the art of leading

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Common wisdom and tradition suggest, roughly, the following steps when negotiating:

 

1. Divide the issue into manageable portions or sub-issues.

 

2. Among those sub-issues, find common ground.

 

3. Concentrate your efforts on finding solutions to those specific issues that were found in the common ground.

 

4. Choose the preferred alternative.

 

There is nothing wrong with this approach. In fact, it’s a very savvy way to go about in negotiating something. The basic principle behind this approach is that “together we can make a difference”. In other words, that the key to solving a dispute is to focus on what unites the parties, instead of what divides them.

 

Find un-common, not common, ground

 

What is often overlooked, though, is the difference in interest-level among different issues. I’m not referring here to the difference in postures regarding one particular issue. What I’m talking about is the difference in the values that each party assigns to specific topics. Let me explain.

 

Normally, negotiations cover a range of issues simultaneously. The nature of negotiations will require that one party concede some things in order to obtain others. The objective of each party, of course, is to have their way on most of those issues.

 

People assign different values to different things

 

But human nature and experience points to the fact that both sides won’t assign the exact same value and importance level to the exact same issues. One party will grant more importance to some topics than to others. And, that same party won’t care as much about some other topics.

 

So what is the significance of this small, obvious, but sometimes overlooked fact?

 

Well, feelings can provide for pretty good negotiation chips. Giving the benefit of the doubt on each issue to the party that most strongly feels about each particular issue will give you some leeway in getting something in return.

 

The key is to solve each “special high-interest” issue in favor of the party that most strongly feels about it. That way, each party achieves a “victory” without the negotiation being a zero-sum game, where one side loses when the other wins.

 

Get the other side to concede

 

The opposing party will be more willing to concede on an issue that is not too high on its priority list than if it was a very important issue for him or her. On the other side of the coin, if you granted that relatively insignificant (for you) chip, you may have created an opportunity to receive another chip in return that, while not too important for the opponent, is very important to you.

 

Granted, this is an oversimplified explanation. Many factors beyond the scope of this article will complicate things, making it difficult to settle a negotiation just by using this tactic. But many sub-issues of a negotiation will be more easily settled by seeking these “interest-level” opportunities.

 

So what changes would I make to the traditional negotiation steps?

 

Not many, just #2 and #3, as follows:

 

1. Divide the issue into manageable portions or sub-issues.

 

2. Among those sub-issues, find differences between the parties in terms of interest level toward each sub-issue.

 

3. Concentrate your efforts on finding solutions to those specific issues in which the interest level between parties varied.

 

4. Choose the preferred alternative.

 

Happy Negotiation!

Categories : Negotiation //