“Powerful story, but this example
is pretty far-fetched,” you say? I respectfully disagree. The underlying principle, called
“integrative negotiation,” outlines a practical and promising approach to real-world
situations. It does so by concentrating on interests and aiming to identify ways to create additional
value (“expand the pie”) between the parties. By focusing on WHY rather than WHAT and
searching for options for mutual gain, negotiators who employ this strategy create a collaborative
spirit and frequently reach agreement faster.
This is unlike “distributive
negotiation,” which is based on the assumption that winning something means the other side must
give it up (“win-lose negotiating”) and often leads to competitive, sometimes controversial,
interactions.
The real world tends to be a bit more
complex than in our story here. One reason for this is that we humans rarely state clearly what it is
we want — sometimes we don’t even know. For instance, how often have you heard “I
need a better price,” only to find out later that what the other person really wanted was either
lower cost (not the same thing!) or an altogether different product or service. How often did someone
tell you what mattered most to him or her was “a reasonable price” where the person
ultimately turned out to be motivated by superior prestige or performance? Left unexplored, such
statements tend to become roadblocks that lead to negotiations becoming heated and charged with
unpleasant emotions.
As a strategy, integrative negotiation
allows you to overcome such roadblocks. A simple set of information exchanges designed to identify
interests, such as “Why do you need a better price?” “Because we have a certain budget
and cannot exceed it.” “Are you willing to consider other ways to meet your budget
constraints?“ “Sure” opens doors to discussing the cost of
shipping/installing/training/maintenance, for example, and creates room for reaching
an agreement that satisfies both sides. Moreover, since positions play less of a role with this
attitude, it becomes easier to keep cool and “separate the people from the problem,”
even when the two sides are initially poorly aligned and some stated positions seem outrageous.
We all know that in life, things
are rarely black and white. The same is true here: most real-world negotiations include both,
distributive and integrative elements. When working inter-nationally, you may also notice certain
cultural preferences towards one or the other. People in Sweden or Finland, for example, commonly
prefer integrative approaches, while their Russian neighbors may show a bias towards distributive
win-lose exchanges. When preparing to negotiate, you will want to factor such aspects into your
planning.
No matter where you are, one
thing is certain: interpreting people’s positions as invitations to identify their real
interests promotes cooperation much better than digging in your heels and trying to force your
counterparts to accept what you want. More often than not, the latter merely yields foul
compromises and hurt feelings.
What do you like better: getting
half an orange, or enjoying your juice/cake?
