Navigating the Negotiation Landscape: Keys to Successful Outcomes

 

"One orange, two people, who gets what?"

"This is a simple problem, split it, each one gets a half", you say? well, let's find out.

In this article we will navigate the most common philosophies of negotiation: the positional negotiation and the principled negotiation.

Some, by instinct, resort to the zero-sum solution; each one gets a part of the orange. This concept is called Positional bargaining Where each party has a position and trying to convince the other party to accept it. Who gets what will depend on each party's capability of convincing the other party with the solution he is proposing.

This was the the case until a classical negotiation book titled "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In" was published in 1981, in this book the authors Roger Fisher, William L. Ury and Bruce Patton introduced a new concept of principled bargaining. 

Positional Negotiation: Stuck in Fixed Positions

Positional negotiation involves taking and defending a fixed position, often resulting in a win-lose scenario. Parties involved in positional negotiation tend to focus on their desired outcomes without considering the underlying interests and concerns of the other party. The focus is on "winning" at the expense of the other party's satisfaction, which can lead to strained relationships and suboptimal solutions.

It produces bad outcomes: Negotiators become rigid in their positions and ignore the other side’s interests. They may miss opportunities for creative solutions that would benefit both sides. The agreement may reflect a splitting of differences rather than addressing the valid interests of the parties.

It is inefficient: The give-and-take of positional bargaining, even when the parties are not hostile, is time-consuming. Each side has to make a series of offers and concessions, which may not be related to their true needs or preferences. The process may also involve threats and deception, which increase the risk of impasse or breakdown.

It endangers the relationship: Positional bargaining can create a competitive and adversarial atmosphere, where each side sees the other as an enemy or an obstacle. This can damage the trust and cooperation between the parties, especially if they have to work together in the future. Positional bargaining can also generate resentment and dissatisfaction, as each side may feel that they gave up too much or got too little.

In the scenario above, the deal would be who gets the bigger part of the orange despite of what he intends to do with it.

Principled Negotiation: Seeking Common Ground

Principled negotiation, also known as interest-based or integrative negotiation, takes a different approach. It aims to find common ground and create win-win solutions by focusing on underlying interests, needs, and principles rather than rigid positions. This approach encourages open communication, collaboration, and creative problem-solving to achieve outcomes that satisfy all parties involved.

Key Principles of Principled Negotiation:

a) Separate People from the Problem: In principled negotiation, it's essential to address the issues at hand without attacking or demeaning the individuals involved. By maintaining a respectful and constructive approach, parties can work together to resolve the problem while preserving relationships.

b) Focus on Interests: Principled negotiation emphasizes the exploration of underlying interests and needs. By understanding the motivations and concerns of all parties, negotiators can uncover common ground and create solutions that address those interests.

c) Generate Options: Rather than clinging to a single position, principled negotiation encourages the generation of multiple options. This creative problem-solving approach expands the range of possibilities and fosters an environment where parties can collaborate to identify mutually beneficial outcomes.

d) Use Objective Criteria: Principled negotiation relies on objective criteria, such as market values, industry standards, or legal precedents, to evaluate potential solutions. By anchoring the negotiation process in external standards, parties can avoid subjective biases and reach more objective and fair agreements.

Advantages of Principled Negotiation:

a) Win-Win Outcomes: The primary advantage of principled negotiation is the potential for win-win outcomes. By focusing on interests and generating creative options, negotiators can find solutions that satisfy both parties, leading to improved relationships and long-term cooperation.

b) Preserving Relationships: Positional negotiation often strains relationships due to its competitive nature. In contrast, principled negotiation values open communication, respect, and collaboration. By maintaining positive relationships, parties can foster trust and facilitate future negotiations.

c) Improved Problem-Solving: Principled negotiation encourages the exploration of underlying issues and interests, leading to better problem-solving. By addressing the root causes rather than superficial positions, parties can find more effective and sustainable solutions.

In the orange scenario from the beginning of this article, one of the negotiating parties might want the orange because he is hungry and wants something to eat while the other party needs it because he wants to make an orange cake and needs only the peels for the flavor.

In this situation a principled negotiation approach will expand the possibilities of the best outcome by understanding the mere needs of each negotiating parties.

Here is a real life story that illustrates the power of principled bargaining"

In the post Saddam Husain's era, some farmers had leased some land from the government and planted crops, a few months later, they were asked to vacate the land because oil had been discovered under it. The oil company and the farmers both claimed ownership of the land and threatened to use force. The situation was resolved by an official who used principled negotiation and explored each party's interests rather than positions. He asked the oil company how long it would take them to produce oil on the land and what they planned to do in the meantime. He also asked the farmers how long their crops would take to harvest and what they needed to survive. He then proposed a solution that would allow the farmers to stay on the land until their crops were ready, while the oil company could conduct some preliminary surveys without disturbing them. This way, both sides could get what they wanted without resorting to violence.

The book suggests that a better way to negotiate would be to focus on the underlying interests of both parties, rather than their positions. For example, the oil company’s interest was to complete the project on time and within budget, while the farmers’ interest was to preserve their livelihood and culture. By exploring these interests, the negotiators could find creative solutions that would satisfy both sides, such as building the pipeline underground, providing alternative sources of income for the farmers, or involving them in the environmental monitoring of the project.

Conclusion:

While positional negotiation may seem like the default approach, embracing principled negotiation offers numerous advantages in achieving win-win outcomes. By focusing on interests, generating options, using objective criteria, and preserving relationships, principled negotiation fosters a collaborative environment that promotes creative problem-solving and long-term cooperation. So, the next time you find yourself in a negotiation, consider adopting the principled negotiation approach to find common ground and forge mutually beneficial agreements that leave all parties satisfied.