Effective Negotiation – The People Problem
All of us are negotiators and, as human beings, we have many natural shortfalls. If we understand these shortfalls and how to handle them, we can negotiate a lot more effectively to reach win-win solutions. The key is to separate the people from the problem.
As we continue with our exploration of “Getting to Yes” we will explore the first part of effective negotiation, the people problem.
Negotiators Are People First
Negotiators are human beings with deeply held values, different backgrounds and viewpoints. They are inherently unpredictable, have biases, partisan perceptions, cognitive biases, blind spots, and leaps of illogic. As we are all negotiators and humans, we share all these facets.
People see themselves from their own vantage point and frequently confuse their perceptions with reality. They fail to interpret what you say in how you intended. They also fail to express themselves in a way that you will interpret as they intended.
Kitchen Is A Mess
This can trigger a cycle of accusations and counter accusations. For example, saying the “kitchen is a mess” could be intended to reveal a problem but could be interpreted by someone who usually cleans the kitchen as an insult.
I know the above mechanism well. Often when my wife mentions some challenge with the kitchen not being clean (a prefect example!) thoughts often race through my mind about “is she judging the quality of my cleaning?”, “is she being passive aggressive about the dirty dishes because of something else that is going on?”. This is just the kitchen mind you, imagine when we get into more complicate interests.
Long Term Relationships
Long term relationships and trust are important. They make negotiation easier because the built up trust allows both sides to see the other side’s perspective better. Because of the trust, when John says something that Steve disagrees with, Steve will often seek to understand John’s point of view and work with John resolve the issue.
We want long term relationships in business as well because repeat customers are great and easier than acquiring new customers.
Treating People and Problem as One
As with the kitchen example, we tend to mix people and problem together. If we separated the two, then the kitchen problem would simply be the dirty dishes, nothing more. In the same frame of mind, saying “our bank account is low” is simply a statement of a problem. No implication on anything more. Its very difficult to separate the two because we infer other matters yet separating them is the key to more effective negotiation.
Positional Negotiation Hurts Relationships
Traditional negotiation is focused on positions (i.e. the end solution to a problem). Starting a negotiation with a desired outcome that the other person thinks is extreme will hurt the relationship as the other person will see you as unreasonable.
In contrast, if we see ourselves as partners trying to come up with a solution to meet both of our interests, the relationship will be strengthened.
Separate The People From The Problem
Dealing with the substance and maintaining a good relationship are not conflicting goals. This requires both parties to treat people and substance separately on their own individual merits. Deal with people problems with how you treat people, not with substance concessions and remember that you have the same short falls as the other person. For example, with psychological problems, use psychological techniques.
Perceptions
The goal is to reach mutual understandings. Look for ways to test assumptions and educate.
Reality Is What You & They Think It Is
Seek to understand the other side’s thinking and how they perceive things as that is the problem you are trying to work with, before trying to be understood. Differences are not between a thing (e.g. such as a car accident), but between how two parties think of the thing (e.g. which person believes someone is responsible). People falsely believe they need to know more about the thing but in reality they need to know more about how the other person thinks about the thing. Its not about the “objective reality” (such as facts), its about how each person perceives it through their own “lens” which will be different (see this blog article for a classic example)
Fears, even if unfounded, are real fears and need to be dealt with. Hopes, even if unrealistic, can cause problems. Facts, even if established, may do nothing to solve a problem. For example, if someone lost a watch and another person found it, they can still disagree on who should get the watch.
“Objective Reality” is useful but ultimately its how the parties perceive the “reality” which matters.
A simple principle which is the foundation is “Seek To Understand Before Being Understood”. With that intent you can “put yourself in someone’s shoes” to understand their point of view. You can listen Emphatically (for content and emotion) so you can feel how they feel. Withhold judgment for a while as you “try on their views”
Landlord
A simple example of perception differences. Consider a landlord and a tenant. The rent is X. The tenant perceives the rent is too high. The landlord perceives that the rent has not been raised in a long time. The “objective reality” is that the rent is X but how each side perceives it is what really matters.
Understanding the other person does not mean you need to agree with them. You may decide to change your perception when you understand the other person which can help with the negotiation and is not a cost but a benefit.
Don’t deduce their intentions from your fears
People think that whatever they fear, the other side intends to do. Its a natural thing to do, is usually incorrect, and the cost is that fresh ideas are spurned and subtle changes in solutions are rejected.
Don’t blame the other side for your problem
Its tempting to blame the other person for your problem. Its easy to do and especially if you think they are responsible. Even if its justified, the other side will usually become defensive and resist what you are trying to say. They will resist and counter attack. This will cause the people and the problem to be entangled instead of separated.
For example, don’t say “You’re incompetent which is why our dishwasher never works”. Do say “Our dishwasher keeps breaking. Do we need a new service company, a new dishwasher, or what?”
Distinguish the symptoms from the person you are talking with
The kitchen has dirty dishes, and this frequently happens. We need clean dishes. Should we hire a cleaning person, figure out a different plan, or other ideas?
Discuss each person’s perceptions
You can make them explicit and discuss with the other side without blaming. For example, “I’ve noticed the kitchen is dirty”, and not “You didn’t clean the kitchen” or “I’m really fed up with you not cleaning the kitchen”.
Embrace the concerns that are not a problem for agreement
Letting the other party know you understand their concerns, even if those concerns are not a problem for agreement, will let the other party know that you understood them. This is a big investment in showing them you are seeking to understand. For a silly kitchen example, “you want to make sure we use natural products when we clean the dishes”
Look for opportunity to act inconsistently with their perceptions
Send them a message that is different than what they expect. If they expect you to be hostile and you are not, show them that you are not by acting how you see yourself by being kind, courteous, and caring.
Give them a stake by making sure they participate in the process
If someone is involved in the process of reaching a conclusion, they will have a stake in it and committed to it. Way too often people try to figure out all the hard stuff themselves without involving the other party because they think they are helping. This actually has the opposite effect. Come to the other party with the problem, not the solution and work together to figure it out. Get the other side involved early. Ask their advice and give credit generously for ideas wherever possible. The feeling of participation will determine wether a negotiator accepts the proposal(s). The process is the product.
Face Saving
Make your proposal consistent with their values. Face saving is not about you giving in to help someone from being embarrassed. People have a need to ensure their stand in a negotiation meets with their existing principles and past words and deeds. Ensuring this need is met will go a long way to a successful proposal.
People often will hold back on a proposal that is acceptable simply because they don’t want to feel they backed down. If the substance can be stated so that it is understood as a fair outcome, then they’ll accept it.
We can do better
As you can see, there are a lot of nuances to how people interpret things, how they can take things personally, and how people and the problem are often combined together. It is more effective to separate substance & people in a negotiation, and address each one separately. Both are important but we will often benefit by separating them and addressing each accordingly.
Stay Tuned
In the next blog article we will continue our discussion of how to handle typical people related problems in a negotiation and how we can be more effective with this knowledge.
If you liked this article and would like to be notified when future ones are published, subscribe to our mailing list.
