Removing the need for negotiation

“You pay $150 dolla!!”
“No, I’m not paying anything!”
“Your fault, you pay $150 dolla!”
“No, it was your fault. I’m not paying anything!”

I move over to the curb as my friend and an enraged taxi driver continue their dialogue in the middle of the street. Cars on either side are incessantly using their car horns to signal their frustration with the gridlock. Some try to slowly squeeze past in the small gap that is not taken up by the taxis. Meanwhile the line of cars is rapidly growing in length.

“You open door, you pay me $150 dolla!”
“Forget it. You’re the one who overtook us!

As my friend had exited our taxi, another taxi had overtaken us, resulting in a small collision. While our taxi was scratch free (well, no additional scratches from the collision), the side mirror assembly of the other car was now in pieces on the ground.

“You pay me $150 dolla!”
“Hey, there is no way that mirror costs $150 dollars!”

This move was a mistake. By engaging in the conversation about cost, my friend could be perceived as accepting responsibility for the accident and now the question is reduced to “how much will he pay”. The taxi driver quickly picked up on this.

“Ok, you pay me $120 dolla!”

How are they negotiating now? Yes, old-style bargaining over money. This battle of attrition continued for about 10 minutes. So please picture 10 minutes of standing in the middle of the road, emotions running high, and with cars passing within centimetres, in the dusty, hot and humid air of South East Asia.

Eventually my friend turns silent, disengages from the dialogue, walks up to the damaged taxi, leans forward, and picks up the pieces of the side mirror. While he slowly inspects the mirror, the taxi driver continues their negotiation:

“70 dolla. You pay me 70 dolla!”

And then we all hear a *CLICK*. Was that… Could it be… Yes, as I look over I see that my friend have successfully put the side-mirror back together.

“But it is not working. You pay me $70 dolla!”
“How do you know it’s not working? Try it!”

The taxi driver reluctantly tries the electric mirror control. And voila, it’s all working and no visible scratches!

What begun as a clumsy bargaining process was resolved using masterful negotiation. My friend had snapped out of the traditional “I’m right and you’re wrong” or “I want XYZ from you” mentality, and instead removed the need to have a negotiation altogether.

In our book we named this technique preventative options – options (or solutions) that allow us to prevent the need to have particularly difficult negotiations. While our example here was quite trivial, this technique becomes a very powerful option for values-based negotiations where parties will never change their mind or accept being “wrong” (e.g. on abortion, religion, global warming, gun control, etc).

Advertisements

Proof that influence is counterintuitive

(This is a repost from Filip’s original blog)

I consistently tell people that we (as in “human beings”) are all bad at negotiation.

But why do I keep trying to bring everyone (including myself!) down? Doesn’t this statement risk causing disagreement, resistance or friction? And if so, wouldn’t that constitute bad negotiation behaviour on my part? Absolutely! That is a very valid point; skilled negotiators rarely cause disagreement, and only do so if it serves a specific purpose.

Fortunately, in this case it does serve a purpose. The purpose is to help people realize that effective negotiation behaviour is counterintuitive. We typically do not adopt new and counterintuitive behaviour without first experiencing a shock to our system. In lectures that shock is called the AHA! moment, where participants suddenly realize that something they have been doing for the last 20-50 years causes rather than resolves problems between themselves and others.

Unfortunately you and I don’t have the opportunity to share a lecture theatre, so how else can I create this AHA! moment for you? How about I give you a piece of carefully designed homework?

…and I just lost 50% of my readers 😉

For the rest of you, the homework is as follows: The next time you in an angry state write an email response someone else, I want you to try the following:

  1. Create a new email.
  2. Write your response.
  3. Don’t send the email, instead save it as a draft.
  4. Repeat steps 1-3 ten times.
  5. Then compare version 10 with version 1.

My prediction is that version 1 will be comparatively more focused on you, how you feel, the problem you perceive, why you are right, and the selective evidence that supports your arguments. Writing this email will make you feel better. But sending this email will make you feel something else; most likely regret.

In contrast, version 10 will have more focus on both parties, commonalities, and how the process can move forward towards agreement and outcomes. Version 10 will also have less inflammatory language, accusations, projections, transference, and other forms of pollution that predictably cause negotiations to derail. Sending this version of the email is more likely to get you your desired outcome.

So how does this prove that influence is counterintuitive? Well, you just proved it to yourself! I haven’t seen your ten versions, but I know that you will agree that version 10 is more influential than version 1. I suspect that you will even agree that your first response, i.e. your intuitive response, would have done a terrible job of helping you get your desired outcome.

Now, when writing emails we can afford 10 attempts to improve on our initial, intuitive response. But how many attempts do we get in our face-to-face interactions..? Oh, that’s right, just the one… Ouch!

If only there was something we could do to improve that unrehearsed first version of our face-to-face interaction with others… What if there was a book that we could read? A book that could serve as our companion on a life long journey towards outstanding negotiation performance…? 😉

Being right is not important, but it can be dangerous

(This is a repost from Filip’s original blog)

Negotiation is often discussed in the context of business transactions. And in that context the approach that most of us follow intuitively centers around trying to win by getting the biggest chunk of (what we perceive to be) the available value. (This may be a good time to ready my previous blog on: Why we don’t know what we want.)

But most of our negotiations are not large monetary transactions with similarly groomed executives in high-rise boardrooms. They are simply interactions with others. These interactions may have little to do with money, and everything to do with something much more important to us; being right! Actually, simply being right is not enough – we want the other party to concede that we are right and that they are wrong.

This is a predictable pattern of behaviour. Negotiators love predictability because it gives us greater control of the negotiation. Specifically, if we realize that it is hugely important for the other party to feel that they are right, then we may simply let them be right.

E.g., if I propose a solution to something, e.g. gun control in a previous blog, then I’m not married to the specific recommendation. What I do care about is an outcome that works for everyone, regardless of who came up with that outcome. So if the other party I negotiate with doesn’t like my idea then I simply invite them to help me out: “If you didn’t like my proposal, then how do you recommend we improve it so that it does a better job of catering to all stakeholders’ needs?”

As long as the solution the other party comes up with is better for all, then the only drawback of this approach is that I don’t get credit for the outcome. Unfortunately, this is one major reason why “the skilled negotiator” is such a rare breed – because few of us are prepared to give up credit and recognition! (As described in my upcoming book, having a sensitive ego and being a skilled negotiator are not compatible.) 

Ok, so letting the other party believe that they are right can be beneficial. But can it ever be dangerous? Unfortunately, yes.

If parties don’t look for outcomes that work for all, but rather pursue self-serving outcomes at the expense of others, then suddenly believing that one is right becomes a very dangerous ingredient. Some of the worst atrocities in history have occurred as a direct result of one or more parties justifying their (often greedy, unethical, illegal or inhumane) actions with self-serving beliefs such as “We are the good guys”, “We are right”, or “God is on our side”. In these circumstances, logic and rational thinking effectively get switched off, and we need different tools to resolve the situation than those covered today.