HashNotAdam
commented
6 months ago Invent Options for Mutual Gain
All too often negotiators "leave money on the table" by focusing on a single dimension. Inventing options is a valuable skill for a negotiator. Instead of splitting the whole orange and throwing away the peel, one party might like the peel while the other the flesh.
Most people come into a negotiation in the belief that they have the right answer, and so the negotiation is a straight line between the positions the parties entered with. The major obstacles to creating options are: premature judgement; searching for the single answer; the assumption of a fixed pie; and thinking that "solving their problem is their problem".
Invent creative options by: separating the act of inventing options from the act of judging them; broaden the options on the table rather than look for a single answer; search for mutual gains; and invent ways of making their decisions easy.
Inventing options involves four types of thinking: the particular problem; descriptive analysis; what should be done; and specific and feasible suggestions for action. The Circle Chart represents these four types of thinking as quadrants in a circle and articulates that the thinking occurs in stages.
Another way to generate options is to example the problem from the perspective of different professions and disciplines.
You can also think of "weaker" versions of your options in case a sought-for agreement proves beyond reach. Understand where you disagree on the first-order agreement, then seek a second-order agreement.
Consider changing the scope. If you can't get agreement on the whole, maybe you can split it into multiple negotiations and seek agreement in parts.
Look for mutual gain. There almost always exists the possibility of joint gain. You will almost always want to look for solutions that will leave the other side satisfied as well. An outcome in which the other side gets absolutley nothing is worse for you than one that leave them mollified.
One way to dovetail interests is to invent several options all equally acceptable to you and ask the other side which one they prefer. You want to know what is preferable, not necessarily what is acceptable.
Look for precedent. Find a decision or statement that the other side has made in a similar situation, and try to base a proposed agreement on it.
Offers are usually more effective than influencing with threats. What can you invent that might be attractive to them but low in cost to yourself? Try to draft a proposal to which their responding with the single word "yes" would be sufficient, realistic, and operational. When you can do so, you will have reduced the risk that your immediate self-interest has blinded you to the necessity of meeting the concerns of the other side.
Insist on Using Objective Criteria
Regardless of how well you invent ways of reconciling interests, you will almost always face the reality of conflicting interests. These differences cannot be swept under the rug.
Usually, negotiators attempt to solve differences via a battle of wills (positional bargaining). This type of negotiation comes at a high cost. To reach an agreement, someone will need to back down from their position. If, on the other hand, the negotiation is based on objective criteria, the potential cost drops. Concentrate on the merits of the problem, not the mettle of the parties. Be open to reason, but closed to threats. People using objective criteria tend to use time more efficiently, talking about possible standards and solutions.
Objective criteria need to be independent of each side's will. They should also be both legitimate and practical, and should apply to both sides.
When considering procedural solutions, look at other basic means of settling differences: taking turns; drawing lots; letting someone else decide; etc.
Once you have decided upon objective criteria and procedures, consider the following when discussing them:
- Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria
- Reason and be open to reason as to which standards are most appropriate and how they should be applied
- Never yield to pressure, only to principle
It is possible that parties agree on the merit of multiple standards, but the values from those standards differ, splitting the difference is perfectly legitimate.
elle
Book: Getting To Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury
Aiming to read:
MC: @lachlanhardy Notes: @mcgain
See you all at 12pm AEDT, April 24th @ https://blackmill.whereby.com/bookclub
As always, if you'd like a calendar invite and/or access to Slack beforehand, get in touch via gday@blackmill.co.