The dynamics of principled negotiation can be learned and will enhance your chances for successful outcomes. The eight lessons that follow can be applied to any area of interpersonal influence.
1. Information Is Key
Seasoned negotiators recognize that information is key. As such, they do an abundance of work before engaging in actual negotiations. We encourage you to do your homework: researching, asking questions of stakeholders, considering all angles, and absorbing as much information as possible regarding the issues at hand. In short, come prepared with evidence.
Rational, data-supported arguments are inherently more legitimate and powerful influencers.
By gaining as much information as possible, you meet three objectives. First, you are drilling at the true need for the negotiation and uncovering potential obstacles to reaching an integrative outcome. Through this process, you are likely to develop potential solutions to the issues at hand.
Second, information helps you build a rational argument to support your preferences. Rational, data-supported arguments are inherently more legitimate and powerful influencers.
Third, during the process of information gathering, it is likely that you will learn more about the other party—their perspectives, pressure points, and critical needs. Since the key to principled negotiation rests on tradeoffs, this information provides fodder for potential tradeoff stances.
2. A Foundation of Trust and Safety
Research has clearly shown that when there is trust between negotiating parties, there is a greater likelihood that an integrative outcome will be achieved. Logically, this occurs because the parties are more likely to share their true preferences on the various issues being negotiated. Further, since the parties are less defensive and guarded, they are more likely to recognize opportunities for trade-offs—moves that will satisfy the needs of both parties.
Not surprisingly, established trust between parties allows negotiations to proceed more openly and more quickly than when trust is absent or uncertain. Every statement does not have to be subjected to the scrutiny of due diligence when a foundation of interpersonal trust exists.
Building trust during the negotiation process can be difficult. Consequently, we return to the benefits of building ongoing positive relationships in the workplace. Over time, if you have treated others with respect and significance, the building blocks of trust should be well established.
Trust leads to another dimension of successful principled negotiation: the feeling of emotional safety. Given the expected emotional arousal that typically surrounds negotiations, such trust and safety is critical and helps ensure that rationality dominates raw emotion.
3. Commonality
We encourage starting the negotiations by delineating areas of commonality—those areas or issues of common ground where agreement already exists. Psychologically, this enables subsequent negotiations to proceed from a foundation of success. While seemingly subtle, the behavioral impact can be dramatic. Beginning with commonality signals early progress, creates positive affect, and increases the likelihood of further positive actions.
4. Keep Emotions in Check
The normal tension and strain of negotiations can lead to heightened emotions from both parties. Further, as parties feel that their needs are being threatened or blocked, a process of emotional escalation can quickly arise. This escalation can fuel negative feelings that impede integrative thinking and progress. As such, maintaining emotional control can be critical.
The starting point for emotional control is listening.
Our guidelines here are intended as goals and as reminders of intention. We understand that maintaining emotional control in the midst of situational intensity is easier said than done. However, flashes of heated emotion can derail the process of principled negotiation, and unwanted emotional outbursts (and the words that typically emanate from those emotions) can detract from our efforts to be objective and evidence-based in our approach.
The starting point for emotional control is listening. As you sense a growing level of emotional arousal, it’s best to listen more intently rather than speak. Listen to grasp the other party’s meaning, understand more fully their needs, and try to recognize the keys to their frustrations. Listen for the backstory, the “more to the story” to which you are likely not privy. Realize that seemingly irrational emotional reactions from the other party are completely rational to that party. Good negotiators can validate the emotions of the other party without necessarily validating the justification for the emotion.
Next, if you feel like you are having an emotional reaction and perhaps are likely to behave impetuously (often irrationally), it may be best to hit the pause button. Three strategies can be helpful. First, jot down what you are thinking rather than expressing it. Second, suggest a brief break in the negotiation, thereby giving negative emotions a chance to subside. Third, label your feelings rather than allowing the other party to draw conclusions and create their own definition of your emotions. Letting the other party know “this is a bit frustrating,” is far different from them assuming that you are “angry and mad.”
5. The Other Party’s Story
The best negotiators strive to understand the negotiation from the other party’s point of view. Try to determine what issues are important to the other party. When we focus on others’ perspectives on the issues, we are more likely to identify where potential tradeoffs can occur. Additionally, we are better able to identify which offers they are likely to accept.
It can be useful to turn to help me understand questions: “I know this issue is important to you. Help me understand why it is so important.” If nothing more, it signals your intentional receptivity to the other party.
When developing your rational argument, focus on which logical arguments would make the most rational sense to the other party. Focus on how your proposal will help the other party meet their needs. Often people reject a negotiated agreement because they see the offer on the table that has too many obstacles for them to be able to successfully meet their own needs. Consider what obstacles the other party may perceive and suggest how you can help remove those obstacles.
There are additional points regarding assessing the other party. You should try to assess their BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). This is done so that you can make offers that play off their BATNA. For example, one physician was able to negotiate a higher salary because he knew the position had been advertised for more than a year, essentially meaning the hospital really did not have a BATNA! Thus, he was comfortable asking for a higher salary than they were offering because he knew they did not have a credible alternative.
6. Be a Problem Solver
The key to reaching an integrative outcome is to take a problem-solving approach to the negotiation. That is, you need to approach the negotiation as an opportunity to develop new solutions rather than a competitive joust. Successful negotiators realize that personalities at the table often cloud the negotiation. They realize that potential solutions lie in the facts of the situation. Accordingly, they focus on the situation and attempt to find outcomes that both parties can agree upon, and attempt to work toward those outcomes.
