Have you ever felt frustration in team collaborations or tense conversations with partners? Then this is the article for you.
In this article, we will learn the mindsets of negotiation experts, those who make a living by handling conflicts, and give you a toolbox of hands-on strategies you can use to turn your next conflict into a collaboration.
BATNA: Remember you can always walk away, and so do they
The most common term you will hear from a negotiation expert is Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (BATNA), which describes your alternative to a no agreement. Why is BATNA so important? Because it determines your bargaining power and shapes your negotiation strategy.
The most important lesson we can learn from BATNA, and yet the most common mistake I saw people make, is we don’t have to reach a deal before we leave the table. If you strive for an agreement in a negotiation, you are putting yourself in danger. You might end up making too many concessions or endure unnecessary pressure.
In the end, a negotiation should be a mutually beneficial process. The reason both sides decide to sit down together and talk is to discover and develop a better outcome than they have had. When you see there is less Zone Of Possible Agreement (ZOPA), or the conversation goes from bad to ugly, the best thing you can do is to walk away.
Negotiation is a process to create values for both sides. There is no shame to walk away without an agreement when you think it’s not worth it.
But remember, not only you, but your counterpart can also walk away from the table and leave you with your BATNA. Some people tend to negotiate very aggressively, which is fine if this is a part of your negotiation strategy, but don’t overuse it. In most cases, it’s better to have your counterpart at the table than squeeze any penny from them and force them to leave. It turns out to be more beneficial in the long run to give up some value in order to preserve the relationship
The Cycle of Values: Recognize Three Dimensions in Negotiation
One of the timeless frameworks in negotiation is the Circle of Values, a variant of the Seven Elements of Negotiation. This framework reveals that there are three dimensions in negotiations that form three different types of approaches. So interestingly, you will find that people are talking about three different things in parallel in any negotiations:
- Which is better? This is known as the “interest-based approach”. In this dimension, people are talking about their interests, BATNAs, and options. This is the most rational approach among the three. If the conversation is focused on mutual interests, the outcome is usually satisfying for both parties, even when they reach no agreement. But things can go to other approaches because 1) emotional elements are involved, especially when one side uses aggressive communication strategies 2) it’s not about interest at all, which is common in intimate relationships.
- What is right? This is known as the “rights-based approach”. In this dimension, people are talking about legitimacy, rules, and justice. Though this approach seems to be rational, it usually escalates into more emotional disputes as everyone thinks they are reasonable and the other side should listen to them. The best practice to use this approach is to find someone that both sides can trust as a mediator or a judge.
- Who can decide? This is known as the “power-based approach”. In this dimension, people are talking about relationships, commitments, and communication styles. This approach can be especially harmful if people are arguing about “who should listen to whom”. But actually, it can be especially helpful to the relationship if you can express “you matter” to the other side.
The mismatch between different dimensions of communication causes people to argue with each other without a resolution. The perseverance on a single issue without seeing the broader dimensions of possible solutions causes conversations stuck even though both sides are trying their best to be rational.
Coalition: Navigate Multiparty Negotiations
It’s not uncommon for us to face a multiparty negotiation. For example, people might have different opinions on a group project or a board meeting. The dynamics in a multiparty negotiation are very different from two-side negotiations. The most significant difference is that the BATNA is changed when the coalition is changed. As we now know that BATNA is the most important thing in negotiation, then we should not underestimate the power of coalitions.
It has nothing to do with political tactics, instead, forming coalitions is just human nature when we are in a group of people. Before we try to make an influence, it’s crucial to understand the map of current coalitions. Even though multiple parties are negotiating about multiple issues, there will be only two sides to each issue in the end. Because it’s human nature to form coalitions, people can get more from coalitions than from negotiating alone, even though they need to make concessions to join a coalition.
The power of coalitions happens when it’s changed. The simplest yet powerful way to apply this concept is to switch between biparty negotiations and multiparty negotiations. Instead of negotiating on the table, having one-on-one conversations with each party can provide extra odds to win allies and reform the coalitions. And when we are stuck in a biparty negotiation, it can be helpful to involve another party. The choice of whom to talk with or be involved in needs some wisdom and lots of practice.
The Toolbox: Deal With Difficult Situations
Even though you did everything right in a negotiation, the situation can still become unpleasant. After all, you cannot control what the other parties think or act. They might be reasonable and friendly, but they can also be emotional and aggressive. So here are some tools that you can use when difficult situations happen.
- Pause: It’s hard to make effective decisions when you feel offended. This is the time we should take a pause. It can be a 10-second silence in the conversation (count from 1 to 10 ) or a temperate left (take a break). The key is to buy yourself some time and ground yourself again.
- Replay: If your counterpart keeps using inappropriate communication strategies like insults, you should take action. But instead of arguing with your counterpart and escalating the situation, you can simply name their tactics and express your feelings. Also known as the I-Statement.
- Reframe: If your counterpart keeps using power-based or rights-based approaches, try to reframe the conversation back to mutual interests.
- Mix: If you don’t feel you can make the situation better, but you still want to make an effort, try to find a mediator or simply involve another party. The power of coalitions can make a difference.
- Stop: Don’t forget, you can always walk away from the table. If you have tried everything you can and things don’t become anything better, it’s time to call it an end.
Conclusion
Now you have learned how to think and act like a negotiation expert. Try to apply these skills in your business deals, team collaborations, or conversations with family members. You will gradually see more collaborations and fewer conflicts in your life.
){kind=link}