2. Types of Negotiation

We saw in our discussion of communication and conflict that people can have incompatible desires whenever they interact with others.  In such situations we often negotiate to obtain what we want.

There are two types of negotiation: Distributive and Integrative.  Distributive negotiations can be thought of as disputes over a “fixed pie.”  That is, when we see conflict, from a distributive perspective, we are negotiating to divide some limited resource—and whatever you win, I lose, and vice versa.  Integrative negotiations, on the other hand can be thought of as disputes where there is an “expanding the pie.”  That is, when we see conflict from a distributive perspective, we are negotiating to try to expand resources so that everyone wins from the outcome we achieve.  Integrative negotiations are based on a win-win perspective.

Mary Parker Follet, an early management theorist cites an example of distributive and integrative negotiation.  Two sisters are arguing over a single orange.  One wants it for a cake that she is making.  The other wants it because she is thirsty and would like to make some orange juice.  The sisters decide to split the orange in two.  One takes her half, peels it, and uses the fruit to make a very small glass of orange juice.  The other takes her half, peels it, and uses the peel to bake a very small cake.  This is an example of distributive negotiation, where they split a fixed resource between them.

In the same situation the sisters could have used integrative rather than distributive negotiation.  They could have each had the entire orange, but only the part each needed.  The thirsty sister could have used the whole orange to make the juice she wanted, then given the peel to the other sister to zest for the cake she wanted to make. Example:

3. Types of Negotiation (Continued)

Distributive negotiations are characterized by attempts to force a solution or to dominate a situation to get your own way, or by giving in to another person’s wishes and accommodating to their desires, or by trying to compromise so that each person gets a little bit of what they want, but must also give up something they want, or even by trying to avoid the conflict altogether.

Integrative negotiations are characterized by collaboration where the parties try to find creative solutions that will fully satisfy both sets of desires.  While such a win-win approach is probably a good perspective to take into any negotiation situation, they also take a great deal of time and effort and are the hardest to reach.  They require everyone’s active contribution and emotional participation.

There are negotiation situations where distributive negotiations are more suitable courses of action to take.  Taking a collaborative approach would be too time consuming or where the outcome isn’t really that important to either of the parties to the negotiation.  It probably isn’t necessary for the entire office to take the time and effort to decide which brand of note pads to purchase for the department.

Forcing or dominating methods of negotiating are effective and very power-oriented.  It means that you are tying to get your way in the negotiation at the other person’s expense.  Such negotiating methods are appropriate when you are confronted with an emergency that requires immediate, decisive action, or when you need to take unpopular action like disciplining an employee or enforcing unpopular rules, or when you want to protect yourself against people who take advantage people who are less forceful in negotiating situations.  For example, if hazardous chemicals are being stored in a dangerous manner, that is not the time to try to negotiate a collaborative solution to how to store them, but rather to take care of the problem right away.

4. Types of Negotiation (Continued)

Accommodating methods entail giving in to another person’s desires in the negotiation.  They are appropriate when you want to foster goodwill, or when you want to preserve the harmony of the relationship, or when the issue is unimportant to you, but important to the other person.  You might even us accommodating as a tool to aid employees in developing their own skills and to learn from their own experiences.  As long as it is not an emergency or creates a danger, allowing employees to do a job in their own way gives you the opportunity for you to discuss with them what went well and what they might change.  This is a much better learning situation than you simply telling them how to do the job.

Avoiding methods involve sidestepping or postponing the negotiation altogether.  They are appropriate when the issues are inconsequential or unimportant, or when the tension in the negotiations are getting to great and people need to calm down, or when you need time to obtain more information, or when you feel that you can’t achieve your aim, so there is no reason to negotiate.

Compromising methods provide a middle ground where you give and take, so that each person gets some, but not all of what they want.  They are appropriate when you need to come to a temporary settlement to difficult matters, or when you don’t have a lot of time, or as a fall back if you can’t find a win-win solution.  There are times when we try to come up with an integrative solution in our negotiating process, but just can’t seem to get there.  Have a compromise—give and take—fallback position allows us to still achieve something out of the negotiation.  We can go into the negotiation hoping to fully satisfy both parties, but be willing to give up something to get something else.