Finally, successful negotiators focus on bringing in additional resources when needed. Remember that negotiations are about obtaining scarce resources, so when additional resources can be brought into the negotiation, there is a greater chance of achieving a win-win outcome.
If we conceptualize distributive bargaining as “slicing the pie,” we see adding resources as making the pie larger so everyone involved obtains a larger slice. For example, if you and a colleague are vying against each other for limited research money, perhaps through a joint effort, the need to negotiate could be reduced by applying for government research grants. In doing so, you are bringing more resources to the table.
7. The Give and Take
There really is no way to formulaically prescribe the negotiating dance that is the nitty-gritty of principled and integrative efforts. However, a couple of pointers may be helpful.
We begin with an example. Let’s assume that you and your future hospital employer are discussing your salary request. You may care a great deal about your salary and not so much about vacation days and other paid time off. In turn, the hospital’s focus may be on total compensation costs, and as such, they may be indifferent if you choose a higher salary if it is coupled with a commensurate check on overall costs. It may be possible for the hospital leadership to increase your salary without increasing total compensation costs—an integrative outcome that helps both parties meet their most salient need.
This is called “logrolling,” which involves trading off issues by recognizing that parties are likely to have different levels of preference for different issues.
Try to view negotiating as an incremental process of steadily moving closer to outcomes that meet the needs of both parties. Successive small gains are generally more effective than a swing-for-the-fences approach to achieve all your desired outcomes in one fell swoop.
Strategically, negotiators are advised to initially unbundle or separate the issues at hand. This helps in determining what issues are of the highest importance, which, in turn, allows more accurate prioritization. Then, drawing from this assessment, you can rebundle issues by presenting multiple package offerings—another sound negotiating strategy.
For example, suppose the CEO of your hospital asks you to lead a new high-profile project—a project she hopes will serve as the cutting-edge industry standard. To complicate matters, she wants the entire project completed in six months. Further, she is up front that while you will receive a modest bonus for completing the project, your normal clinical and administrative responsibilities will not be altered.
As you assess this situation, three main issues are at play: the intended quality of the project; the tight time frame in which it must be completed; and a clear probability that this project will interfere with your normal duties. By unbundling the key issues, a more careful assessment leads to the conclusion that meeting all three of the CEO’s demands is simply impossible. Next, as a sound negotiator, you rebundle the issues into multiple packages.
First, you explain to the CEO that you could complete the project without reducing your current roles, but only if the project deadline is extended by at least four months. Of course, you offer the best tangible evidence you can secure to support your contentions. You offer a second package or option. You can meet the quality and requested time frame considerations but only if you receive a commensurate decrease in your current administrative duties. Finally, there is a third option—one that may not be preferred but must realistically be presented. You can meet the six-month time frame and maintain your current schedule but the innovative quality may be less than ideal since you have little time to meet with key constituents and conduct the needed benchmarking.
By offering three packages, you are implicitly allowing the CEO to indicate which of the three issues is most important to her. For example, if she flatly rejects the third option (which seems likely), you learn that project quality is a fundamental issue whose importance cannot be mitigated.
The give and take of principled negotiation revolves around a series of offers and counteroffers and a sincere resolve to compromise. Offers and counteroffers should come with justifications or evidence that demonstrates to the other party why you believe the request is logical and reasonable. Outrageous and unrealistic requests (or demands) may be a tempting tactic designed to extract concessions—a tactic to avoid. Your credibility, evidence-based logic, and trust are all undermined by such a tactic. While this approach has wonderful dramatic impact when portrayed in movies, it usually backfires in the real world.
Work with your negotiating partner in a collaborative manner. Explore options or approaches that create mutual wins. Brainstorm. Yield on less important issues to gain social credit that can be used to secure more important issues. If concessions are made, seek something in return. And most importantly, look for compromises. “Take it or leave it” approaches create wonderful drama and may, at times, secure immediate success. However, the baggage of this tactic will always be a drag on subsequent negotiations.
There is a final subtlety that is frequently overlooked, despite its simplicity and potential impact. Once you make an offer, enjoy the silence. More than likely, after you make an offer, the other party will fall silent for some period of time. There is a natural tendency to assume that silence in negotiations is the precursor to rejection. In reality, the other party’s silence is probably due to their level of thought and consideration. Don’t jump in too early. Such a move often confuses or diminishes the original offer—what is commonly known as “bargaining against yourself.”
8. A Clear and Soft Landing
As the negotiation proceeds, there comes a time when you must decide if you should accept the offer on the table. If you have prepared well for the negotiation, you should know if the existing offer is reasonable and acceptable. When you decide that you would like to accept the offer, you must assess if the other party is ready for closure. Present your perceptions of the agreement to the other party by asking, “Would you agree to …?” Hopefully they will accept, and you can move forward and implement the specifics of the agreement.
What do you do if they do not agree? Even more critical, what do you do when you realize that you and the other party are just too far apart to reach an agreement? We suggest that in these cases you need to end the negotiation while allowing the other party to save face. To do this, you should summarize the final offer that is under consideration, then reiterate your position on the issues. It is important to tell the other party that it appears that your needs are just too different at this point to reach an agreement. During this closing conversation, do not blame the other party for not being able to reach an agreement, but rather focus on the incompatibility of the goals and needs. Remember, an impasse today may be a necessary step toward another negotiation a little farther down the road—a negotiation that can draw on the lessons already learned.