July 31, 2013

Invent Options for Mutual Gain (Part III) [ARR]



Annie's Reading Room

Ok, so you’ve conducted the first two steps to invent new and creative options -- separating inventing from deciding and broadening your options. Now onto seeking mutual gain and making their decision easy.

Look for mutual gain
Invent Options for
Mutual Gain

The third major block for creative problem solving lies in the assumption of a fixed pie: the less for you, the more fore me. Rarely if ever is this assumption true. Here are some ways around that type of “fixed pie” thinking: 

Identify shared interests. Three points about shared interests are worth remembering. First, shared interests lie latent in every negotiation. They may not be immediately obvious. Second, shared interests are opportunities, not godsends. To be of use, you need to make something out of them. It helps to make a shared interest explicit and to formulate it as a shared goal. In other words, make it concrete and future oriented. Third, stressing your shared interests can make the negotiation smoother and more amicable. 

Dovetail differing interests.  Although it may seem counterintuitive, agreement is often based on disagreement.  For example, think about purchasing stock. What makes “the deal” is that the buyer believes the stock with go up and the seller believes it will go down. The difference in belief provides the base for a deal. Here is a way of parsing out your different interests:

One party cares for:                                        Other party cares for:
Form                                                               Substance
Economic considerations                               Political considerations
Internal considerations                                   External considerations
Symbolic considerations                                Practical considerations
Immediate future                                            More distant future
Ad hoc results                                                The relationship
Hardware                                                        Ideology
Progress                                                          Respect for tradition
Precedent                                                        This case
Prestige, reputation                                         Results
Political points                                                Group welfare

Ask for their preferences. One way to dovetail interests is to invent several options all equally acceptable to you and ask the other side which they prefer. You can then take that option, work with it some more, and again present two or more variants, asking which one they prefer. In this way, without anyone’s making a decision, you can improve a plan until you can find no more joint gains.
Make their decision easy

To overcome the short sightedness that results from looking too narrowly at one’s immediate self-interest, you will want to put yourself in their shoes. Without some option that appeals to them, there is likely to be no agreement at all.

Whose shoes? It will be easier to understand the other side’s needs if you pick one person – probably the person with whom you are dealing – rather than a large abstract institution, like “Houston” or the “University of California.”

What decision?  One effective way to develop solutions easy for the other side to accept is to shape them so that they will appear legitimate. The other side is more likely to accept a solution if it is seems the right thing to do – right in terms of being fair, legal, honorable, and so forth.

Making threats is not enough.  We often try to influence others by threats and warnings of what will happen if they do not decide as we would like. Offers are usually more effective. Concentrate both on making them aware of the consequences they can expect if they do decide as you wish and on improving those consequences from their point of view. 

Next week we begin the final chapter of the method of negotiating: Insist on using objective criteria.

July 24, 2013

Invent Options for Mutual Gain (Part II) [ARR]

Annie's Reading Room

Let’s go over the strategies or the first two at least, to invent new and creative options in more detail, Okay, so we have:
1) separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them; broaden the options on the table rather than look for a single answer; 2) search for mutual gains; and 3) invent ways of making their decisions easy.
Separate inventing from deciding
Separate the process of thinking up possible decisions from the process of selecting among them.
By definition, inventing new ideas requires you to think about things that are not already in your mind. You should therefor consider the desirability of arranging an inventing or brainstorming session with a few colleagues or friends.  Wild ideas are encouraged.
Here is a framework for the brainstorming session:

Invent Options for Mutual Gain
(Part II)
Before:
1.       Define your purpose
2.       Choose a few participants
3.       Change the environment
4.       Design an informal atmosphere
5.       Choose a Facilitator
During:
1.       Seat the participants side by side facing the problem.
2.       Clarify the ground rules, including the no-criticism rule
3.       Brainstorm
4.       Record the ideas in full view
After:
1.       Star the most promising ideas
2.       Invent improvements for promising ideas
3.       Set up a time to evaluate ideas and decide
And for something different altogether, try brainstorming with the other side. To protect yourself, distinguish the brainstorming session explicitly from a negotiating session where people state official views and speak on the record.
Broaden your options
The tendency during this stage is to look for the one best answer. However, you are developing room within which to negotiation. Room can be made only by having a substantial number of markedly different ideas – ideas on which you and the other side can build later in the negotiation, and among which you can then jointly choose.
Multiply options by shuttling between the specific and the general: The Circle Chart
The Circle Chart provides an easy way of using one good idea to generate others. One good option on the table opens the door to asking about the theory that makes this option good and then using that theory to invent more options. Here is a picture of the chart from the book.