5. Pillars of Negotiation

Steven Cohen of the Negotiation Skills organization notes the Pillars of Negotiation he feels are critical in any negotiation situation: (1) separate the people from the problem; (2) focus on interests, not positions; (3) be creative (4) find supra-ordinate goals; (5) be fair; (6) be prepared to commit; (7) be an active listener; (8) be conscious of the importance of the relationship; (9) be aware of BATNAS.

            Separate The People From The Problem:

To separate the people from the problem you need to view situation as problem that needs to be solved, rather than as an enemy holding a contrary viewpoint who needs to be defeated.  You don’t have to like the problem, but that doesn’t mean that you have to dislike the other person.  Demonizing the other person makes negotiation all that much more difficult.

Focus On Interests, Not Positions:

Focusing on interests, not positions means digging down below surface desires to see what the person really wants, not necessarily what they say they want.  Focusing on positions generates balkanization, while focusing on interests expands our freedom of action.  You need to understand your and the other party’s interests.  Don’t just ask: “What do you and they want” but also, “Why do you and they want it?”

For example, we might be negotiating where to go to dinner.  I might want to have Chinese food, while you want Mexican food.  Focusing on the positions would probably keep us from finding an integrative solution.  If we look at our interests, we will have a much better chance of doing so.  I might want Chinese food because it is light, while you want Mexican because it is spicy.  Thai food might be an integrative solution that satisfies both of us.

6. Pillars of Negotiation (Continued)

Be Creative:

Use brainstorming techniques and be open up to unusual and out of the ordinary proposals and unanticipated possibilities.  If you are creative and do propose the unexpected, you can open doors to far greater opportunities and options than when you behave in a predictable and conventional fashion.  Create opportunities and solutions that lead to mutual gain.

Find Supra-Ordinate Goals:

Ideally, find goals that you can both agree on.  Such goals may need to take into account broader perspectives and principles.  This will improve the chances of reaching an integrative, win-win solution. 

Be Fair:

When people feel that the negotiation process has been fair and equitable, they will be more likely to make real commitment and less likely to try to abandon the agreement.

Be Prepared To Commit:

            Don’t make commitments unless you can fulfill them.  It is probably best not to make threats while negotiating.  If you feel that you do need to do so, don’t threaten any consequences unless you are willing to carry out your threats.

Be An Active Listener:

Don’t spend your time planning how to out wit and out argue the other person.  Try to understand what they really want.  Focus on what others say, both on their words and their underlying meaning.  This will help you understand interests upon which agreement can be based.  In addition active listening can raise level of civility in the negotiation process.

7. Pillars of Negotiation (Continued)

Be Conscious Of The Importance Of The Relationship:

Most of your negotiation is with people that you will be interacting and communicating with more than just during the negotiation process.  If you understand the relative priority of the relationship, it can be easier to know when giving in on a particular point may yield a short-term cost, but result in long-term gains. 

Sometimes it is necessary to give in on an issue that is unimportant to you, but very important to the other person.  This will make them feel like you care about them and their desired—and it will build credit for you for later issues that you feel are important.

There are also times when the harmony of the relationship is much more important than issue at hand.  At those times pushing to get your way or even to take the time and effort to try to find an integrative solution might not be worth it.  Let’s go back to the going out to dinner example.  You might want Mexican food, but you know your friend (coworker or spouse or other family member) who wants Chinese food has had a very rough day.  It might be better just to go have Chinese food for dinner.

No matter how heated the negotiation becomes, remember that the other person is also human.  Treat them as if the have value and worth as a person, even if you might not agree with their point of view at the moment. 

Be Aware Of BATNAS

Your BATNAS are your “Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement.”  Your BATNA is the situation you want to improve by negotiating with a given party or set of parties.  A BATNA is not your bottom line.  Rather, it is an awareness of the relative value of negotiating a particular issue with a particular party.  Is the issue worth negotiating or do you want to fall back on better alternatives that you can obtain without negotiating.

