Best Practices in Negotiations - Mastering the Paradoxes

The text lists ten practices in negotiations that are critically important.  One option would be to list them all and speak to why each is valuable, but that feels like an insincere effort to write a chapter report.  Additionally, Roy J. Lewicki, David M. Saunders, and Bruce Barry aren’t just giving this information for free.  Obviously, preparation helps you, finding options to get the BATNA is essential, and you need to be willing to walk away.  But the real trick in negotiations seems to be handling the paradoxes that arise in negotiations.

The text talks about value, principles, changing strategy, honesty, and trust in terms of paradoxes.  Being able to shift a strategy mid-negotiation for new option or being open to the flow seem natural to me (though I keep real options in my head at all times).  The dilemma over openness versus being closed is intriguing.  I can never seem to tell how much to give away.  In my last simulated negotiation, I did not know what information should stay secret, and what he already knew.  I became somewhat more disturbed by what I might give away when he dropped a big piece of secret information regarding a need for my side without blinking an eye.  I went from little leverage to a pretty decent amount.  While I was obviously pleased with that immediate result, I couldn’t help but think I might accidentally give away a game changer at some point.  This is why I tend to lean towards an opaque approach.  I am typically put outside my comfort zone when I am asked questions point blank.  I don’t want to lie because my reputation is important for future negotiation, but I don’t want to give away too much.

Like the paradox between transparency and opacity, another key theme is trust and distrust.  In these exercises, I have generally accepted my opponent’s words as true.  That said, I shouldn’t have done that.  I’m not so sure I should distrust my adversary, but an approach should be skeptical.  One should appear to mostly trust, and to account for what is said, but to slightly push other boundaries when something cannot be believed.  For example, I have been in a few negotiations where my opponent has said “that is as low/high as I can go.” I haven’t believed that once.  I think approaching a negotiation with skepticism helped me overcome being muscled out of a position.

It is important to remember these things to not be taken advantage of—no one wants to lose.  But if you act like you want to work cooperatively, yet aggressively, an intelligent negotiation can be a successful process.  It is just about managing the paradoxes as they arise in the negotiation.

Israel, Palestine, and Peace: Yeah, Right.

The goal between Israel and Palestine is peaceful resolution of several issues, like recognition of one another, borders, Jerusalem, and water rights, while maintaining the appearance of power in their respective cultures.  While the leaders of these nations are reasonable actors, the weight of their interests are exceptionally deep, and parts of their citizenry do not share the reason at the top.  That is not to say all the goals are valid, nor is it to say that all the citizens of these nations are unreasonable—that is far from true.  However, the stakes are high, and some actors are not willing to see change.

The conflict between Israel and Palestine is deeply rooted in history, tradition, and core beliefs.  However, the willingness of both nations to engage in some type of negotiations to form a two-state solution is a tremendous start.  The obvious problems today are that each side is attempting to wield some amounts of power, and the other side will not budge as a result.  There is no necessity to actually earn peace.  While most of the world looks on and hopes that negotiations go well, there is a much stronger impetus on saving face.  Openly conceding a point to the other side, or even showing weakness appears to be slap in the face to the greatest values that each society holds dear.  Timeline manipulations will not work.  Hardball moves will not work.  Nations like Iran, and subcultures in Palestine strongly believe that any peaceful concession is a loss.  Each nation having power in this struggle is not a positive for the negotiations in general, because while they would like to avoid war, they would prefer it to the appearance of even a slight one-sidedness.

Israel specifically wields power with general sense of backing from Western culture.  Many of the strongest military nations are pro-Israel.  Additionally, the housing project that was going up along a border was frozen for a time.  That said, the moratorium on that building was set to expire, which would cease negotiations talk.  It was supposed to give the feeling of power, but Palestine just wanted to walk away.  That is a power for them.  Ultimately, their lower concern of resolution is a power for each group in a way.

Palestine has an uncontrollable level of power because of violent attacks from non-government groups, however those types of attacks could actually increase with a deal, so it works against them as well.

Reflecting on Power

Power is somewhat complex in the details, but in general practice, it seems obvious.  Power is having the advantage, upper hand, or control in a negotiation.  A humorous “Non Sequitur” comic strip showed this phenomenon with a boss in a lavish room with a portrait of himself and giant desk with the title “The Man,” written on the nameplate.  The boss is saying “I found it saves a lot of time by taking the guesswork out of who’s going to win any disagreement.” That is power.  The authoritative source wields it, then wins.