Look through the eyes of different experts. This could be combined with the Circle Chart. Consider how each expert would diagnose the situation, what kinds of approaches each might suggest, and what practical suggestions would follow from these approaches.
Invent agreements of different strengths.  You can multiply the number of possible agreements on the table by thinking of “weaker” versions you might want to have on hand in case a sought-for agreement proves beyond reach. Similarly, where a permanent agreement is not possible, perhaps a provisional agreement is. At the very last, you can usually reach second-order agreement – that is, agree on where you disagree, so that you both know the issues in dispute, which are not always obvious.
Change the scope of a proposed agreement.  You could break your problem into smaller and perhaps more manageable units.
Next week we will flesh out the remaining two strategies: searching for mutual gains and making your partner’s decision easy.

July 17, 2013

Getting to Yes: Invent Options for Mutual Gain [ARR]

Annie's Reading Room

In last week’s Annie’s Reading Room, we reviewed how to manage emotions and set the stage for a successful negotiation with a pretty meaty post about understanding each side’s interest. While that is a necessary step in the negotiation process, our problems aren’t yet “solved.” To get to that point, we need to first generate some creative options for discussion.

Invent Options for
Mutual Gain 
“This task is pretty challenging as there can seem to be no way to split the pie that leaves both parties satisfied. Often you are negotiating along a single dimension, such as the amount of territory, the price of a car, the length of a lease on an apartment, or the size of a commission on a sale.
All available answers appear to lie along a straight line between their position and yours and the only creative thinking shown is to suggest splitting the difference.

In most negotiations there are four major obstacles that inhibit the inventing of an abundance of options: 1) premature judgment; 2) searching for the single answer; 3) the assumption of a fixed pie; and 4) over thinking that “solving their problem is their problem.” To overcome these constraints, you need to understand them.”


Diagnosing the problem

Premature judgment: Exhibiting premature judgment would be just the opposite of ‘inventing an option’ for mutual gain. In other words, proposing an option that could be termed “conventional” or “half-baked” would not be very useful for either side. “Well, duh,” you say.

Searching for the single answer:  If the first impediment is premature criticism, the second is premature closure. By looking from the outset for the single best answer, you are likely to short-circuit a wiser decision making process in which you select from a large number of possible answers.

The assumption of a fixed pie: Negotiation can appear to be a fixed sum game.

Thinking that “solving their problem is their problem”:  Emotional attachment on one side (your side) of 
an issue makes it difficult to achieve the detachment necessary to think up wise ways of meeting the interests on both sides. It can also seem disloyal to your own side to think up ways to satisfy the other.

Prescription

So now that you have diagnosed the obstacle, here are some prescriptive “cures.”

To invent creative options you will need to 1) separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them; 2) broaden the options on the table rather than look for a single answer; 3) search for mutual gains; and 4) invent ways of making their decisions easy.

Details on how to do these coming up next week!



July 10, 2013

Separate the People from the Problem: Interests [ARR]

Annie's Reading Room 

Focus on interests, not positions

Interests define the problem. Reconciling interests rather than positions works for two reasons. First, for every interest, there usually exists several possible positions that could satisfy it. Reconciling interests rather than compromising between positions also works because behind opposed positions lie many more interests than conflicting ones.

Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones. We tend to (incorrectly) assume that because the other side’s positions are opposed to ours, their interests must also be opposed.

But if that’s not true, how do we identify interests to find a reasonable solution?

Ask “Why?” Put yourself in their shoes, or more directly, ask your partner in negotiation. “If you do, make clear that you are asking not for the justification of this position, but for an understanding of the needs, hopes, fears, or desires that it serves.”

Ask “Why not?” Think about their choice. Ask yourself, why hasn’t the “other side” accepted your offer? “What interests of theirs stand in the way? Analyze the consequences as the other side would probably see them, of agreeing or refusing to make the decision you are asking for.” An example list of consequences as they might see them:
Separate the People from the Problem:
Interests

“Impact on my interests
·         Will I lost or gain political support?
·         Will colleagues criticize or praise me?

Impact on the group’s interests
·         What will be the short-term consequences? Long-term consequences?
·         What will be the economic [political, legal, psychological, etc] consequences?
·         What will be the effect on outside supporters and public opinion?
·         Will the precedent be good or bad?
·         Will making this decision prevent doing something better?
·         Is the action consistent with our principles? Is it “right”?
·         Can I do it later if I want?”

Realize that each side has multiple interests.  “Thinking of negotiation as a two-person, two-sided affair can be illumination, but it should not blind you to the usual presence of other persons, other sides, and other influences.”

The most powerful influencers are basic human needs. It is easy to think that the heart of most negotiations is money. However, there are most likely many other critical needs as stake such as “security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, and control over one’s life.”