8.

Persuasion

Jay Conger in his article, “The Necessary Art of Persuasion,” in the Harvard project/programme purpose Review talks about how to persuade and how NOT to persuade.

            Conger’s Four Ways NOT To Persuade:

Make your case with an up-front, hard sell.  Push the person to accept what you are tying to get them to do.  Don’t back off; just keep pushing your point of view.

Resist compromise.  You know that your way is the best way.  Don’t give in to any of their idea.  That will only show weakness. 

Think that the secret of persuasion is in presenting great arguments.  Come up with the right statistical evidence, great examples, and outstanding support.  Have a smooth, polished presentation style.

Assume persuasion is a one-shot effort.  Figure that you will never see the person again, so you don’t have to worry about how they feel after you have persuaded them.  Relationships aren’t important, results are.

The reality with the hard sell approach, however, is that people don’t really like it.  They want to be able to think about the issues and have some time for ideas to incubate. 

The reality is that people like to feel that they can have input into decisions and tend to become defensive if someone else feels that their way is the only way.  When people become defensive, they hold on to their own position more tightly, rather than being willing to listen to other points of view.

The reality with thinking that the secret of persuasion is presenting great arguments is that while good arguments are important, they are not the only aspect of effective persuasion.

The reality of thinking that persuasion is a one-shot effort is that we do generally have long-term relationships with the people we are trying to persuade. 

9. Persuasion (Continued)

By utilizing Conger’s four ways not to persuade, you are essentially telling people that are not of worth and value—that they don’t really have the ability to hold their own ideas and opinions.  You are treating them as if they don’t count and as if their ideas are not worth much.  Most people tend to follow the old adage: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”  Thus, by relying on the ways not to persuade you are not likely get others to go along with your persuasive attempts—at least more than initially. 

            Conger’s Steps To Effective Persuasion:

Let’s now look at some ways that you can be effective when trying to persuade others.  Conger feels that the best way to persuade others is by establishing credibility through expertise and relationship building, by providing the framework for common ground, by providing evidence, and by connecting emotionally.

Establish Credibility Through Expertise And By Building Relationships:

            People need to feel that you know what you are talking about before they will be persuaded to adopt your ideas.  To establish your own expertise educate yourself so that you become knowledgeable about the issues, hire recognized outside experts to help you, and launch pilot projects so you can demonstrate your knowledge.

            It is much easier to persuade others who trust us.  By building relationships with others we also build trust with them.  We can build those relationships regarding issues we are trying to persuade others about by meeting one-on-one with key people you intend to persuade and by involving like-minded coworkers who have good support with the audience for your persuasive message.

10. Persuasion (Continued)

Provide a Frame for Common Ground:

To persuade others to your point of view you need to show what’s in it for them.  You need to highlight how you’re your proposal meets their needs.  Establish common ground with others and show how your ideas will lead to shared benefits. 

Just as with any time you interact with an audience to deliver a message, you need to analyze and know your audience in order to be able to provide a framework for common ground.  You need to know who they are and what they want.

Provide Evidence:

Earlier we indicated that good arguments are not enough for effective persuasion.  Still, they are important.  Arguments, however, are not just statistics and facts.  When used exclusively, those tend to be dull and boring and often turn people off rather than moving them toward your point of view.  Use statistics and facts, but augment and enhance them with stories, narratives, examples, metaphors, and analogies.  These will all humanize your evidence and help provide common ground.

Connect Emotionally:

Reason is an important way to try to persuade others, but it is not the only way.  Emotions also play a part in the persuasive process.  When you are passionate about your ideas, people tend to be more willing to listen to them than when you don’t really seem to care all that much about your ideas.  It is not only your emotion about your ideas that matter.  Your audience’s emotional disposition, especially toward your ideas is also critical.  Again, you need to analyze your audience to know how they are feeling so that you can adjust your persuasive message accordingly.