Successful negotiation should never be a gamble! Effective negotiators are logical thinkers and can change their communication style to meet their objectives.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In their book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without\u00a0Giving In, Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton describe\u00a0four obstacles that stop the exploration of multiple options.<\/p>\n
Going into a complex negotiation with your mind made up\u00a0means that you might miss something that could be ideal, if it is\u00a0given some consideration. Having your mind made up will\u00a0interfere with imagination, creativity, and real problem solving.<\/p>\n
Be open to ideas and do some brainstorming with colleagues or\u00a0your committee beforehand. While this kind of creative exercise\u00a0may not feel natural to you, it does reflect the need for great\u00a0ideas to be a springboard for conversation and the perpetuation\u00a0of the business (or whatever it is that you are negotiating).<\/p>\n
Human nature makes us critical, and if we become cynical about\u00a0negotiation, we may just want to get in and out of the meeting\u00a0as quickly as we can. By searching or aiming for just one best\u00a0answer, you exclude every other possibility. You might leave\u00a0better answers outside of consideration.<\/p>\n
Give consideration to other approaches (such as brainstorming,\u00a0formal problem solving, and negotiating in a pleasant location)\u00a0to open people\u2019s minds, including the other party. If that\u2019s not\u00a0possible, you could also solicit the advice of experts in the area.<\/p>\n
For example, there is plenty of discussion in schools about\u00a0providing healthy lunches. If we eliminate junk food machines\u00a0and options on the school ground, do students leave the\u00a0grounds to look for unhealthy options within their\u00a0neighborhood? If so, how do we respond as a community?<\/p>\n
Consultation with nutritionists, social workers, the business\u00a0community, students, parents, and teachers can all result in\u00a0feasible, healthy, and manageable solutions.<\/p>\n
A third problem with creative solutions lies with a fixed pie. This\u00a0is the assumption that the more I get from a deal, the less\u00a0there is for you. This is rarely true, since both sides could
\nclearly be worse off than they are now, but the idea of it still\u00a0interferes with negotiation.<\/p>\n
Consider that there is shared interest in negotiating (otherwise\u00a0the two parties would not be speaking to each other), and at\u00a0the same time is the potential for shared gain. If we operate
\ntogether, what is the potential for future growth or benefit for\u00a0both parties? If I want to negotiate the price of my car, and\u00a0wish to pay less, but you are able to upsell me on the paint and\u00a0rust protection in addition to an extended warranty, we both\u00a0benefit.<\/p>\n
Another truth of human nature is that we are usually only\u00a0concerned with our own problems, and we want the other party\u00a0to solve their own problems. However, to really achieve that\u00a0agreement, the negotiator has to appeal to the other party. If\u00a0the negotiator(s) get tunnel vision, the result is only going to\u00a0appeal to one side. That can lead to an agreement that comes\u00a0unraveled, or in the case of collective bargaining, does not get\u00a0ratified by the membership.<\/p>\n