Make a list. To sort out the interests on both sides, it may help to write them down as they arise. Furthermore, it may stimulate ideas on how to meet those interests.

Talking about interests

Make your interests come alive.  “It is your job to have the other side understand exactly how important and legitimate our interests are. One way to do that is to be specific, and ask the other side to, “Correct me if I am wrong.” Part of the task of impressing the other side with your interests lies in establishing the legitimacy of those interests. You want them to feel not that you are attacking them personally, but rather that the problem you face legitimately demands attention.”

Acknowledge their interests as part of the problem. “People listen better if they feel that you have understood them. They tend to think that those who understand them are intelligent and sympathetic people whose own opinions may be worth listening to. So if you want the other side to appreciate your interests, begin by demonstrating that you appreciate theirs.”

Put the problem before your answer. “If you want someone to listen and understand your reasoning, give your interests and reasoning first and your conclusions or proposals later.” If you give your proposal first, the other side will most likely stop listening while they are busy formulating their rebuttal.

Look forward, not back. Two people will often fall into a pattern of discourse that resembles a negotiation, but really has no purpose whatsoever.  You might be thinking, “They can’t treat me like that. If they think they are going to get away with that, they will have to think again. I’ll show them,” instead of thinking about the potential solution.

The question “Why” has two different meanings. Instead of asking them to justify what they did yesterday, ask, “Who should do that tomorrow?”

Be concrete but flexible. Having thought about your interests, you should go into a meeting not only with one or more specific options that would meet your legitimate interests but also with an open mind. An open mind is not an empty one.

Be hard on the problem, soft on the people. You've heard this one before. Although it may not be wise to commit yourself to a position, it is wise to commit yourself to your interests. This is the place in negotiation to spend your aggressive energies.

A psychological technique, called cognitive dissonance, holds that people dislike inconsistency and will act on eliminating it. By attacking the problem, and at the same time giving the other side positive support (i.e. “I don’t believe you are an insensitive person, Mr. Jenkins), you create cognitive dissonance. To overcome this dissonance, he will be tempted to disassociate himself from the problem in order to join you in doing something about it.


Now that everyone at the table (hopefully) understands each other’s interests, it’s time to come up with a solution to fit those interests. Next week, we will begin to discuss how to invent options for mutual gain. 

July 3, 2013

Separate the People from the Problem: Communication [ARR]



Annie's Reading Room

Communication

Obviously, communication is the driving force of negotiation. Without communication, the wheels fall off and you are stuck. However important, there are also three potential problems you could run into with communication.
Separate the People
from the Problem:
Communication

“First, negotiators may not be talking to each other, or at least not in such a way as to be understood. Instead they talk merely to impress third parties or their own constituency.”

Second, “even if you are talking directly and clearly to them [the other party], they may not be hearing you.” I can relate to this certainly. Sometimes I am so busy thinking about my response that I tune out the other person’s final points.

“The third communication problem is misunderstanding. What one says, the other may misinterpret.”

“What can be done about these three problems of communication?”

Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said. Listening and listening well are two different things. Admittedly, “it is difficult to listen well, especially under the stress of an ongoing negotiation. If you pay attention and interrupt occasionally to say, “Did I understand correctly that you are saying that…?” the other side will realize that they are not just killing time, not just going through a routine.” And “as you repeat wheat you understood them to have said, phrase it positively from their point of view. You might say, “You have a strong case. Let me see if I can explain it. Here’s the way it strikes me…” And don’t worry -- understanding is not necessarily agreeing.

Speak to be understood. Try putting yourself in the role of a judge, and the person sitting across from you in the negotiation is also a judge. You are trying to work out a joint opinion. To avoid complication, don’t have too many people in the judge’s chamber. Limiting the size of the group meeting to only one representative per participating side can reduce distractions.

Speak about yourself, not about them. Even if reacting to something they said, start your sentence with “We/I feel.” “You convey the same information without provoking a defensive reaction that will prevent them from taking it in.”

Speak for a purpose. Some things are better left unsaid. “Before making a significant statement, know what you want to communicate or find out, and know what purpose this information will serve.”

Prevention works best

“The best time for handling people problems is before they become people problems.”

Build a working relationship. “The time to develop a relationship is before the negotiation begins. Get to know them and find out about their likes and dislikes. Find ways to meet them informally.”

Face the problem, not the people.  Think of your fellow negotiator as a partner “in a hard-headed, side-by-side search for a fair agreement advantageous to each.” It helps to sit literally on the same side of a table.

Like any challenging task, “separating the people from the problem is not something you can do once and forget about; you have to keep working at it. The basic approach is to deal with the people as human beings and with the problem on its merits.”

How to do that will be the subject of next week’s post! Happy Fourth of July!