Not all power derives from a boss position (though those benefits are many).  Though it feels hackneyed to my youthful senses of watching Saturday morning cartoons, it is true that knowledge is power. “Expert power” is a source of legitimate power from a unique knowledge of a subject.  In negotiations, this can occur if you have an expert on your side, or is possible to attain if one party just does not have the proper information (likely because of lack of discovery or just a failure to be fully prepared).  If ever there was a point to be prepared for a negotiation, expert power would be it.

Other sources of power—reward, coercive, legitimate, and referent—are based in a more pure form of preliminary structures giving one side an edge.  These “bosses” are the ones in charge, and as the rule makers (or rule upholders), they hold the cards.  They control the resources—money, supplies, time, etc.  But while coercive and legitimate seem to be key in the Non Sequitur joke, referent power is about respect for an authority figure, rather than fear.  This type of situation immediately feels like it will lead to the most good faith negotiations.  It creates trust and mutual goals.  This obviously differs from the iron hand of the coercive.

I suppose everyone is looking for a source of power in a negotiation, and we fear our opponent grabbing the power, instead.  The controlling party dictates a negotiation.  If one side has it all, they probably won’t be playing nice.  They will be busy getting everything.

Thinking about Interests

Thinking about interests is very difficult for me.  They are the negotiation.  The books outline what should b done in a very technical sense, but the importance of interests to a client are often unfathomable to those reading a text.  I understand the importance of knowing the basics, but the emotions of the greatest interests are difficult to understand just from a text.  However, it is only reasonable to look at the basic outline if there is any chance of bringing those emotions some sort of justice.  In every legal conflict, each side holds a position.  When those positions become interests, a negotiation can reasonably occur.  Interests are what each party wants to protect and take away from a legal battle.

The commonly known interests are substantive interests, process interests, and relationship interests.  Substantive interests are the easiest to identify in a negotiations.  These are the highlighted interests in financial issues—these are often the most visible issues to outside parties, and are often the easiest takeaway from a negotiation.  Process interests are how the negotiation occurs.  The style and ease of the negotiation can earn substantive interests, or make other negotiations in the future easier (or even accessible).  This is related to relationship interests which value—surprise surprise—the inherent relationship between the parties.  If the parties do not want to damage the relationship, that can change the structure of the negotiation.

Negotiations are layered with interests, and each party attributes different values to the interests a stake.  The key is to get each party the greatest benefit in his/her interest.  Interests are subject to change, but the deepest values are not something that a person will compromise.  However, attitudes can be shifted with just a shift in attitude or tone of a negotiation. 

Another great way to come together on interests is to generate alternatives.  Give up some interests to maximize your own interest gains, or concede issues for nonspecific goals.  If the opposing party gains on their key interests, you can collect later.  If other interests supercede the original, it allows an easier concession as well.

Interests are what they are.  They are the greatest values in a negotiation.  Most parts of a negotiation are nuances, but these are constantly on the front of our minds—if not occasional at the back when they change.  Parties can come to compromises or leverage equal interests, but they are what parties truly value.  It is so difficult to measure concessions of interests—because they are the subject matter.  No one wants to lose their greatest interests, and it is an attorney’s job to try to get the greatest interests locked down.

Going to see a lawyer? This is how to do it!

There is no reason to be embarrassed about a legal problem.  Many people feel uncomfortable with the legal process because it is foreign to them.  You are forced to trust a stranger with a very serious problem, and many stressful factors (besides the heart of the problem) will make the situation difficult.  I am sorry you have to go through that, but there are some important things to think about that will make the whole situation much easier for you.

First, when you have your lawyer, be honest.  To do the best for you, your lawyer must know all the facts.  It can be difficult to admit every detail, but it is much better to be prepared, rather than having only the opposition knowing a secret fact.  You and your lawyer have attorney-client privilege, so don’t be afraid to get the whole issue on the table—and get all the details out there.  It will serve you with the best result in the end.

Know what you want, and try not to think in abstracts.  What is the end game that you really want out of this case?  Is it to make as much money as possible, or keep as much money as possible?  What are the realistic numbers for you.  You may not have all the answers, but be prepared to lay out some realistic ideas, and also be prepared to adjust your financial interests.  When we think about law cases, we think about the end being justice.  In civil cases, the way to give justice is to reward money—so make sure you are have some real numbers that you want out of the process.  If you go in with unrealistic numbers, you will be disappointed.  One of the best ways to be pleased with an outcome is to be realistic.  Think about what you want and what you need, and know the difference.  You can go after both, but knowing which is which is very important.

