• Win-win
Both parties get everything they want! This is the best of all possible worlds! It’s the ideal outcome. But while the win-win is much talked about, much sought after, and much prized, it is rarely achieved. The main purpose of this book is to help make this outcome easier to achieve.
FIVE STYLES OF NEGOTIATING
There are two dimensions that determine negotiating style: assertiveness and people orientation.
Assertiveness is the ability to communicate your interests clearly and directly. It means standing up for yourself without stepping on anyone else’s toes. Assertive people are able to ask for what they want, say no when they need to, and state how they feel in any situation. They also accept standards of fairness and recognize the rights and interests of others. They are able to advance their own interests without guilt or reservation.
People orientation denotes a sensitivity to the needs and feelings of others. It encompasses empathy, emotional awareness, and ease in social situations. Those with a high people orientation are generally sociable and likable. They are people driven rather than task driven, and they seek to understand their counterpart’s interests as well as their own.
Your negotiating style is a function of how assertive and how people oriented you are, as illustrated in this diagram:
1. Avoiding
A person with an avoiding style of negotiating avoids the issues, the other party, and negotiation situations as much as possible. An avoiding negotiator
• avoids confrontation, controversy, tense situations,
• avoids discussing issues, concerns—especially sensitive ones,
• is uncomfortable asserting her needs and saying no to her counterpart, and
• puts off negotiating whenever possible.
2. Accommodating
The accommodating negotiator is primarily concerned with preserving his relationship with the other party, even at the expense of his own substantive interests. An accommodating negotiator
• is uncomfortable saying no and focuses on the other party’s concerns more than his own,
• helps the other party at his own expense,
• tries to win approval by pleasing the other party,
• follows the other party’s lead, and
• emphasizes areas of agreement and downplays or ignores differences.
3. Competing
The competing style of negotiating is characterized by an emphasis on self-interest and winning at the other party’s expense. A competitive negotiator
• uses power to effect a more favorable outcome,
• exploits the other party’s weaknesses,
• wears the other party down until he gives in, and
• may use threats, manipulation, dishonesty, and hardball tactics.
4. Compromising
The compromising style places a premium on fairness and balance, with each party making some sacrifice to get part of what they want. A compromising negotiator believes she is unlikely to get everything she wants and
• is quick to split the difference,
• assumes a quid pro quo, give-and-take process is necessary, and
• seeks a solution in the middle of the range, without making much effort to find a win-win outcome.
5. Collaborating
Negotiators with a collaborating style seek an optimal outcome by focusing on mutual interests and trying to satisfy each other’s needs. A collaborating negotiator
• deals openly and communicates clearly and effectively,
• builds trust,
• listens to the other party,
• shares ideas and information,
• seeks understanding and creative solutions,
• considers multiple options,
• strives to create value, and
• sees negotiating as an exercise in joint problem solving.
Avoiding and accommodating negotiators generally do not fare well in negotiations, especially when their counterpart has a stronger style. They tend to be soft and are not comfortable being firm. They need to be more assertive. Preparing thoroughly may help compensate for their lack of confidence and drive at the negotiating table. This means understanding the subject matter, their interests and currencies, and their counterparts’ interests, currencies, needs, and constraints. It also means anticipating what might occur during the negotiation and having a clear idea of what they will do if various contingencies unfold. Having an assertive colleague present during negotiating sessions could also help, as people often push harder for others than for themselves, but I strongly recommend a course on assertiveness training and practice developing assertiveness skills.
Competitive negotiators look for a win-lose result— winning is everything. It would be wise for them to help their counterpart get at least a partial win as well. After all, they still win, and they also gain goodwill by allowing their counterpart to enjoy a better than expected outcome. However, competitive negotiators often want to see their counterpart lose: for them, it reinforces the idea that they have won. It is not pleasant dealing with a competitive negotiator, even if you are assertive. However, you will need to negotiate with such a person on occasion. The best you can do is to understand him, brace yourself, and try to find a win-win. He may not begrudge you a win if he wins as well, but ultimately, he is only concerned with his own interests.
Compromising negotiators, at first glance, appear reasonable. They are willing to give up something in exchange for something else, provided their counterparts do the same. It seems only fair. Some people even define negotiation as the art of compromise. However, this approach does the art of negotiating a disservice. As we will see shortly, it is the easy way out. It is far better to learn the ways of the win-win negotiator than to settle for a quick and easy partial win.
Collaborating negotiators, as you have probably guessed, are win-win negotiators. They work with their counterparts to solve their problem together by building trust, communicating openly, identifying interests, leveraging currencies, and designing options that allow them to create maximum value for all involved.
WHEN TO USE EACH STYLE
The collaborating style of negotiating is clearly the win-win approach. If we are advocating the win-win approach and learning win-win techniques, why bother with the other four styles? There are a few reasons.
• While you may be sold on the merits of win-win negotiating, your counterpart may not see it that way. You will find yourself dealing with competitive types. You need to recognize that style and know how to protect yourself.
