Tip of the Month
June 2009: Know the nature of the challenge - structural, tactical, interpersonal
Taking skilled action in negotiation hinges on your ability to accurately diagnose the nature of the challenge you face. Broadly speaking, negotiation challenges fall into one of three categories:
- Structural: those systems, policies, laws, rules, roles, levels of authority, etc. that cannot be changed directly or immediately by parties to your negotiation, but generally constitute the context within which you must operate;
- Tactical: behavioral approaches you or your counterparties engage in during the negotiation, sometimes experienced as manipulative by the other parties even if not intended as such;
- Interpersonal: communication style or personality-based differences that lead to misunderstandings.
Our experience is that many negotiators "code" challenges at the table as interpersonal or even tactical in nature, when their true roots may be at the structural level. For example, a negotiation counterpart who does not budge from some seemingly arbitrary position may in fact be behaving in this way not because they are trying to extract concessions from you, or because they are a jerk, but because they have strict instructions from above and no authority to maneuver. The skilled negotiator will not react to the behavior at face value, but will work to identify the roots of the behavior and then find ways to address the real challenge - perhaps by involving the higher level decision-maker in a subsequent meeting.
May 2009: Getting underneath positions to interests
As the book Getting to Yes defines it, a position is something you have decided upon; the interests are the underlying needs, desires, concerns, and fears that caused you to so decide. It is a classic piece of advice in the interest-based negotiation model to focus on interests, not positions. Still, there is an art to uncovering interests; not everyone comes to the table prepared to share, much less in priority order, their interests as they relate to the matter at hand.
Anytime you are not sure whether you are hearing a position or an interest, or when you cannot seem to move beyond positional statements, consider asking questions like the following:
- "How would it help you if we agreed to [X]?"
- "What would doing [X] enable you to do?"
- "From your point of view, what would be wrong with doing [Y] or [Z]?"
- "What is more important to you, doing [A] or [B] first?"
Such questions invite your counterpart to share the underlying reasons or drivers behind their statements - in other words, their interests.
