The language of negotiation
It’s 2009. Supposedly the year that the sh*t hits the fan in our part of the world. To survive, we must be tougher and better than the tough year ahead. If the looming recession throws the worst jab, hook and uppercut, let’s not just parry but heave a few punches of our own. It’s time to sharpen our skills and spar.
“Mastering Negotiations” is one of the most popular executive courses at Harvard. I used to wonder why so many people feel the need to hone their negotiating skills beyond their own inborn capacity. If you think about it, from the moment we learned to scream for milk as an infant to the time we write our living will, we’ve done our fair share of bargaining. At work, we recommend a proposal to a client; at home, we coax a loved one to quit smoking. We even negotiate with ourselves: foregoing the appetizer in favor of dessert or another glass of wine, adding treadmill minutes before the eat-all-you-can buffet. Unconsciously we are all negotiators, constantly giving and taking. So why bother to formally study how to agree, reject, compromise, concede, cooperate or find the middle ground?
The need for expertise escalates with the complexity of the negotiation. Famous family feuds in the multi-million scale, replete with declarations of incompetence and charges of kidnapping, need more than intuitive handling. The same with labor CBAs, hostage-taking, undoing pre-nuptial agreements, challenging wills, borders, ancestral domain and agrarian reform issues, and virtually every megabuck deal and potential business crisis that inevitably crosses a company’s path. That’s when mastery is required.
But the new tenor of negotiations is no longer about putting one over the other party, or pulling a fast one. In the progressive era of win-win, the goal should be to reach the painless if not happy middle ground, where every interested party walks away from the table feeling that they scored significant concessions. Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton of the Harvard Negotiation project worked on the second edition of the bestseller Getting to YES, the bible for “negotiating agreement without giving in; negotiating for personal and professional disputes without getting taken — and without getting angry.” This well-reviewed manual touts a universally applicable strategy for mutually acceptable agreements. It is a must-read for anyone involved in conflict resolution.
The essential idea is to replace positional bargaining with principled negotiations. We can bargain for the most reasonable price of a blouse that we fancy in the tiangge, and arrive at an arbitrary outcome of 10 percent to 15 percent less, without the need to prepare a strategy. But when the problem requires the family to sit down and decide who, where and how to take care of a mother stricken with debilitating Alzheimer’s disease, it is wiser not go in with a stand, but to be open and prepared. A thoughtful and creative analysis of shared interests in an environment of joint problem solving is needed. The process is not about what each party wants, but finding the resolution that best accommodates all interests. Diverse disputes should not begin with each side taking a position, arguing for it and then eventually making concessions. This dialogue involves a successive taking and giving up on positions exactly like haggling over fish in a market. Tindera says P130 a kilo; suki says P100; tindera says P125; suki says P110, and so on and so forth. Sometimes this works; more often it does not.
As a rule, where the issues and subject matter are more complex, principled negotiation is the key. There are three criteria in judging whether the negotiation has been effective: 1) A “wise” agreement is reached. This is defined as one that meets the interests of each side as much as possible, resolves conflicts fairly, is durable and takes community interests into account; 2) It must be efficient; 3) It should improve or at least not damage the relationships. Arguing over positions automatically paints you in a corner, and ego or “saving face” makes compromise and reconciliation very difficult to achieve. It becomes inefficient and time consuming. Stonewalling, dragging your feet and walkouts become standard tactics in positional bargaining. Games are played within the game. Moreover, relationships are difficult to maintain on a civil plane even when using a soft, polite and non-aggressive bargaining style.
When John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev were negotiating for a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing, the talks bogged down on the issue of number of on-site inspections that US and Russia would allow each other to make in their respective countries. Russia wanted three. The US insisted no less than 10. There was no attempt to discuss other crucial factors such as procedure, timing, etc. Instead both locked in their positions, which eventually led to the complete breakdown of the talks.
Principled negotiations reframe the entire process based on four fundamental elements: 1) People: Separate them from the problem; 2) Interests: Focus on interests, not positions; 3) Options: Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do; 4) Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard. These four elements ensure the desired outcomes of “wise” agreements and amicable settlements. In this option, parties come to the table to find mutually acceptable solutions to a predicament, rather than a contest of wills. Their role is as problem solvers, not as hardnosed bargainers pushing their own agenda. Imagine shipwreck survivors on an island with limited rations and supplies. If they treat each other as adversaries, trying to get the lion’s share of supplies, their chances for survival decrease. If they see themselves as negotiators with a common goal to survive, the odds vastly improve.
As the gurus explain, you negotiate to produce something better than the results you can obtain if you don’t negotiate. What are those results? What is the alternative? The castaways had to arrive at an agreement or they might die. They had a clear understanding of their BATNA, Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. It is the yardstick against which any proposed agreement should be measured. It’s the only standard that protects from accepting terms that are too unfavorable or rejecting what would be beneficial. Developing your BATNA by exploring attractive alternatives greatly improves your hand. When an applicant goes job hunting and the discussion moves to compensation, if he had two job offers, he can leverage salary negotiations better. He has a stronger BATNA. He has more power.
Obviously, without communication, there can be no agreement. Negotiation is a process of communicating back and forth until a joint decision can be reached. It is not easy. Even couples who have lived with each other for 50 years, with shared values and experience, still have misunderstandings. That is amplified with people who may not know each other well or feel hostile and suspicious of one another. The communication pitfalls are basic: 1) The negotiators are not talking but trying to outdo each other and playing to the gallery; 2) Even if they are talking directly and clearly, they’re not being heard because each side is busy framing his next argument instead of listening; 3) They misinterpret what is said, especially where translation is required.
When UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim flew to Iran to negotiate the release of American hostages in 1980, his efforts were set back when the Iranian national TV translated a statement he made upon landing in Tehran. He said, “I have come as a mediator to work out a compromise.” “Mediator,” in the local tongue, meant “meddler” and “compromise” was a negative term pertaining to “loss of integrity.” Within an hour, his car was being stoned by angry Iranians.
So how are communications pitfalls avoided? 1) Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said. Listen not just for words but also for perceptions and emotions. Clarify if there is ambiguity or uncertainty. A good negotiator is a good listener; 2) Speak to be understood. You are not in a debate or trial. The only party you are trying to persuade is seated at the table with you. Sometimes it is better to keep the communication area private and confidential, away from media and other audiences; 3) Speak about yourself, not about them. “We feel discriminated against” rather than “You’re a racist” gives the same information without provocation. 4) Speak for a purpose. Some thoughts are best left unsaid. Before talking, know what you want to say or ask and what purpose it will serve.
Everyone negotiates something every day. Conflict is a growth industry. Life is one continuous negotiation. We might as well master principled negotiations.
* * *
Have you negotiated lately? Share your experience with the author. E-mail ms.comfeedback@gmail.com or mscom@campaignsandgrey.net.
