As useful as the PRINCE analysis is, it does not always
provide the kind of information you need.
It is very good for identifying who your potential allies and opponents
will be, and possible leverage points you could use on each of them. But in the end it is a blunt tool—it is based
on the power and its application.
Sometimes you will want to go beyond alliances to create
partnerships. William Ury’s book, Getting
Past No: Negotiating Your Way from
Confrontation to Cooperation (1991) provides a way to reframe a
relationship from “barriers” to “joint problem-solving.” He refers to this as “breakthrough
negotiation,” in which people sit side by side, facing the problem, to reach a
mutually satisfactory solution (p. 7) The key to breakthrough negotiation is
to change the game. Often in trying to achieve our goals we see
any opposition as a barrier to burst through.
Instead, Ury suggests, take a lesson from
sailing and take an indirect route—tack into the wind, as it were.
Before entering into negotiations, you need to prepare. In a PRINCE analysis, the preparation was
essentially reconnaissance—trying to figure out who is where. In breakthrough negotiations, much of the
preparation is imaginative—trying to develop a menu of possibilities along
several dimensions:
·
Interests: Rather than fixing on a position (“By the end
of the negotiations, I need X”), focus on you interests. What are the motivations that lead you to
take one position or another—what needs, desires, concerns,
fears or aspirations are leading you to seek one solution or another? You also need to figure out the interests of
your potential negotiating partner, because it is through empathy (putting
yourself in the shoes of the other) that a breakthrough will occur.
·
Options: Don’t get stuck with only one way to solve
the issue. Consider a range of options
for solving the issue with available resources.
Then consider options which expand the resources available. Don’t be content to divide up a fixed pie. Explore ways (even if they seem unlikely) to
increase the size of the pie.
·
Standards: Once the pie is determined, there remains the
problem of how to divide it. There is,
of course, the kindergarten strategy of “I want it!” and whoever screams loudest
(has most power) gets it. It is more
constructive, however, to find fair standards that both sides can agree to (see
John Rawls, 19xx, for a discussion of using the “veil of ignorance” as a
decision rule). Ury
suggests preparing for negotiations by coming armed with information on market
rates, scientific criteria, costs, technical measures, and precedents (p. 21).
·
Alternatives: The purpose of negotiation is not to reach an
agreement, it is to satisfy your interests. You need to know your “walkaway
alternative” (your BATNA—Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement) (p.
21). Usually, your BATNA is not all that
satisfying (or else you wouldn’t be considering negotiating), but sometimes it
will be easier to “boost” your BATNA (strengthen your walkaway
alternative) than it will be to reach an agreement. Be careful not to overestimate the
attractiveness of your BATNA (because you may have to live with it later). Strengthening your BATNA will also strengthen
your position in the negotiations you are considering. You should also try to identify your
partner’s BATNA, so you have some idea of the challenge you are about to face
in the negotiations.
·
Proposals: A proposal is “a possible agreement to which
you are ready to say yes” (p. 25). It
will have to be better than both your BATNA and your partner’s BATNA. Given all the work you have already done
exploring options and alternatives, you should develop a range of proposals
with “What do you aspire to?” at one end and “What could you live with?” at the
other, and “What would you be content with?” in the middle. Try not to freeze these into “positions,” but
consider them illustrations of possible solutions along the continuum of
acceptability.
Armed with all your options and alternatives, you enter into
the negotiation. Sometimes (more often
now, but still not frequently enough) you will find that your partner is also
prepared for breakthrough negotiating, and the process might proceed very quickly
finding a mutually agreeable solution.
More commonly, your partner will come at you with a demonstration of
power and demand that you accede to her/his position. Control
your reaction! This is the opening
gambit, and if you respond with a demonstration of your power you will have let
yourself be forced into playing the other person’s game. Take a deep breath, and “Go to the balcony”
(pp, 31-51).
There are three basic ways that your partner might use a
display of power: Obstruction
(“stonewalling,” as Ury calls it), attacking, or
deception. Obstruction can take many
forms: “take it or leave it,” “I can’t
do anything, it’s policy,” “I’ve already promised,” or
just take the form of continual delay (“I’ll get back to you,” and then don’t
follow through). Attacking is using
pressure to make you feel uncomfortable so you give in. It can be as blatant as a threat (“Do it or
else”) or more subtly by attacking your proposal (“You figure it out”), your
credibility (“You don’t know much about this, do you?”), or your authority
(“Let me talk to someone who can
decide!”). Deception is the most subtle
form of attack. It can take the form of
manipulating the data (sometimes, providing false information; often, providing
confusing information), pretending to have no authority to decide, or adding new
demands at the last minute (Americans consider this an unfair tactic; other
cultures sometimes see this as a normal part of negotiating. See Fang, 1999).
The first step is to recognize that power is being applied
against you. Sometimes it will be blatant
enough that you will see through the tactic from the start. More often, you will find your stomach
tightening or your face flushing or feel your heart racing. However you habitually respond to threat,
learn to recognize it and pay attention to it.
