Each of us has been in difficult
negotiations with difficult people. The negotiation isn't going anywhere
and the people with whom you are dealing have hardly endeared themselves
to you. And now the other party calls up and blames you for the impasse.
You might feel angry and frustrated; perhaps you are just confused.
You may already have considered simply capitulating to the opposition's
demands.
A: My price is $80 million.
B: You're sure that's the best you can do?
A: Yes.
B: Well, OK.
You may have attempted to play the game more cleverly than your opponents,
allowing conflict to escalate without resolving issues.
A: Forty million. Take it or leave it.
B: One hundred million. I won't go lower.
A: You're lucky to be getting an offer of $40 million - it's generous.
Without my company's business in your portfolio, you'll never dominate
the market.
B: Your negotiating style is obnoxious!
A: Better obnoxious than ineffectual!
Or you might have stopped the negotiation at an impasse, making it impossible
to bring new options to the table.
B: That's too bad; I got a sense that we could have done a
deal here. I'm not out for all I can get; I just want fair compensation.
I could give you a commitment to sell for $80 million, which would hold
for the next 24 hours. Think about it and give me a call.
A: Forty million is really all I have to offer.
None of these moves will have accomplished your goal: bringing a problematic
negotiation to a conclusion that is satisfactory for everyone. There, however
are useful guidelines for dealing with conflicts, problems, and disagreements
just like the above for more information
After subscribing, the current edition will be immediately sent to you.
Don't React: Diagnose In the face of feelings like anger, disappointment, frustration, confusion,
and resentment, we often react without thinking. This is rarely a good
idea. The first rule for dealing with such a situation is: Mentally remove
yourself from the situation and think about it before you respond.
For a moment, detach yourself from the conflict - float above the fray,
as if you were looking down on the conflict from a balcony. Try to imagine
how a third-party mediator might see the situation. (In emotional situations,
detaching from the conflict is easier said than done. When you are upset,
remind yourself that your viewpoint is valid, even if your counterpart
doesn't seem to think so.)
Know in advance what "hooks" you. Do you hate to be criticized? Rushed?
Do you get impatient with people who are passive? Watch for these hooks
and, when you see them, immediately go to the balcony.
Label the person's behavior (to yourself). Remind yourself that your counterpart
is being difficult because it is the best way they know to fight for their
interests. "This person feels that attacking me will help their cause.
They are not really out to get me."
Reframe attacks and tactical maneuvers as a cue that interests have not
been fully acknowledged. "This person is playing psychological games to
manipulate my position. They aren't convinced that I understand their interests.
They don't yet see that I want a contract that's fair for everyone."
Stay focused on your goal (reaching an agreement that satisfies both parties'
interests). Don't let the other side goad you into making self-destructive
demands or concessions that may undermine your ability to reach this goal.
Listen and Acknowledge You are best positioned to change someone's mind after you have listened
to that person. People tend to close down and stick to their position until
they feel heard. Trying to convince someone of the strength of your case
at a time when they are feeling unheard is like trying to paint a canvas
that already has a brightly colored painting on it.
The goal of active listening is for you to hear and understand other people
- their words, thoughts, and feeling, and to let them know you've heard
and understood them.
When listening, resist the urge to defend yourself or to disprove what
the other person is saying. Acknowledge their motivations, feelings, and
point of view, even when you don't agree with what they are saying. Your
goal is to understand the message, not judge the veracity of what they
say:
For example, if they say: "You never listen to me," the temptation is to
defend yourself: " I listen to you. I can tell you everything you've said."
Better to paraphrase what they've said first, without adding any new information:
"You feel unheard...or unacknowledged?"
Talk about things they've said that you can agree with. Focus on shared
viewpoints as a way of building common ground. This is the basis of your
final agreement.
Listen like a student. Assume there are things about the situation that
you don't understand. And even in areas you are confident you do understand,
listen for data that undermines rather than supports your beliefs, under
the assumption that you could be wrong or only partially right.
Find your own style of listening. If you are sincere about understanding
what someone is saying and feeling, your concern will come across and you
won't sound mechanical.
Listen for the real meaning of criticism. It's easy to listen and reply
to compliments:
A: You're the best darn computer programmer in the industry.
B: Thanks!
It's harder, but more important, to be able to listen and reply to criticism:
A: Look we're not in the spaghetti code industry.
B: You feel I didn't write the code as elegantly as I might have....
Stand Up for Your Best Interest Let them know what you need. Do so firmly yet without denigrating their
viewpoint.
Use "I" statements: Say to your negotiating counterpart: "I'm worried that
we'll slip on your deadline if we add those new features you asked for.
I'm frustrated. I don't know what you'd like me to do." instead of: "All
these new features you're putting in are making it impossible for me to
do my job. We'll never meet the deadline."
In the second statement you blame your job frustration and the time crunch
on your counterpart. In the first statement, the speaker accepts responsibility
for the emotion (worry) and the problems. No blame is placed on the listener.
The second statement invites your counterpart to argue: "There's plenty
of time. You'll put in those changes or lose the deal!" But the "I" statement
invites exploration of the topic: "Which features don't you think you'll
be able to get in?" In addition, "I" statements are impossible to dispute;
you are the only authority on your feelings and beliefs.
