the past year, and business-to-business bartering sites are experiencing record activity as well.
Why barter? First, and most obviously, bartering can save you money.
When you successfully exchange unwanted goods or easy-to-provide services instead of money for the things you want, you make an efficient deal that protects your (or your organization’s) bottom line. Bartering can also help you find new customers and generate referrals. And you can feel good about the eco-friendly nature of bartering, which often involves recycling old goods rather than buying new ones.
On informal Web sites like Swapstyle.com, U-Exchange, and Care.com, individuals can trade everything from books to cleaning services to child care.
If you’re a graphic designer who wants to rent a vacation home in a choice location, for instance, you might offer to build a Web site in exchange for a week’s stay.
Small businesses have long taken advantage of bartering opportunities that capitalize on their strengths and their weaknesses.
On fee-based sites like Itex.com and BizXchange.com, businesses can trade “underperforming assets” (such as old office equipment or television airtime) for the things they need (from advertising services to truck repair). By selling an item into one of these networks, you accrue points that you can use to buy goods and services from other members.
Large corporations routinely barter unwanted assets as well.
Bartering in Business: Hyundai Motor America
In June 2009, Hyundai Motor America traded 1,300 new Tiburon coupes to corporate barter company Active International in exchange for advertising credits and a small amount of cash, according to trade journal BarterNews. Active promised Hyundai it would not resell the cars to Hyundai dealers or otherwise undercut the company’s marketing programs.

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Adding Bartering to your Negotiations
Bartering doesn’t need to be limited to onetime swaps of goods and services between virtual strangers. In more complex, ongoing negotiations, including those between long-term business partners, bartering is a smart way to avoid getting bogged down in price haggling. Just as you might create value in a negotiation by discussing delivery options and payment plans, you can expand the pie by adding new goods and services to the discussion.
Credit Suisse, for example, saw an opportunity to meet an obligation to its employees by removing unwanted assets from its balance sheets. Yet bartering can bring added risk to negotiation; goods and services can be difficult to assess and sometimes difficult to claim.
Here are four guidelines to help you barter successfully:
1. Inventory unwanted assets.
When preparing for a negotiation, after determining your target price in the deal, consider whether you could replace some of that cash with items or services that would be easy and inexpensive for you to provide.
If your printing company is planning to make a purchase from an ad agency, for example, you might get a lower price by offering the agency a certain amount of free printing.
2. Find out what it’s worth.
In many cases, the negotiator across the table will appreciate the creative thinking that bartering brings to dealmaking.
But after the fact, you could end up with a dissatisfied trading partner if your bartered goods and services turn out to be less useful or valuable than you promised.
In a 2009 New York Times article on bartering, a painter told reporter Alina Tugend that she’d had many satisfying bartering transactions, including giving a painting to a plastic surgeon in exchange for a “free nose.” But she regretted trading a special painting for weekly massages that “weren’t that great.”
In the business world, a bartering failure could damage your reputation or that of your organization.
How can you be sure you are representing bartered items accurately and fairly?
First, when preparing to barter, remember that sellers have a tendency to overvalue their assets. To bring your estimates in line with reality, research the value of the items or services you’re bartering thoroughly and present your negotiating partner with evidence of their worth.
In addition, be very specific about what you’re offering and how soon you will provide it. If you’re tempted to offer your firm’s accounting services to one of your vendors, for example, make sure you have staff available to fulfill that obligation on a timely basis.
3. Explain your position.
Bartering shouldn’t be a tough sell if the other side is eager to receive what you have to give. But sometimes the other party would simply prefer cold, hard cash. Even so, you may be able to convince your counterpart to accept what you’re offering if he believes it’s the best you can do and if he has nowhere else to turn.
Though they weren’t thrilled to be taking on toxic assets instead of cash or company stock, Credit Suisse’s bankers had little choice but to accept the unconventional payment in the midst of a financial crisis.
4. Barter with caution.
Because an excess of bartering arrangements could leave you overworked and cash poor, limit your bartering to a
small percentage of sales. In addition, go back to cash when you can.
Thanks to improved earnings, for example, Credit Suisse officials told its employees that their 2009 bonus packages would revert to cash and stock. Finally, be sure to conduct due diligence on all your trading partners and insist on detailing bartering arrangements in writing.

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Adapted from “When You’re Short on Cash, Try Bartering,” first published in the November 2009 issue of Negotiation.
Originally published September 2014.
The post Deal-Making Negotiation Strategies: Short on Cash? Try Bartering appeared first on PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER NOW!