(originally published by TDWI) by Maureen Clarry
Like it or not, you are a negotiator. You negotiate something almost every day. Most people want to participate in decisions that impact them, but negotiation can involve conflict, and people handle conflict in different ways. Many people experience a dilemma, and they see two ways to negotiate: soft or hard.
Studies have linked our primary negotiation style to the “Thinking/Feeling” dimension of the Myers Briggs personality profile. People with a preference for “Feeling” may find they struggle with overuse of soft negotiations or an accommodating style. People with a preference for “Thinking” may find they struggle with an overuse of hard negotiations or a competing style.
Soft Negotiations
A soft negotiator wants to avoid conflict and reach an amicable agreement quickly. They want to remain “friends” and may change their position easily. They concede generously and make concessions for the relationship. They may back down to ultimatums and commit to decisions early to avoid a contest of will. However, the soft negotiator often ends up feeling bitter and taken advantage of.
Hard Negotiations
A hard negotiator sees any negotiation as a contest in which the one that takes a firm position and exploits their power wins. They see others as adversaries and concede stubbornly, if at all. They may dig into their position and demand concessions to build a relationship. They may make threats and commit to decisions early to achieve their position. However, the hard negotiator often harms the relationship and wins a short-term victory.
Principled Negotiation
There is a third way to negotiate that is both hard AND soft called principled negotiation. Principled negotiation is an all-purpose strategy whether you are negotiating a peace treaty, a raise, or a software contract. A principled negotiator sees the negotiation as a problem to be solved between professionals. They don’t concede anything; they invent options that change the “size of the pie” so that the outcome completely satisfies both parties and there is no residual frustration.
Principled negotiators separate the people from the problem and use independent standards to reach closure. They distinguish between positions and interests. A position is something you have decided upon; it’s what you come to the table saying you want. A position includes your demand, your terms and conditions, and the things you will or will not do. Interests are what caused you to so decide. Interests are the underlying motivations, needs, desires, concerns, fears, and aspirations behind the position. Interests motivate people; they are the silent movers behind the hubbub of positions. Interests define the problem.
Principled Negotiation Example
Let’s say there are two groups within a business intelligence initiative. Group 1 wants to select AASoftware as their primary tool. Group 2 wants to select BBSoftware as their primary tool. Group 1 has stated their position. Group 2 has stated their position. Each group has decided what they want, and it’s a stalemate with limited options. Even if you were to take a vote and see which group prevails, you end up with a win/lose situation.
Another alternative would be to get behind the positions and understand the interests. What are the underlying motivations, needs, desires, concerns, fears, and aspirations behind the position(s)? What caused them to form their respective opinions? By asking Group 1 WHY they prefer AASoftware and asking Group 2 WHY they prefer BBSoftware, the interests will be better understood. Those interests might include things such as ease of use, cost, features, administrative overhead, licensing structure, relationship with vendor, training, future position, availability of market resources, etc. Once each group expresses their interests, there is a better definition of the problem. What is the common problem both groups are trying to solve? Are there common criteria or interests that could be agreed on that might open up new possibilities? Would it be possible to make a decision that best meets all of the interests? Have all options been considered? That’s the nature of principled negotiation.
When you are concerned with negotiating a solution that fully satisfies the needs of both sides of an issue, principled negotiations emphasizes a high task and high relational focus. It is working with the other person to find an optimal solution. Some appropriate uses for principled negotiations are:
- Integrating Solutions. When both sides of an issue are important or interdependent and an integrative solution is needed. For example, you are negotiating with a vendor to ensure that your project is done correctly and on time.
- Learning. When you want to learn, test your assumptions, or understand another position. For example, you may collaborate with your counterpart in another department in order to get a better understanding of his or her needs. In managing a portfolio of projects, you may prioritize differently when you understand their needs in the context of the overall business goals.
- Merging Perspectives. When you want to find an innovative solution to a complex problem. By merging perspectives, you draw from a broader range of expertise and experience. For example, you may collaborate with people from different areas of your organization in developing a new governance process.
- Gaining Commitment. When you are seeking buy-in or commitment to a decision or course of action. People naturally support the solutions that they help to create, (e.g., if your department is reducing maintenance support, you may involve the group in developing a solution that will fill the gap in resources).
- Improving Relationships. When you want to build rapport or improve a difficult relationship. By demonstrating your willingness to work “with” the other person, you gain their trust and support. For example, you may talk through a recent conflict with one of your coworkers in order to understand his or her perspective and improve communication.
Above all, principled negotiation requires time and good communication skills including:
- Ability to Listen, Understand, and Empathize: Collaborating requires you to consider opposing viewpoints and understand all sides of an issue.
- Confronting Situations in a Nonthreatening Way: You must be able to get all of the issues out on the table without intimidating or putting others on the defensive.
- Analyzing Input: You must be able to look objectively at the data and make accurate conclusions.
- Identifying Underlying Concerns: Collaborating means getting to the root cause of a problem by uncovering all of the interests involved. Go from positions to interests by asking why, why not, and for what purpose?
- Brainstorming Possible Solutions: The ability to create options to meet interests is critical — remember the goal is not merely dividing the pie, but making the pie bigger. As you look for ways to work together to make the pie bigger, consider the skills and resources available to all parties. If they are similar, can you work together to achieve economies of scale? If different, can you work together to create what neither of you could do on your own? Look for differences in intangibles as well: willingness to accept risk, timing, the value of perceptions, anything that may be of lesser importance to one and greater importance to another. These are ways to add value.
Summary
There’s a little story that has helped me remember these concepts. There are two people and one orange. They both want the orange. “Soft” negotiators want the orange, but are so concerned about the relationship and avoiding conflict that they concede the orange to the other person. They walk away hungry and frustrated. “Hard” negotiators want the orange and make sure their demand is known. They will not concede. Eventually, the hard negotiator will walk away with the orange and one less friend.
“Principled negotiators” invent new options. They get behind the positions to understand the interests. They would ask the question “Why do you want the orange?” In this story, in answer to the question “Why?,” we discover that the first person wants to eat the fruit. The second person wants to grate the peel to use in a recipe. The win/win approach creates a new option where both parties’ interests are fully met.
Maureen Clarry is the CEO of CONNECT: The Knowledge Network, a consulting firm that specializes in data, technical, and organizational solutions for business intelligence. Maureen has been on the faculty of TDWI since 1998, serves on the Board for the Colorado Chapter of TDWI, and participates on the Data Warehousing Advisory Board for the University of Denver. CONNECT has been recognized as the South Metro Denver Small Business of the Year, the Top 25 Women Owned and Top 150 Privately Owned Businesses in Colorado. Maureen can be reached at mclarry@connectknowledge.com or 303-730-7171, ext. 102