Opinion - Recommendations to be a better negotiator

Author: Helder Chaminé

We all are negotiators, regardless of whether we want ot be or not, as negotiations are presente in almost every area of our lives.

A negotiation can lead us to failure or to a dispute of wills, when a side of the negotiation wants to be more right than the other.

People usually assume that two postures in a negotiation, the affable and the harsh, and in many cases both are inefficient.

People that assume an affable posture do not aim within an agreement to achieve that led them to negotiate, but to maintain a good relationship with the other party of the agreement.

However the affable attitude is overpowered if the other side of the agreement assumes a harsh attitude, because the one who assumes this harsh attitude has as his main objective only victory. For him there is no such thing as a mutually beneficial agreement, but rather a win-win and a lose-lose agreement.

Faced with a rough negotiator vs. a rough negotiator, it will become a contest of will, hence inefficient.

There is, however, a third way to conduct a good negotiation. It is neither soft nor hard and yet it is. It is a combination of elements of affable negotiation with elements of rough negotiation. When affable be affable with the people you are negotiating with, when rough be rough with the issues that need to be resolved.

There are four steps to consider to be a good negotiator:

1. Separate People from the Problem
2. Focus on Interests, not Positions
3. Invent Mutually Winning Options
4. Insist on Objective Criteria

It is difficult to deal with problems without people misunderstanding each other, getting angry or irritated and ending up taking things personally. This is precisely why it is so important, first and foremost, to be aware that negotiators are people.

This means saying that every negotiator must clearly understand that the other party has emotions, deep-rooted values and different backgrounds and points of view and are unpredictable.

In other words, they are human beings.

It is up to the good negotiator to know how to use this human aspect to conduct negotiations in a profitable or disastrous way. It is worth asking yourself: am I paying enough attention to the people problem?

A fundamental consequence of the people problem in negotiation is that the relationship between the parties tends to become confused with their discussions of substance. This is very common in any professional environment, where whenever someone identifies some problem, such as "the meeting is a mess", there will always be people who will extract from this comment unfounded interferences, that is, they believe that the comment is a form of personal attack.

The negotiator should never take a rigid and fixed stance on the negotiation.

Extreme positions make the other party think that you do not value the relationship and compromise the negotiation process in the long term (long-term relationships). You should also not give in on significant points, as it will give the other party the idea that you are easily manipulated. One should always focus on mutual interests (forming partnerships) and in cases of disagreements, seek to understand the other party through questions, always keeping reason over emotion.

In this way, it is important to know how to deal with people's problems and not try to solve them through compromise. Personal problems can be classified into 3 categories: perception, emotion and communication.

PERCEPTION

The other side's thinking is the problem. The differences are defined by the difference between your thinking and theirs. However much both parties agree on the object of the problem, this does not mean they also agree on how to solve it. That is why it is important to put yourself in the other person's shoes (empathy), to understand their emotions, motivations, interests and points of view. This does not mean that you are agreeing with the other party, but it reduces the area of conflict considerably.

People tend to assume that what they fear is what the other side intends to do (mistrust). It is quite difficult to ignore this feeling that is human nature, but one should be aware that interpreting things from a gloomy perspective makes it impossible for new ideas to emerge that can help in the agreement.

It is also very common to see people assign blame (even if totally justified) to the other party, but this is never productive to the negotiation process. When put under attack, the other side becomes defensive and resists what you will say. The good negotiator is one who, when talking about the problem, separates the symptoms from the person they are talking to.

Finally, it is important to involve the parties in the process so that they feel participatory in the outcome and approve the product. This way, both parties feel like influencers of the process, which avoids or at least minimises the feeling or appearance of the other party of being "bowing down" to the other side.

EMOTION

Often during a negotiation the parties are more prepared for a battle than for jointly working out a solution to the common problem. This is because they are aware of the high risks and feel threatened. Fear can generate anger, and anger, fear.

Therefore, the negotiator has to know not only how to assess his own emotions, but also how to control and deal with the emotions of the other party. Feelings should be expressed with the aim of minimizing conflicts, allowing the other side to vent (if necessary) and not reacting to emotional outbursts.

COMMUNICATION

Communication is the basis of any negotiation. It is therefore essential to listen actively and record what is being said. A good negotiator pays attention to what the other party is saying and to reinforce this understanding can use a technique of asking "Did I understand correctly that you are saying that...? In this way you reinforce the other party's point of view, making clear the strength of your argument, which in no way means you agree with them.

Another point of attention is not to allow overcommunication. When emotions surface during a negotiation, it is common for the parties to use arguments and thoughts that are not the focus of the meeting. It is necessary to be assertive and objective during a negotiation, understanding that sometimes it is better to keep quiet than to create personal problems with the other. It is the problem that should be faced, not the people.

A good negotiator is one who focuses on interests and not positions. This is the only way to reach a solution. To identify interests ask yourself two simple questions: "Why?" and "Why not?".

With the first question, you can put yourself in the other person's shoes, examining every position they take and what their fundamental concern is.

With the second question, "Why not?" you are able to think about the other's choice, understanding why the other party has not made that decision. What are their goals that are acting as obstacles?

But the parties do not have just one interest (but multiple ones) and almost never will the interests be the same as yours, although people often think this way. In any case, one should be aware that the most powerful interests are the basic human needs. This argument is heavily influenced by the theory developed by Maslow, who categorised human needs through a pyramid of hierarchies. At the bottom of the pyramid are the most basic needs of any human being and as these are met, new needs emerge until they reach the top. These needs are: security, economic well-being, social inclusion, recognition and self-actualisation.

A good negotiator should explain his interests and reasons and then provide his conclusions and proposals. He should be very objective, talking about where he wants to get to rather than explaining his starting point. You should also be careful not to confuse objectivity with inflexibility, as a good negotiator knows that there are several options that meet your interest (new ideas).

It is very valuable to have several options during a negotiation, but people rarely feel the need for them. This is because most people tend to believe they know the right answer, i.e. they want to make their opinion prevail. There are four fundamental obstacles that inhibit the invention of multiple options:

PREMATURE JUDGMENT

People's critical sense is the main inhibitor of new ideas, always ready to hinder imagination. To prevent this from happening, hold brainstorming sessions with the aim of extracting new ideas from participants from options where criticism is strictly forbidden.

SEARCH FOR AN ONLY ANSWER

Most people believe that inventing is not part of a negotiation process. They tend to think "We have enough trouble reaching agreement as it is" and since the end product of a negotiation is a single decision, they fall into the error of believing that a profusion of new ideas would only confuse and slow down the process.

CONCERN THAT IF ONE WINS THE OTHER LOSES

The third explanation why there are not many good options is that each side sees the situation as essentially exclusive, that is, either I get what is under discussion or the other. The mistake is precisely to see negotiation as a war of interests where only one side will win.

THINK THAT "SOLVING THEIR PROBLEM IS THEIR PROBLEM"

The exclusive preoccupation of each side with its own immediate interests makes it extremely difficult to let go and devise new options to solve the problem and satisfy the interest of both parties.

Instead of premature judgement and one position to defend, invent multiple win-win options. It is not necessary to seek a single answer. The assumption that there is only one chance and one winner in the negotiation, can narrow your field of vision. Create free suggestion sessions and expand your options. Invent first, decide later. Try to help the other to solve his problem, this will make the decision making easier in search of an agreement.

No matter how well you understand the interests of the other side, no matter how much you invent new ways of reconciling interests, and no matter how much you value an ongoing relationship, you will always have to face the harsh reality of conflicting interests.

The more you apply standards of impartiality, efficiency or scientific merit to your problem, the more likely you are to produce a sensible and fair solution. People who use objective criteria tend to use their time more efficiently, talking about standards and possible solutions.

It is therefore important to prepare in advance to develop alternative standards that apply to your problem. There are a number of objective criteria available to use as the basis for an agreement, such as market value, costs, reciprocity, regulations, etc. These criteria should be independent of the will of either party, legitimate and practical.

Similarly, fair procedures exist where parties negotiate what they believe to be a fair settlement before deciding their respective roles in it. These are variations of the "one cuts, one chooses" technique that work precisely because both parties actively participate in the decision-making process.

A single point of caution is that the negotiator must understand that insisting that an agreement be based on objective criteria does not mean insisting that it be based exclusively on the criterion you propose. One standard of legitimacy does not preclude the existence of others. Finally, if the criteria are objective, clear and impartial, the negotiation is facilitated, stress is reduced, the relationship is preserved and future business is made possible.

Never give in to pressure. If, in an attempt to influence the negotiation process, the other person blackmails you, threatens you or makes unfounded offers to solve the problem, be firm and do not give in. Do not allow the other party to "buy" you to satisfy their own interests.

CONCLUSION

There are several techniques and ways of behaving and acting during a negotiation towards a final agreement that is fair and profitable not only for you. It is quite interesting to focus on the fact that negotiations are not battles or zero-sum games, but partnerships that are formed and last for a long time.

Of course, no method is perfect or complete to meet the millions of different types of negotiation that exist, especially when it comes to human beings.

It is important to know a little more about the human aspect, about emotional memory, emotion and communication, subjectivity, empathy and synergy in a negotiation, about miscommunication and the limits between reason and emotion.