|
|
|
Getting
to Yes: Negotiating
Agreement Without Giving in
by Roger Fisher, William Ury, Bruce
Patton (Editor) Fisher, & Ury are among the
acknowledged experts on negotiation.
|
|
|
|
Getting
Past No : Negotiating
Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation by
William Ury Author collaborated with Fisher on book above.
Synopsis indicates: "...how to stay cool under pressure, stand
up for themselves without provoking opposition, deal with underhanded
tactics, find mutually agreeable options, and more. "
|
|
"A good teacher
walks into the room knowing lots of good answers. A good negotiator
knows a lot of good questions." -- Steven P. Cohen
In
the real world, however, capital planning, corporate borrowing,
annual budgeting, and priority setting all tend to require that
people from different organizations - or even our own people
with a different point of view - find satisfactory means to
reach agreement.
For many decision-makers,
annual obligations like business plan reviews
and budget approvals tend to coincide with increased levels
of stress and anxiety. We are well-prepared for the substance
to be decided; it's the process that is so unsettling. It can
be troublesome if the short-term objective of minimizing conflict
gets in the way of developing and achieving long-range goals.
Interest-based negotiation techniques can help us focus our
energy on the process and guide that process towards yielding
a satisfactory result.
Most negotiations
are repeat performances. We tend to deal with
the same bankers, suppliers, clients, directors, managers, etc.,
for a long time. It is important to recognize and give proper
weight to the context in which a negotiation is taking place;
if it is within an on-going relationship, the significance of
that relationship must be considered.
We can take positive steps to prepare for the decision-making
process and we can monitor our own behavior - and that of other
participants -- as the process goes forward.
By following
a few common sense rules we can reduce conflict and turn it
into cooperation and reach solutions that really work for all
the participants.
1. Separate the people from the problem. Religion
teaches us to hate the sin not the sinner. If we view the problem
as that which needs to be resolved rather than viewing someone
holding a contrary viewpoint as a person to be defeated, the
odds of a successful collaboration increase. One specific technique
that can work is to change the shape of the table rather than
sitting opposite your 'opponents', arrange the seating so that
all the parties are sitting together facing a flip chart or
blackboard where the problem is presented. That makes it clear
that all the participants are facing the problem together, that
instead of it being 'us' against 'them', it is a case of 'all
of us' against 'it'.
2. Distinguish between interests and
positions. The classic story to illustrate this describes
two sisters fighting over the only orange in the family larder.
Each sister must have the entire orange for herself, any less
is impossible. A wise parent asks each of the girls (in private)
why she wants the orange. One explains she wants to drink the
juice; the other wants to use the rind to cook a pudding. What
each sister wants is her position, why she wants it is her interest.
In this case,
the simple solution is to give the cook the rind after the juice
has been squeezed for the thirsty sister - thus meeting the
interests of both. When preparing for a negotiation, or after
it has begun, don't just ask "What do they want?" It is also
important to ask, "Why do they want it?" It is equally important
- and often more difficult - to ask the same questions about
your own views. Many successful negotiators find they will be
more successful if they focus on understanding their interests
as they enter discussions. If they haven't started out with
a perfect package, the ideas of others may actually improve
their final result. Negotiators who arrive with a complete package
can create real problems. Modifications to their ideas might
be taken personally, they may be stubborn, and reaching a satisfactory
resolution is made more difficult.
3. Consider your BATNA (Best Alternative
To a Negotiated Agreement). If you do not reach an
agreement with the other, does that really make things worse
for you? When you're selling an antique Rolls Royce and have
received an offer of $43,250, you know what another potential
buyer has to do to get you interested. Of course, the first
offerer may plan to use the car for chauffeuring wedding parties
while a second offerer collects and restores antique cars and
preserves them indoors. In determining you BATNA, a straightforward
review of your interest will give you the clearest picture.
There's an old American country & western song about playing
poker that summarizes the concept of BATNA: "You have to know
when to hold and know when to fold." If you accept your BATNA,
you know when you can simply turn your back on the negotiations.
But it is important not to ignore the other party's BATNA. The
relative strength of each party's BATNA will determine the balance
of power each can exercise.
4. Silence is golden. This
is true for two reasons: If one party is highly opinionated
or emotional, if their approach is threatening or extremely
demanding, keeping quiet after they finish speaking can be quite
unsettling to them. It is like jujitsu; you allow them to be
tripped up by their own forcefulness. Most people are troubled
by silence in the midst of heated discussion. Sometimes silence
is viewed as disapproval -- but since no specific disapproval
has been voiced, it cannot be treated as an attack. It has happened
on many occasions that, when met with silence, people have modified
their previous statements to make them more palatable. Silence
is an important element in the crucial tool called Active Listening.
The job of a good negotiator is to listen to and understand
what others are saying. After all, you can't make an intelligent
response to an opinion you do not understand. The discipline
of Active Listening requires that you focus on what another
person is saying; don't spend your time shaping a stinging response
that will put them in their place. Active Listening has some
interesting consequences: The listener may actually be able
to get a clearer picture of the other party's ideas. And when
the listener's response shows just how good a job he or she
has done listening, it can shock the other party: "Good grief,
they actually paid attention to me!" One other terrific result
of Active Listening is that the discipline of focusing on other
opinions can also give the listener the chance to reflect on
the process and strategy. Stepping aside and taking a dispassionate
view of the goings-on can make one a far more effective negotiator.
5. Pursue Fairness. If all
the participants view the process as fair, they are more likely
to take it seriously and 'buy into' its result. Moreover, the
focus on fairness can have an important impact on the substantive
result. If the parties to a negotiation can agree on standards
against which elements of the agreement can be measured, it
can give each a face-saving reason for agreeing. Referral to
the Base Rate of the other major lending institutions, an industry
standard of marketability, or other common measures, can validate
the agreement the parties reach. To be considered successful,
an agreement must be durable. Parties who walk away from the
table grumbling may regret their commitment and only honor it
grudgingly. If they end up looking for excuses to get out from
under an unwanted result, the gains achieved by the other side
may prove to be short-term indeed.
6. Only one person can get angry at
a time. This is yet another means to help individuals
keep a cool head and pay attention to the process and the strategy,
as well as the substance of the negotiation. If it's not your
'turn' to be angry, the exercise of restraint can be turned
into a positive opportunity to observe what is going on with
a clear eye. No less important, yelling at each other is not
negotiation; it is confrontation. In those situations there
may possibly be a 'winner'; but it is even more likely there
will be a 'loser'.
In times past, when two property owners
had a disagreement, they would hire knights and wage war to
reach a conclusion. Then somebody invented lawyers, and the
problem-solving process became one of waging law. Our society
has reached a level of sophistication in which we recognize
that the costs of waging war - or waging law - are terribly
high. With the use of good negotiation skills, we have the capacity
to reach conclusions in a more satisfactory manner: we can wage
PEACE. **
|
|