So how can my team and I become better negotiators?
Good question. Negotiation is a broad topic. There seem to be as many opinions and advice filled publications regarding negotiation as there are negotiations themselves. Negotiation types are as unique as snowflakes – where none is the same as the next. A book listing strategies to match the available variety of negotiations would be, at best, rather large. However, as unique as they are, snowflakes all have six sides. So to prepare the team to deal with this complexity we can establish the mechanics of negotiation and build a framework that can be applied in any negotiating situation.
First, we can look at the negotiation in its basic form. The dictionary definition of negotiation is a “discussion aimed at reaching an agreement” (Oxford, 2021). Two people interacting and seeking agreement regarding a topic. The more people that are added the messier the negotiation becomes (Zartman, 1994). More on that in the next post.
Commonality one: The smallest (and simplest) negotiating number is two.
It is important at this point to draw a distinction between a negotiation and a debate (Dhar, 2021). A debate is generally a public argument regarding opposing views of a topic. In a debate there is usually a judge or committee that selects or votes on a “winner” – like a court trial between the defence and prosecution. If you are in a debate then most of this information will not help.
Commonality two: All negotiations are acts of agreement seeking.
A concentrated look at two people interacting reveals a list of characteristics that we can expect and that we can use to prepare for the negotiation. We have established that the simplest form of negotiation is between two people. As mentioned we can look at multiparty negotiations in the next post – the commonalities will remain primarily the same. One reason that all negotiations are unique is that all people are unique. Every person arrives at a negotiation with a different set of past experiences, a different personality and a different perspective (Pask, 1996; Dhar, 2021).
Commonality three: All negotiators are unique.
Given that the negotiators are two unique people and are seeking agreement regarding a topic it is vital that an exchange of perspectives begins with questions and answers from both negotiators. This shouldn't be confused with the exchange of messages which is akin to a debate (Scott, 2021; Cook,2018). This is a cycled, respectful exchange of perspectives and understandings of those perspectives for each person. After all, the definition of conversation is the “exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas” (Merriam – Webster, 2021).
Commonality four: All negotiations are the exchange of perspectives through conversation.
The next extremely important aspect of negotiation and conversation is the recognition that the meaning of a statement or perspective is determined by the person that listens to the perspective and not by the person that is explaining the statement (Scott, 2021). It is critical then that the speaker probes the listener for responses that establish the meaning that was intended from the listener. Also, and as important, it is imperative that the listener make clear their understanding of what the speaker has just said (Glanville, 2001).
Commonality five: The meanings of perspectives are decided by the listener – not the speaker.
The final side of our snowflake metaphor has to deal with goals, strategies and agenda's. The definition of the negotiation implies that every negotiator who has a unique perspective also has a unique goal - otherwise they would not engage in the negotiation in the first place(Scott, 2006). Negotiation is an activity that sets at least two people in an exchange of perspectives toward agreement about a topic.
Commonality six: All negotiators have an agenda.
We now have a list of commonalities that we can use to form a solid concept when we are tasked to negotiate. All of these commonalities lead to other considerations and nuances of the negotiation concept. More on those in future posts. For now, learning these features will give us a proper frame of mind when we are engaged in, or about to be engaged in, a negotiation. The key take away is that the things, situations and observations in our lives often involve negotiations and for us to arrive at successful agreements it is advantageous to understand the mechanics of human interaction that underlie every negotiation.
Consider these commonalities with regard to a negotiation that you have engaged in recently. Do they resonate? Better yet, think of a negotiation that you are gong to have in the future or that want to have – like a raise or a promotion – and see how these commonalities help form your plan for the negotiation.
More detail in the next post. Happy negotiating.
References
Negotiation noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com. (n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2021, from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/negotiation
Conversation | Definition of Conversation by Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2021, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conversation
Zartman, I.W. (1994). International Multilateral Negociation. Approaches to the Management of Complexity (I. W. Zartman (Ed.)). Jossey-Bass Inc. ISBN 1-55542-642-5
Dhar, J. (2021). How to have constructive conversations. TED. https://www.ted.com/talks/julia_dhar_how_to_have_constructive_conversations
Pask, G. (1996). Heinz von Foerster’s Self Organization, the Progenitor of Conversation and Interaction Theories. Systems Research, 13(3), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1735(199609)13:3<349::AID-SRES103>3.0.CO;2-G
Scott, B. (2021). Cybernetics for the Social Sciences. In Cybernetics for the Social Sciences. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004464490
Cook, P. (2018). The Contribution of Pathologies of Conversation Toward the Manifestation of Opposition To Landfill Siting [Athabasca University]. https://dt.athabascau.ca/jspui/handle/10791/243
Glanville, R. (2001). The man in the train: Complexity, unmanageability, conversation and trust. Grenzen Ökonomischen Denkens. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-322-90341-9_17
Scott, B. (2006). Reflexivity revisited: The sociocybernetics of belief, meaning, truth and power. Kybernetes, 35(3–4), 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684920610653638