• Even committed win-win negotiators can use other styles. Sometimes you will be expected to be competitive, or to compromise. Remember, negotiation is a game. You need to understand and play by the rules.
• No single style is good enough for all occasions. You will need to be flexible enough to adopt other styles.
• And let’s face it, there may be times when you adopt a competitive posture because you want to win as much as possible and are not concerned with how your counterpart fares. When buying a used car or negotiating disputed charges with the phone company, do you really care if the other party doesn’t make money on the deal?
Most people have a dominant or preferred style, but it may vary with the situation and the people involved. While collaboration is generally the best outcome, and avoidance and accommodation are not usually effective, there are times when each style has its own advantages.
Consider choosing an approach based on the following factors:
1. Avoiding
When the issue is trivial, it may not be worth your time. When emotions are running high, it is wise to put off negotiating until the emotions subside. However, this should be a temporary measure. Avoidance is a poor long-term strategy. If you find yourself rationalizing avoiding behavior frequently, face reality and sign up for assertiveness training.
2. Accommodating
When the issue in question is not important t
o you but is important to the other party, you may choose to let them have the point. This is an easy concession to make in exchange for something else later. You might ask for something on the spot in exchange for your concession. Or you might just bask in the magnanimity of letting the other person have what they want, especially if the relationship is a close one (like a marriage!).
3. Competing
In a one-off negotiation where you have no ongoing relationship with your counterpart, you may not care whether he wins or loses, you just want a win. Or in a negotiation where the only issue is price, a gain for one party means a loss for the other. The most likely result when negotiating solely on price is a partial win for both parties, but you may want your part to be as big as possible. Finally, you may find yourself negotiating in a crisis situation that requires quick, decisive action on your part.
4. Compromising
You may find yourself in a situation where time pressures require a prompt settlement, and you don’t have the time to explore win-win solutions. Or where both parties are equal in power and neither will concede much. Or where the parties accept a compromise as a temporary measure to a complex problem, and intend to pursue a more lasting settlement later—for example, a ceasefire agreement rather than a full-blown treaty. You might also compromise when neither party can propose a win-win solution and both prefer a partial win to no deal, although in such cases it would be best to put in more effort and try to come up with more imaginative options.
5. Collaborating
When both parties want a win-win and have the time and mindset to pursue it, the chance of a win-win is good. Or the issue may be too important to compromise, and failure is not an option. When a win-win is imperative, there is often a way to get it.
While collaboration is the ideal, even win-win negotiators need to use other approaches on occasion.
DISTRIBUTIVE VS INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATIONS
Another factor that could influence your choice of negotiating style is whether the negotiation is a distributive or an integrative negotiation.
In a distributive, zero sum, or fixed pie negotiation, the parties negotiate over a single issue. To use a time-worn metaphor, this is about dividing the pie, and each party wants the bigger piece. Any gain by one party comes at the expense of the other. A win-lose or partial win result is likely, and some compromise is usually necessary.
The most common form of a distributive negotiation is where the parties haggle over the price of a single item. The sole issue is the price to be paid: the buyer wants to pay less, while the seller wants to receive more. Other single issue negotiations might involve the allocation of a limited resource such as time, manpower, or use of equipment.
In a distributive negotiation you are likely to adopt a competitive approach. When both parties want more, they have to fight for it. This is especially true in a one-off negotiation, where there is no continuing relationship. In some relationships—such as a marriage or a workplace setting—you will still have a series of single issue, distributive negotiations. In such cases you will want to think twice about a competitive stance and consider tradeoffs to keep the relationship on an even keel.
In an integrative negotiation there are multiple issues. This allows for the possibility of tradeoffs, creating value, expanding the pie, and maybe even a win-win. A collaborative approach will make that win-win more likely. By introducing additional issues to a single-issue negotiation you can change it from distributive to integrative and increase the likelihood of a win-win.
In reality, most negotiations are a mix of distributive and integrative. After the parties collaborate to make the pie as big as possible and create maximum value, they stop playing nice and try to get as much as they can. When shifting from integrative (expanding the pie) to distributive mode (dividing the pie), you don’t want to seem like a Jekyll and Hyde. The transition is smoother when you create value for both parties, empathize, and have a solid rationale to justify your claims.
THE PROBLEM WITH COMPROMISE
When two people can’t quite close the gap and reach an agreement, it is common to compromise. One person might say “Let’s just split the difference,” or “Let’s meet in the middle.” He believes this is the fair thing to do, as each party is making a sacrifice and each is getting part of what he wants. While compromise may seem fair, it is not good negotiating.
The Old Testament tells a story about two women, each claiming to be the mother of an infant. The women approached King Solomon to resolve their dispute. He suggested that they cut the baby in half, knowing that the real mother would prefer to see her child alive with someone else than dead in her own arms. Sure enough, he was right—King Solomon was known for his wisdom, after all! Imagine if the two women did agree to split the baby. That would definitely have been a lose-lose outcome, but a compromise often is.
