The Negotiator's Primer, Part 2: Approaches

We explained in yesterday's post that  every negotiation is trying to accomplish three things. You're trying to achieve your own, real goals: you're trying to do it as efficiently as possible ; and you're trying to do it in a way that protects and builds your relationship with other parties to the negotiation.

With that in mind, consider  the following three examples of a simple negotiating process.

Example 1

Person A picks up the last orange from the fridge.

Person B: “Whoa. I wanted that orange.”

Person A: “Well, I got it first. So that makes it mine.”

Person B: “I suppose your right. We don’t want to fight over an orange, do we? You can have it.”

Example 2:

Person A picks up the last orange from the fridge.

Person B: “Whoa. I wanted that orange.”

Person A: “Well, I got it first, So that makes it mine.”

Person B: “That doesn’t mean anything. I want it too, and I want you to give it to me.”

Person A: “So, I want it and I got it first.”

Person B: “You always want to get your way. You can let me get mine for a change.”

Person A: “So, today I have the orange, and I’m having it.”

Person B: “If that’s how you feel, the only way is to split it.”

Person A: “Actually, that's not the ONLY way. Another way would be for me to keep the orange. That works for me.”

Etc., etc., etc....

Example 3:

Person A picks up the last orange from the fridge.

Person B: “I wanted that orange.”

Person A: “Well, I got it first. So that makes it mine.”

Person B: “What are you going to do with the orange?”

Person A: “Eat it of course. What do you think?”

Person B: “Well, I just need the peel to make an orange icing for a chocolate cake. You can have the orange, just save me the peel.”

Let's look more closely at the way Person B acted in those three scenarios.

The first example illustrates the Accommodation Approach to Negotiation. Person B is clearly seeking an agreement that will minimize stress between the parties. B is soft on both the issue (he's willing to concede on who gets the orange) and on the other party, treating Person A as a friend. Person B is getting an efficient process, and may be protecting a relationship with A. But B's goals in the negotiation are not met; the probable outcome of such a negotiation is that B will concede. 


Example 2 shows the Competitive Approach. Person B is determined to get his way. He's hard on the issue (no concessions, that orange is MINE!), and hard on Person A, treating them as an adversary, using pressure and a personal attack. What's likely to happen? Well, Person A may concede (in which case, Person A's goals for the negotiation aren't met), or the discussion may simply break off (meeting nobody's goals).

The third case is an example of the Collaborative Approach. Person B tries to figure out the REAL goals of both parties. In the other two examples, it was all about possession of the orange; however, Person B. discovers that the real interests of both parties can be met. He's hard on the issue (he wants the orange rind) but soft on the other negotiating party (how can I get what I need in a way that meets your needs too?)

Here's a simple table to illustrate the key points of each approach.

It is at this point that a skeptical reader may wonder whether principles that apply to the possession of an orange can actually say anything to an community engaged in negotiating, let's say, negotiation of Inuit employment levels for a million dollar development project? And the answer (coming from a team who has, in fact, negotiated levels of Inuit employment for a million dollar development project) is Yes.

Think about it. Both parties - the community and the developer - have important goals they want to achieve. They're not identical: the community may want to see more emphasis on environmental protection, while the developer is, not surprisingly, interested in maximizing profit.  But BOTH sides stand to win if they take the other's real needs and goals into account; and both sides lose if the negotiation collapses.

How can you shift negotiations from a competitive (win/lose) to a win/win basis? Here are a few tips. 

1. Try to bargain over interests, not predetermined position. Don't get hung up on "winning" your original demand: instead, looks for alternative ways that the real needs underlying that original demand can be met.
   
   
2. Always looks for options to address both parties’ need, and include them in your negotiating positions. Try to reduce the climate of YOU Versus US right from the beginning.
   
   
3. Try to build trust - and remember that YOU have to show openness and integrity to make that happen.
   
   
4. Separate the person from the problem. You don't gain anything by making the negotiation personal or unpleasant; in the short term, you may score some points, but in the long term, you may be creating real problems for yourself down the road when it comes to implementation or renegotiation.
   
   
5. Appeal to an objective standard of fairness where possible.
   
   
6. People are people, and they will often return to the style of negotiation they're used to. If they push or threaten, don’t push back: sidestep the attack, ask questions, deflect the attack and look behind it to discover their needs or interests, refocus it on the problem

In summary, there are three basic approaches to negotiations: Accommodating (yielding), Competitive (win/lose), and Collaborative (win/win). Any one of them may work for you. However, the collaborative (win/win) approach will provide a more reliable way to achieve your interests without damaging your relations with the other or leaving you feeling that your needs are not really being met.

Next: Planning the Negotiation.