Neither a battle, nor a war...
Instead of viewing a negotiation as either a battle nor a war, I've preferred to see it in the context of a problem-solving process. The danger in seeing a negotiation as a battle or a war is that it becomes way too personal -- way too quickly. And as it becomes way too personal, the focus of the negotiation often turns to "winners" and "losers." And as this happens, both sides will start to keep score. And as we start to keep score, we will find ourselves on a slippery slope sliding quickly away from the possibility of a successful negotiation...
Instead, I prefer to think of a negotiation as a journey. Once the destination for your journey is agreed upon, the focus shifts to finding a way to work together to get there. The critical element to achieve success, therefore, is the ability to collaborate. George Bernard Shaw offers this insight into the power of collaboration:
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas."
Over the years, we've all experienced the power of collaboration as a tool for innovation, creativity and greater productivity in our various activities. Why should this be any different in the context of negotiation? It isn't...
A myth...
In his book, The Culture of Collaboration, Evan Rosen refers to "The Myth of the Single Cowboy." This is the idea of a hero riding in alone on a white horse to solve any problem. This has led to our worship of celebrities -- be the celebrity a cowboy, quarterback, surgeon or chef -- and why everyone secretly (or openly) yearns to be a celebrity.
When organizations and negotiating teams embrace the idea of celebrity they reinforce The Myth of the Single Cowboy. One effect is to create competition for the role of celebrity. This sometimes results in those who should be collaborating opting not to share knowledge with anyone who is perceived as a competitor. And, for collaboration, this is a cancer. In the context of negotiation, the only way we can ever reach our agreed destination is for both sides to share information. We therefore have to create a negotiating environment that encourages information-sharing. We also have to try to leverage the concept of celebrity for our own benefit...
My hero theory -- make someone a hero...
Over the years, I have tried to leverage the concept of celebrity in negotiations. I have do so by trying to identify someone on the other side who I wanted to make a hero or a celebrity. If we were lucky, this would often create an ally within the other camp.
We need to create a negotiating environment that encourages this information-sharing. To do so, we can draw on the 10 Powers of Negotiation that Nelson Mandela displayed in his epic negotiations with the South African apartheid government. Consider how each of these 10 Powers might help create the negotiating environment we are trying to create:
* The power of understanding that a negotiation is a process;
* The power of preparation;
* The power of positioning;
* The power of common sense and logic;
* The power of dignity, congeniality, humility and humor;
* The power of truth and fairness;
* The power of observation - of listening and seeing;
* The power of morality, courage and attitude;
* The power of patience; and
* The power to walk away.
Each of these Powers works to help create the needed environment to help you reach your negotiation destination.
Here are a few collaboration concepts that are often helpful in the negotiation context.
The importance of "Collaborative Chaos"...
Some negotiators rarely think of negotiation and collaboration in the same breath. This is because they prefer to view negotiation as a contest -- or something that occurs exclusively in the context of dispute resolution. They don't focus on negotiation as a problem-solving process. The result is that they ido not concentate on encouraging information-sharing and innovation. The problem is that information-sharing and innovation is indispensable as we need to solve the problems we need solved to reach our joint destination.
Those negotiators who view negotiation as a contest generally tend to treat the negotiation as an ordered and structured process -- and often even a scripted process. This doesn't always work. Sometimes, to find innovative solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems, we might just need something a little different.
Some degree of chaos in a negotiation might not always be bad. Chaos sometimes simply means the unstructured exchange of ideas designed to create value. The problem with an ordered approach is that it often encourages predictable results -- and that might not be what we want or need. Collaborative chaos allows for the unexpected to happen. It allows for innovation and sometimes encourages it...
Collaborative chaos requires brainstorming and a free flow of ideas. This requires courage, because an initially flawed idea might trigger a refinement that, in turn, might trigger something better and more innovative. And that initially flawed idea might be your idea. What results, however, gives birth to a Eureka! moment. One example is the discovery of penicillin. As he was researching influenza, Alexander Fleming noticed that mold had invaded a culture plate of Staphylococci. It had created a bacteria-free circle around itself. The mold he found wasn't something he was specifically looking for. The name he gave this mold was penicillin...