One of the hardest things to do in any conflict is look at it from another angle.  As we entrench ourselves deeper into a conflict, it is human nature to examine facts and outcomes in the scope of being right.  I recommend you put yourselves in your opponent’s position.  Think about what they think.  This can give each party more understanding, less stress, and a more amicable way to agree—rather than a high stress, high worry competition, not knowing if you will get any benefits.

If this sounds like it is all about getting an easy outcome, that isn’t the case.  You can let your lawyer be the zealous advocate for you, trying to get everything possible, but when meeting your lawyer, don’t treat them like an opponent.  They are your guardian, your teammate, and your confidant.  Be realistic with them, and they can best fight for you.

Taking Out "But"

In a dialogue over a specific topic, there is typically room for agreement and disagreement.  When people hear “but,” they only hear that side. 

Every weekend, after the Chiefs play, my friend and I discuss the game. “Jamaal Charles ran very well, but he needs to get more touches.  Thomas Jones is a good counter-point, but he is too old to be the focus of the offense.  Matt Cassel threw pretty well today, but you can still tell he kind of sucks.” In all of these situations, it was easy to feel a little down about the game.  Even though the Chiefs were winning, the discussion led us to reflect mostly on the flaws, the mistakes, and the buts.  It was as though the point of the discussion was not to discuss the merits of the game, but was instead to admit positives in order to point out negatives.  If a person uses “but,” when legitimately trying to discuss merits, they almost immediately lose half of the argument.  Loaded interjections make it seem like the truth is about to be said, and the rest of the sentence was meaningless prologue.

In negotiations, language is critical.  Sometimes “but” really is meant to give the impression that the coming, post-but alternative is the truth, whereas the preceding comment means little, if anything.  If there is a true positive and a true negative, “but” cannot come up.  No buts, howevers, or any other language that could mitigate one side of the argument.  This is why I don’t think it is a good idea to just change the which part of your sentence comes first. “But” always accentuates something.  This also indicates that if you want to emphasize one side of an argument, BUT is useful. 

See:

The assembly staff is doing well with the order, but there are problems with the manufacturer. (Negative)

There are problems with the manufacturer, but the assembly staff is doing well with the order. (Positive)

If you want to give the positive impression, giving the bad news first is the way to go.  Giving an equal approach has no room such interjections.

There are problems with the manufacturer.  The assembly staff is doing well. (Just facts, even if one precedes the other.)

It is important to try to limit your language, but you should also consider the impact of body language in accidentally creating emphasis. (Note: are you focused on body language now?  It would make sense with the transition I made using the word “but.”)  Body language and tone can probably convey the same message, so a respectful demeanor combined with a lack of buts will lead to a conducive negotiating environment.

Employment Negotiations Value

It is difficult to pinpoint exactly how negotiation plays a part of the general employment setting.  The things that stick out to me are concession making and values.

            Concessions help give a bargaining range, and values give us the easiest concessions.  They can go hand in hand, and it seems easiest to apply both when negotiating a salary.  There were two examples of this exact setting in the text, and while one was about perception—it was the clever line about “of course I’m kidding, but you started it—it seems like the first negotiation of any employment.

            If a person starts with a moderate or too high sum for a desired salary, the end result could become negative.  Either you will get laughed out of the room, or you will have to concede something for a lower salary than you ever wanted.  The limits and means of each company will lock them into a clear bottomline that the employer may not have, but they have a greater range of concessions on low value option.  For example, they may have room on bonuses, stock options, or retirement plans, but they have only a certain cap on long-term salary.  The employer can poke at different offers and see where a weak spot in the options is. 

            Perhaps the employee is looking for a longer contract, or a guaranteed package if the contract is ever terminated.  The value of security may outweigh a bonus, or the ability to make more money over the long haul.  These type of value-based concessions can lead to a favorable outcome for both sides, as opposed to creating an outright “winner” or “loser.” Still, it is preferable for each side to get as much as possible, so no one will concede JUST to concede.  The key for an employee is to shoot high, and look for the holes that will help you stay highest, only conceding high personal value items last.