Then back away from the instinct to fight or flee—buy time to
think. There are several ways to do
this. First, just pause and say nothing. This gives you some time to get to the
balcony, and gives your partner some time to cool down. Sometimes that will be enough. If it isn’t, buy some more time by repeating
what you heard or asking your partner to go over it again. Sometimes it is an advantage to appear to be
a little slow on the uptake. If the
other side continues to pressure you and won’t back off, take a break—ask for
some coffee, or a restroom break, or even a chance to confer with someone
else. If you can’t get out of the room,
try to divert the discussion with a story or a joke.
Whatever you do, don’t make important decisions on the spot. Try to wait at least overnight (you’d be
surprised how many things you can think of once the pressure is off). If that is not possible, at least get away
from the table, make a telephone call, get some fresh
air. Remember, in any negotiation you at
least have the power to withhold your agreement—and without that, there is no
deal and the other side will be left with their BATNA.
Now that you have your
emotions under control, the next step is to help your partner do the same. As long as you are sitting across the table
glaring at each other (literally or figuratively), you cannot breakthrough in
negotiations. Since you are trying to
change the game from a win-lose contest into a win-win
collaboration, you will have to “step to their side.” No matter how mutually beneficial your
proposition may be, the other side won’t be able to consider it until they have
calmed down too. You help them do this
by actively listening, acknowledging their points, and building points of
agreement.
Active Listening: Hear them out. All the way out. Do not correct their misperception or add
your comments, but do encourage them
to spit it all out (“Yes, please go on.”
“Then what happened?”). Having
heard them out, you will find that already they are less reactive—they got “it”
off their chest. But don’t stop
there. Paraphrase back what you heard,
so they know you heard them. And give them a chance to correct your
paraphrase.
Acknowledge Their Point: Then acknowledge their point and acknowledge
their feelings. They have a point (you just repeated it back
to them), and their feelings really are
their feelings. Say so. This is the beginning of building points of
agreement. Offer an apology if one is
due—it doesn’t matter whether you were personally responsible or not. Say you’re sorry if they were wronged. We can offer sympathy to each other without
acknowledging culpability; we owe this to each other as human beings.
Agree Whenever You Can: This is where you pull them over to your
side—it is hard to stay upset with someone who is agreeing with you. You don’t need to concede anything. Find real areas of agreement and stress them,
preferably using humor (it is even harder to stay upset with someone who makes
you smile). Use the word “yes” as often
as possible, even turning an objection (“But don’t you see….”) into an
affirmation (“Yes, I see that you have an issue with this, and here is another side to it you might want to consider….”). Don’t challenge their point of view (“You are
being unfair!”), but express the issue as it affects you (“I feel that I’m not
getting what I need from this arrangement.”).
This is sometimes referred to as “making ‘I’ statements, not ‘you’
statements.” The point is that you are
not trying to tell them what to think or feel, but you are standing up for yourself and sharing your perspective on the issue.
Finally, where there are real
differences, acknowledge them (after you have first acknowledged all the areas
of agreement)—with optimism that even those few differences can be worked out.
Now that you are both sitting side by side and looking at
the issue more dispassionately, reframe the discussion away from positions
(mine and yours) toward identifying interests, inventing creative options, and
discussing fair standards for selecting an option (pp. 76-104). The easiest way to do this is to focus on
“problem-solving questions”: Why? Why
not? What if? What would you do? What makes that fair? And then wait. Use the silence that follows your
question. Shigeji,
the Japanese poet, once wrote, “I may be silent, but/ I’m thinking./ I may not talk,
but/ Don’t mistake me for a wall.”
The problem-solving questions reframe your partner’s position in terms of interests. But what about their
tactics?
You have handled your reactions and helped your partners
handle theirs. You have reframed the
negotiation from positions to interests and options. But it’s not over yet—you still don’t have an
agreement. Sometimes your partner will
feel a vague dissatisfaction because the negotiations just aren’t going in the
direction they had expected when they started.
Sometimes this is called “NIH syndrome—Not
Invented Here.” Other times there are
still unmet interests, perhaps interests that your partner was not even aware
of until the negotiations cleared away all the other issues. Your partner could be afraid of losing
face. Or maybe it is just too much too
fast (and so it feels easier to say “no.”)
Build them a “
Sometimes building a golden bridge isn’t enough. Your partners just can’t bring themselves to
sign on to the proposal that they have helped create. There could be any number of reasons for
this—their own stakeholders are not on board, or they just can’t get the knack
of thinking win-win instead of win-lose, or they simply think they have the
power to dominate you. After having
come all this way, you will feel frustrated and be tempted to use your power to
attack them (in which case, you will lose and they will have won). At this point, you will have to use
your power, but “use power to bring them to their senses, not to their knees”
(p. 133). Ury
calls this “Using power to educate” (pp. 130-156). Don’t try to force your position on
them, but demonstrate to them that they have miscalculated the best way to
achieve their interests:
Ury’s technique for “getting past
no” does not lend itself to a mathematical equation. But it does lend itself to a checklist
of questions, some to be answered in preparation, some to be pursued in the
process of negotiating, and some be reviewed in the end game. In the beginning you will probably want to
use the checklist in a very deliberate way; with practice, it will become
second nature and you will probably only refer to the checklist when you are
stumped.
© 2009 A.J.Filipovitch
Revised 20 May 2009