To introduce a strain of collaborative chaos into a negotiation also serves other useful purposes. It helps create the impression with the other side that you and they are sitting on the same side of the table as you work together to find solutions. It can also breed trust. It tends to confirm that not everything you do is scripted and is a calculated ploy to get something from them. It thereby tends to lower defenses. Finally, it allows you to be self-deprecating as you criticize your own ideas -- and this again helps build relationships and trust.
"Constructive Collaboration"...
What the concept of constructive collaboration focuses on is the need to confront concepts rather than people. While there is always a need for all sides to take a position on any particular idea that is put forward, the idea is always to confront concepts rather than people.
Collaboration requires exchanging viewpoints. Sometimes, the result is confrontation. But, provided it is not personal, confrontation is not always bad. Constructive confrontation is about being able to present your position on something that others may not agree with, but in a way that focuses on concepts rather than people.
Former Intel CEO Andy Grove encouraged constructive confrontation. He believed in supporting the idea of encouraging debate with differing points of view. He believed that, when this occurs, business issues come into clearer focus. Difficult decisions require clarity of thought -- and debate brings this clarity. Similarly, in a negotiation, negotiators must confront each other so that they can clarify their differences. This can only aid the collaborative problem-solving process.
No collaboration without creating trust...
At the risk of sounding like a fortune cookie, people like working with people they like. And if people don't trust you, it is unlikely they will like you. Certainly, if they don't trust you, they will find it difficult if not impossible to collaborate with you. And if they find it difficult to collaborate with you, reaching your destination will become problematic... So, how do you create trust? Stay tuned...
Instead of viewing a negotiation as either a battle nor a war, I've preferred to see it in the context of a problem-solving process. The danger in seeing a negotiation as a battle or a war is that it becomes way too personal -- way too quickly. And as it becomes way too personal, the focus of the negotiation often turns to "winners" and "losers." And as this happens, both sides will start to keep score. And as we start to keep score, we will find ourselves on a slippery slope sliding quickly away from the possibility of a successful negotiation...
Instead, I prefer to think of a negotiation as a journey. Once the destination for your journey is agreed upon, the focus shifts to finding a way to work together to get there. The critical element to achieve success, therefore, is the ability to collaborate. George Bernard Shaw offers this insight into the power of collaboration:
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas."
Over the years, we've all experienced the power of collaboration as a tool for innovation, creativity and greater productivity in our various activities. Why should this be any different in the context of negotiation? It isn't...
A myth...
In his book, The Culture of Collaboration, Evan Rosen refers to "The Myth of the Single Cowboy." This is the idea of a hero riding in alone on a white horse to solve any problem. This has led to our worship of celebrities -- be the celebrity a cowboy, quarterback, surgeon or chef -- and why everyone secretly (or openly) yearns to be a celebrity.
When organizations and negotiating teams embrace the idea of celebrity they reinforce The Myth of the Single Cowboy. One effect is to create competition for the role of celebrity. This sometimes results in those who should be collaborating opting not to share knowledge with anyone who is perceived as a competitor. And, for collaboration, this is a cancer. In the context of negotiation, the only way we can ever reach our agreed destination is for both sides to share information. We therefore have to create a negotiating environment that encourages information-sharing. We also have to try to leverage the concept of celebrity for our own benefit...
My hero theory -- make someone a hero...
Over the years, I have tried to leverage the concept of celebrity in negotiations. I have do so by trying to identify someone on the other side who I wanted to make a hero or a celebrity. If we were lucky, this would often create an ally within the other camp.