The person confronted with your "I" statement may have strong feelings
about what you said, even though you didn't place any blame. Be prepared
to acknowledge those feelings, before reasserting your side: "It sounds
like you believe those features are essential. I need an agreed upon estimate
of the hours involved in adding those features, before I can commit to
the deadline."
Avoid making judgments. Discuss underlying data, then let them reach their
own conclusions. For example, if you're confronted with an unreasonanble
offer, avoid: "That offer is ludicrous! How desperate do you think I am?"
Better to say: "In order to satisfy both our interests we need to fairly
address a, b, and c. I don't see how this offer does that. Do you?"
Change the Game Don't acquiesce to the rules of the position game. Rather than counter
the positions or demands shot at you, change the game to one you'd rather
play.
Reframe Consider reframing - changing their perspective - in terms of problem
solving. Virtually any position or demand can be reframed into interests,
options, or criteria:
Positions to interests.
(a) Listen for the interests buried in their stated position. You hear:
"If you don't upgrade my title to Director of Engineering, I'm quitting,"
so you respond: "I can see that you have a very strong interest in having
your job title upgraded. Let's think together about how we might handle
this issue."
(b) Directly seek out their underlying interests. "I understand that
this issue is important to you, and I'd like to get a better understanding
of what makes it so integral." If they refuse to reveal their interest,
present an alternative and ask, "What makes this option less attrative?"
As they explain why the option is unacceptable, they will be revealing
interests.
Positions to options.
Respond to positions and demands as if they represented one possibility
among many. "Director of Engineering is one title we should consider."
Positions to objective criteria.
(a) Listen for the standards that are embedded in their positions and
assertions. If the opposition states, "My board of directors won't take
a penny less than $80 million," you can respond, "The board of directors'
position is an important standard for determining what a satisfactory solution.
I'm wondering if there are other standards as well. How about price/earning
ratios?"
(b) After they state their position, say, "I am willing to accept an
amount that I think is fair. Can you help me understand how $80 million
is?"
Name the Game and Negotiate the Rules If reframing doesn't work, you may want to be explicit about the dynamic
you see happening. Describe your observations, and the consequences of
continuing the current process: "You know, you've named what seems to me
a high number, and so now I'll name a low number, and then we'll each insist
on our position until one of us gives in. I don't find I've done my best
problem solving when I work with people that way..."
Then be sure to propose a different way to proceed. You can shift the
discussion to applicable criteria. It helps if describe the need for doing
that as your own: "It would help me better understand the criteria of a
fair offer if we could take a look at some of the relevant standards in
this industry. "
When reframing doesn't work, focusing on the feelings involved, instead
of on problem solving: "Before we move on to the numbers, it would be helpful
to know how you feel about our last meeting. When you left you seemed pretty
upset. Was that the case?" (The response you get to such a question is
guaranteed to demand some active listening.)
Naming the game can be risky if the other person sees accusation in
your observation. Be sure that you make a neutral observation of a shared
dynamic; never insinuate that they intend to manipulate or thwart you.
Change the Players Finally, there are times when you simply need to change the players
at the table. This can be helpful when:
No one present have adequate authority to close a deal.
Someone has so much invested in the outcome that they aren't able to explore
options without feeling "unsafe."
Expertise or impartiality is needed (This involves adding a third-party
mediator or an expert on relevant standards.)
The personal dynamic or history between the parties is part of what's getting
you stuck.
Remember, you can change the dynamic of the players by adding or subtracting
people on either negotiating team, or by adding a third party.
Suggesting a change of players can be perceived as a threat ("I want
to talk with your supervisor") or a rejection. Be explicit about your thinking
and propose, rather than impose, a change. You might say, "I realize that
it's not your responsibility to make changes/decisions of this kind, and
I don't want to continue putting you in a tough spot. Is there someone
I can talk to who has the authority to deal with issues of this type?"
Or: "We seem stuck on the question of which criteria are appropriate. I
know Bill up in accounting has done a number of these kinds of deals. How
would you feel about asking him to join us and share what he's learned
from the work he's done in the past?"
3, 2, 1, Problem Solve A mnemonic for remembering this approach to difficult negotiations
is "3, 2, 1, problem solve."
The 3 reminds you to take
the position of a third party, unrelated to the negotiation. Like a fly
on the wall, remain above the fray, analyze the situation, and don't be
reactive.
The 2 suggests taking the position
of the second party your counterpart. Try to see the world from their point
of view. Listen with empathy and try to understand.
The 1 means focus on the first position;
convey you interests and needs, how you feel.
And problem solve comprises:
Reframing the problem in terms of interests, options, and standards or
fairness.
Getting the right parties at the table to solve problems skillfully.
Negotiating new rules for the game
1 Created by Douglas Stone,
Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen. It has been revised and expanded for batna.com
by Eric Gould and Michelle Easter. Adapted by Douglas Stone from Getting
to Yes, by Roger Fisher and William Ury (Houghton Mifflin 1981), and Getting
Past No, by William Ury (Bantam, 1991). All rights reserved. Copyright
1991, 1996, 1997 by the president and fellows of Harvard College and the
above. Used with permission.
After subscribing, the current edition will be immediately sent to you.
