Negotiation: What You See Is Not All There Is
There is an orange. And there are two brothers wanting that orange, at the same time. It's breakfast time. A conflict begins. Now, a first, simple solution is to split the orange in half, with each party getting equal outcome. This would not require much thinking and discussion. What do these people intend to use the orange for? Do they both want to eat the orange, or squeeze it and make an orange juice? What is their why? Upon further investigation, we may discover that one of the brothers would like to make an orange juice, while the other intends to use the peel of the orange to garnish a piece of cake (does this even make sense?). Great news. The two can now find a 100% rewarding solution for both. Brother 1 will use the fruit for his juice, and brother 2 will use the peel for his garnishment (Organizational Behavior, Robbins & Judge).
Collaborating. This might be the key word, and concept, behind negotiation. Collaborating in order to achieve the best outcome. Intentionally collaborating in order to establish real relationships, which will last in the long term. Collaborating and listening openly and honestly. Because collaboration is not the same as compromise. In fact, these are two different concepts and approaches to conflict and negotiation, as Robbins and Judge point out in the book Organizational Behavior. A compromise involves, by definition, a settlement for less than the most optimal solution for the parties. Collaboration requires truly wanting the best outcome for both parties, and calls for truly using all the resources available in order to come up with optimal points of contact, where relationships are valued, as opposed to the mere transactional stroke.
The idea of negotiation appears rather tough and convoluted. When confronted with the concept of negotiation, there seems to be this widespread belief that there are winners and losers, in negotiation. The belief that negotiation is a bit of a tense fight between the parties involved. We tend to associate negotiation to war, politics, conflict, radical change. And yet, if we dig deeper into history and daily life, we can witness negotiation processes take place all around us, and likely be embedded in the way we function in social structures.
““The further backward you look, the further forward you are likely to see.””
Going back to the past is exactly what Graham et al. do in "Going Forward to the Past: A Brief History of Negotiation". The past which can help us realize that negotiation is a by-product of being social animals. Because in societies the collective well-being has to be harmoniously in balance with the individual. And in order for the well-functioning society to be in balance negotiation must take place. Negotiation and relationships. Decisions which are made in groups and which can benefit everyone involved in the society. A collaborative spirit.
One of the most common preconceived notions in the field of negotiation seems to be related to one's willingness and search for winning the transactional stroke, leaving the other party defeated. But is this truly the most optimal mindset to approach and look at negotiation?
When it comes to negotiation in an organizational setting, there are two main theoretical frameworks which can be identified: distributive and integrative bargaining. While the former model of negotiation refers to the situation in which there supposedly is a winner and a loser of the negotiation (hence involving a close, win-oriented approach to it), the latter takes into account a more collaborative, open approach to bargaining (sometimes referred to a win-win situation, a bit like the weird orange example above).
We tend to believe that compromising is an ok concept to implement in negotiation. If we look at the definition of a compromise, however, we can quickly realise that this may not be the best solution to negotiating effectively, for long-term benefits. A compromise requires, by definition, the acceptance of standards which are lower than is desirable (Organizational Behavior, Robbins & Judge). This appears to be a shortcut to finding an agreement, clashing with the possible route consisting of carefully thinking through how to pick the best collaborative solution. Organizations and people are often constrained by scarce resources and internal pressures to conform (or at least so they may perceive). This fact may be a plausible explanation regarding the common acceptance of compromising as a viable model of negotiating.
This is why negotiation calls for creativity and imagination, as argued by Graham et al. It requires an open-minded, transparent, calm, informed approach to it, where the parties do not perceive each other as enemies to fight against, but as partners to establish solid relationships with. Because the game of business can be an infinite game, which has its roots in a long-term view of providing value to society, and where money is only the fuel which powers the game, as opposed to the end goal itself.
The role of negotiation, broadly speaking
The role of negotiation has to do with the social structure human beings are embedded into. In organizations, negotiation has to do with power games, as well as value games. One person, or a business, aims at maximizing their value added to the world, ideally. And in order to do so, they sometimes need or want the help of other parties, because multiplying forces may turn out a good solution in order to achieve objectives more effectively and efficiently. So, negotiation takes place. This may be due to an organization desiring to expand and acquire a new business, two organizations entering a collaboration, two Countries stipulating an agreement in order to settle conflicts or strengthen rapports. Hence, negotiation is, in and of itself, a means to a theoretic, common end: making the planet a better place. This may sound like a utopian remark, or something that is excessively skewed towards the theoretical role of negotiation. Let me explain further.
““Who then is invincible? The one who cannot be upset by anything outside their reasoned choice.” ”
We tend to think of negotiation as a zero-sum game (game theory). Zero sum games are those in which there is a finite amount of resources (as supposedly in negotiation), and these resources are eventually split in a manner that benefits one of the parties excessively, while totally denigrating the other party (in this case the 'loser' of the game). This argument does not seem to make particular sense, especially if we rely on the previous assumption that negotiation has the purpose of improving a situation, a group, and society at large. This view of negotiation as a zero-sum game appears to involve ego and self-interest, as opposed to active collaboration, creativity, and imagination.
As a consequence, integrative bargaining may be the better theoretical framework used to approach negotiation. Integrative bargaining is a collaborative approach to negotiation, in which the parties put real effort into coming up with solutions that can be the best for both. Not merely settling for their BATNA, but going beyond mere negotiation practices, intentionally and with a higher vision in mind. A vision which favors relationships over functional transactions. A vision which actively involves the other party, as opposed to considering it the enemy.
“Leadership is the responsibility to see the people around us rise. ”
So, why is it that we still perceive negotiation as a high-stress, high-stakes, win-at-all-costs situation? Well, there is one main reason which comes to mind. Many people and businesses are playing a finite game, and are having a short term mindset. A finite game is one that does not take into account a higher vision and long-term strategy. A closed mindset is the opposite of an infinite mindset. This is characterized by seeing other entities and people as enemies to fight against in order to appear winners; in order to be rewarded by society with a place high enough in the social hierarchy, and power too, if possible. Without caring about the long-term game. These principles and mechanisms are often embedded into organizations and the people in them, which makes them hard to eradicate for a change.
““A man has always two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason””
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:
Jocko Willing x Mikhaila Peterson | The Mikhaila Peterson Podcast
Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss | Book
The Seven Steps of Negotiation | Harvard
How to Be an Effective Negotiator | HBR video
Organizational Behavior | Robbins & Judge
Chris Voss and Jordan B. Peterson on Negotiating | The Mikhaila Peterson podcast
. . .
SIMILAR POSTS: