{"id":1584,"date":"2019-09-25T22:32:50","date_gmt":"2019-09-26T02:32:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=1584"},"modified":"2022-03-08T09:54:45","modified_gmt":"2022-03-08T13:54:45","slug":"issues-in-negotiation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/issues-in-negotiation\/","title":{"rendered":"The #1 Source of Issues in Negotiation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In our daily lives, we all negotiate with others for things we want<\/strong>, whether the context is business or personal. But we almost always run into issues in negotiation. What’s their cause? And how can we avoid them?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We’ll cover the common issues in negotiation and the best strategies for negotiating effectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The Source of Issues in Negotiation<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Despite the prevalence of negotiation, we don\u2019t do it very well. Most people haven\u2019t been taught negotiation skills<\/a>, but a bigger problem is the inadequacy of the age-old adversarial method we use, which people call positional bargaining<\/a>. This type of bargaining is the source of most issues in negotiations.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In positional bargaining, each side starts with a position, argues and defends it, and bargains <\/strong>to reach a compromise. An example is when you bargain with a seller over the price of something.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

People tend to take one of two approaches: aggressive or friendly (hard or soft). Hard negotiators strive to win by taking the toughest positions and holding out the longest. They may use posturing, threats, and other strong-arm tactics. This is one issue in negotiation. Those who take a friendlier approach try to avoid conflict<\/a> and reach an amicable agreement. But this is another issue in negotiation. Neither approach is ideal. Positional bargaining often produces unfair, less-than-optimal outcomes, and it\u2019s inefficient and damages relationships. 
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Solution: Principled Negotiation<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To avoid common issues in negotiation, use principled negotiation<\/a>. This tactic is designed to generate fair agreements efficiently and civilly<\/strong>. Negotiators decide issues on the objective  merits (facts and evidence), rather than on what\u2019s acceptable or unacceptable to each side, and they look for mutual gains<\/a>. Where interests conflict, results are based on fair, objective standards. Principled negotiators avoid deceptive tactics, posturing, and threats, and therefore avoid many issues in negotiation.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyone can use principled negotiation in almost any circumstances. There are four elements:
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. People<\/strong>: Separate personalities and emotions from the issue being negotiated<\/strong>. Because the relationship involves people and their emotions, it gets intertwined with the substance of the negotiations. For example, you may think you\u2019re simply pointing out a problem (\u201cThe warehouse is a mess\u201d), but someone on the other side may take it as a personal attack or blaming. Handling people sensitively and respectfully is a prerequisite for successful negotiation and for a constructive ongoing relationship.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is important because most negotiations involve a long-term relationship that\u2019s important to maintain. For instance, union members and bosses must be able to work together for a strong company bottom line and job stability. Accounting for human emotions is important in avoiding many issues in negotiation.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Interests<\/strong>: Focus on the underlying interests of each side, not on positions<\/strong>. Interests involve people\u2019s needs, desires, fears, and concerns \u2014 they\u2019re the reasons behind the positions people take. 
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An example illustrates the difference. Two men get into an argument at a library because one wants to keep a window open while the other wants to close it; neither is willing to go halfway. The librarian asks each man for his reasons. One wants the window open to get fresh air; the other wants it closed to avoid a draft. So, the librarian opens a window in an adjoining room to provide airflow and avoid creating a draft. She resolved the conflict by focusing on the men\u2019s underlying interests, rather than their positions on opening or closing a particular window. This resolved the initial issues in negotiation.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Options<\/strong>: Come up with multiple options based on mutual interests<\/strong>. A common challenge in negotiations arises when there doesn\u2019t seem to be a way to split the pie that serves both sides. The choice seems to be having a winner and a loser, and neither side wants to lose. But the dilemma opens up the opportunity for creative options that expand the pie before dividing it. A creative solution can break an impasse, avoid other issues in negotiations, and result in a better agreement. 
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty reached at Camp David in 1978 succeeded in part because negotiators considered the interests behind the two countries\u2019 positions on the issue of what to do with the Sinai Peninsula, which Egypt had occupied since 1967. Each side wanted control over it and neither would compromise. Egypt\u2019s interest was in sovereignty over land of historical importance to them. Israel\u2019s interest was security \u2014 they didn\u2019t want Egyptian tanks positioned on their border. The solution addressing both interests was to give Egypt sovereignty but create large demilitarized zones.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Criteria<\/strong>: Base the agreement on objective (fair and independent) standards<\/strong>. Standard negotiations are a battle of wills. For instance, with a labor contract, the prevailing side determines the level of pay increases and benefits, based on their view of what\u2019s appropriate. But you can avoid arbitrary agreements by demanding the results meet objective standards independent of either side \u2014 for instance, market values, legal standards, average salaries, expert opinions or data, or customary practices. Instead of arguing about what either side is willing to accept, agree to objective standards that will serve as the rationale for the specifics in the agreement. That way, neither party is imposing their say-so for what\u2019s fair on the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other Issues in Negotiation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Two more types of issues in negotiation are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n