We need to create a negotiating environment that encourages this information-sharing. To do so, we can draw on the 10 Powers of Negotiation that Nelson Mandela displayed in his epic negotiations with the South African apartheid government. Consider how each of these 10 Powers might help create the negotiating environment we are trying to create:
* The power of understanding that a negotiation is a process;
* The power of preparation;
* The power of positioning;
* The power of common sense and logic;
* The power of dignity, congeniality, humility and humor;
* The power of truth and fairness;
* The power of observation - of listening and seeing;
* The power of morality, courage and attitude;
* The power of patience; and
* The power to walk away.
Each of these Powers works to help create the needed environment to help you reach your negotiation destination.
Here are a few collaboration concepts that are often helpful in the negotiation context.
The importance of "Collaborative Chaos"...
Some negotiators rarely think of negotiation and collaboration in the same breath. This is because they prefer to view negotiation as a contest -- or something that occurs exclusively in the context of dispute resolution. They don't focus on negotiation as a problem-solving process. The result is that they ido not concentate on encouraging information-sharing and innovation. The problem is that information-sharing and innovation is indispensable as we need to solve the problems we need solved to reach our joint destination.
Those negotiators who view negotiation as a contest generally tend to treat the negotiation as an ordered and structured process -- and often even a scripted process. This doesn't always work. Sometimes, to find innovative solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems, we might just need something a little different.
Some degree of chaos in a negotiation might not always be bad. Chaos sometimes simply means the unstructured exchange of ideas designed to create value. The problem with an ordered approach is that it often encourages predictable results -- and that might not be what we want or need. Collaborative chaos allows for the unexpected to happen. It allows for innovation and sometimes encourages it...
Collaborative chaos requires brainstorming and a free flow of ideas. This requires courage, because an initially flawed idea might trigger a refinement that, in turn, might trigger something better and more innovative. And that initially flawed idea might be your idea. What results, however, gives birth to a Eureka! moment. One example is the discovery of penicillin. As he was researching influenza, Alexander Fleming noticed that mold had invaded a culture plate of Staphylococci. It had created a bacteria-free circle around itself. The mold he found wasn't something he was specifically looking for. The name he gave this mold was penicillin...
To introduce a strain of collaborative chaos into a negotiation also serves other useful purposes. It helps create the impression with the other side that you and they are sitting on the same side of the table as you work together to find solutions. It can also breed trust. It tends to confirm that not everything you do is scripted and is a calculated ploy to get something from them. It thereby tends to lower defenses. Finally, it allows you to be self-deprecating as you criticize your own ideas -- and this again helps build relationships and trust.
"Constructive Collaboration"...
What the concept of constructive collaboration focuses on is the need to confront concepts rather than people. While there is always a need for all sides to take a position on any particular idea that is put forward, the idea is always to confront concepts rather than people.
Collaboration requires exchanging viewpoints. Sometimes, the result is confrontation. But, provided it is not personal, confrontation is not always bad. Constructive confrontation is about being able to present your position on something that others may not agree with, but in a way that focuses on concepts rather than people.
Former Intel CEO Andy Grove encouraged constructive confrontation. He believed in supporting the idea of encouraging debate with differing points of view. He believed that, when this occurs, business issues come into clearer focus. Difficult decisions require clarity of thought -- and debate brings this clarity. Similarly, in a negotiation, negotiators must confront each other so that they can clarify their differences. This can only aid the collaborative problem-solving process.
No collaboration without creating trust...
At the risk of sounding like a fortune cookie, people like working with people they like. And if people don't trust you, it is unlikely they will like you. Certainly, if they don't trust you, they will find it difficult if not impossible to collaborate with you. And if they find it difficult to collaborate with you, reaching your destination will become problematic... So, how do you create trust? Stay tuned...
About the Author:
Learn about how negotiating skills can help detect scams using Nelson Mandela's negotiating skills and modern relevance. In his critically acclaimed book, Michael Friedlander tracks Mandela's skills and applies them to modern scams such as the Enron adventure and the Madoff Ponzi scheme..
Comments (0)
Posting Komentar