When we compromise, both parties make a sacrifice. While each gets something, neither gets everything he wants. Compromising usually leads to a partial win at best, never a win-win.
A better way is to consider more options and try to find a win-win. Sure, it takes more effort, but we often take the easy way out and compromise far too quickly, without really trying to find a win-win solution.
Consider compromising only as a last resort. While compromise is often used to resolve difficult negotiations, it is a copout. Exhaust all efforts to collaborate on a win-win outcome before taking the easy way out. It may take time, perseverance, creativity, and a good flow of communication, but the results will be worth it.
Some years ago, my wife and I were discussing where to go for our vacation. She wanted to go to Hawaii, and I wanted to go to Kyoto. How could we resolve our differences?
1. We could go to Hawaii one year and she would be happy and I would not be, then go to Kyoto the next year and I would be happy and she would not be. Not optimal.
2. She could go to Hawaii and I could go to Kyoto. Also not optimal, possibly grounds for divorce.
3. We could meet in the middle—compromise—and we would have ended up somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. Definitely not optimal.
In the end, we understood that where we thought we wanted to go was a position. The reasons we wanted to go there reflected our interests. (Positions and interests will be covered in the next chapter.) I asked her why she wanted to go to Hawaii. She gave her reasons:
1. “I like a relaxing vacation. Kyoto is not relaxing, it is hectic, getting on the tour bus, going to a shrine, getting off the tour bus to visit the shrine, getting back on the bus to go to the next shrine, etc.”
2. “I like a tropical vacation with a beach. Kyoto is not tropical, and I don’t think it has a beach.”
3. “I like to enjoy a drink and watch the sunset. Kyoto is in the land of the rising sun, and I don’t know if it has a sunset.”
Then I gave her my reasons why I wanted to go to Kyoto:
1. “I am an art lover. Kyoto has a lot of great art. The only art in Hawaii are those carved coconut heads.”
2. “I also appreciate architecture. Kyoto has magnificent architecture, with wooden temples hundreds of years old, built without a single nail. Hawaii’s architecture is mostly uninspiring post-WWII cement block buildings.”
3. “I like a place with a sense of history. Kyoto has an exceptionally rich history.”
Having identified our interests, our task was to find a place that satisfied both of our interests to the greatest extent possible. Where could we go that was relaxing, had fabulous beaches and gorgeous sunsets, as well as a rich sense of history with lots of great art and architecture? We went to Bali, and we were both happy.
FRAMING
Two people can look at the same situation and interpret it differently. One sees the glass as half empty, the other as half full. One sees a risk, the other an opportunity. How you see it depends on the lens through which you view the world, or your frame.
A frame is an arbitrary reference point that influences the way a person views a situ
ation. While people will usually adopt a frame without giving it much thought, they can be swayed to adopt another frame. This ability to shape another’s perceptions is too powerful to ignore. Consequently, a win-win negotiator thinks about how issues are framed.
You may be familiar with the story of Tom Sawyer whitewashing his Aunt Polly’s fence. One fine sunny morning, Aunt Polly assigned Tom this unpleasant chore. As Tom toiled away, other kids interrupted their play to tease him. Tom pretended not to be bothered, and told the others it wasn’t work, it was fun. After all, you can go swimming or fishing anytime, but it’s not every day you get the chance to whitewash a fence.
It wasn’t long before the other boys were begging for a turn with the brush. Tom expressed doubt as to whether he should let others share in his fun, which made them even more eager to do it. Soon, all the boys in the neighborhood were lining up for a turn, and trading their prized possessions for the privilege! Tom relaxed in the shade, enjoying his windfall while the others completed his chore.
Tom Sawyer was able to persuade others to do an unpleasant task by framing it in a positive way. The other boys adopted his frame and agreed to his proposal.
Most people feel more strongly about avoiding a loss than working for a gain. In a widely cited study, Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky found that people were motivated twice as much by the fear of a loss as by the prospect of a gain.* In other words, losing is twice as painful as winning is enjoyable. People in a loss-minimizing frame of mind will try harder and risk more to avoid the loss. You can exploit this mindset by playing to their fears, by saying, “It would be a shame to miss out on this deal after all we’ve put into it.”
People in a gain maximizing frame, on the other hand, are more conservative and more likely to accept a moderate gain than to fight hard for a more advantageous settlement. They are easier to negotiate with. The upshot of all this is that you should encourage your counterpart to adopt a gain maximizing frame. You can influence her by emphasizing what she stands to gain if you are able to reach an agreement, rather than what she may lose if you don’t. A frame emphasizing what you’re giving the other party (“We can let you have the apartment for $1,600 a month”) normally works better than one in which you’re asking them to give up something (“We’re asking $1,600 a month rent for the apartment”).
WIN-WIN Page 3