The Art of Negotiation - NLP Style

"There are no hopeless situations; there are only people who have grown hopeless about them." - Clare Boothe

Negotiation is communicating for the purpose of getting a joint decision, one that can be congruently agreed on by both sides. It is the process of getting what you want from others by giving to others what they want, and it takes place in any meeting or interests conflict.

Would that it were as easy to do as it is to describe. There is a balance in the dance between your integrity, values and outcomes, and those of the other participants. The dance of communication goes back and forth, some interests and values will be shared, some opposed.

In this sense, negotiation permeates everything we do. We are dealing here with the process of negotiation, rather than what you are actually negotiating over.

Negotiation often takes place about scarce resources. The key skill in negotiation is to dovetail outcomes: to fit them together so that everyone involved gets what they want (although that may not be the same as their demand at the beginning of the negotiation). The presupposition is that the best way to achieve your outcome is to make sure that everyone involved achieve theirs too.

The opposite of dovetail outcomes is regulation, or other people's wants are disregarded. There are four dragons that lie in wait for those that practice manipulation: remorse, resentment, recrimination and revenge.

When you negotiate by seeking to dovetail outcomes the other people involved become your allies, not your opponents. If the negotiation can be framed as allies solving a common problem, the problem is already partially solved. Dovetailing is finding that area of overlap.

Separate the people from the problem. It's worth remembering that most negotiations involve people with whom you have, or want, and ongoing relationship. Whether you are negotiating over a sale, salary or a holiday, if you get what you want at the other person's expense, or they think you have pulled a fast one, you will lose goodwill that may be worth much more in the long run than success in that one meeting.

You will be negotiating because you have different outcomes. You need to explore these differences, because they will point to areas where you can make trade-offs to mutual advantage. Interests that conflict at one level may be resolved if you can find ways of each party getting their outcome higher level.

This is where chunking up enables you to find and make use of alternative higher-level outcomes. The initial outcome is only one way of achieving a higher level outcome.

For example, in a negotiation over salary (initial outcome), more money is only one way of obtaining a better quality of life (higher-level outcome). There may be other ways of achieving a better quality of life, if money is not available - longer holidays, or more flexible working hours, for example. Chunking up builds bridges across points of difference.

People may want the same thing for different reasons. For example, imagine two people quarreling over a pumpkin. They both want it. However, when they explain exactly why they want it, you find that one wants the fruit to make a pie, and the other wants the rind to make a Halloween mask.

In reality, they are not fighting over the same thing at all. Many conflicts disappear when analyzed this way. This is a small example, but imagine all the different possibilities there are many apparent disagreements.

If there is a stalemate, and a person refuses to consider a particular step, you can ask the question, "what would have to happen for this not to be a problem?" or "under what circumstances would you be prepared to give way on this?"

This is a creative application of the As If frame in the answer can often break through the impasse. You're asking the person who made the plot to think away around it.

Set your limits before you start. It is confusing and self-defeating to negotiate with yourself when you need to be negotiating with someone else. You need what Roger Fisher and Williams Ury in their marvelous book on negotiation, "Getting to Yes," called BATNA, or Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement.

What will you do if despite all the efforts of both parties you cannot agree? Having a reasonable BATNA gives you more leverage in the negotiation and greater sense of security.

Focus on interests and intentions rather than behavior. It's easy to get drawn into winning points and condemning behavior, but nobody really wins in these situations.

A wise and durable agreement will take in community and ecological interests. A mutually satisfying solution will be based on a dovetailing of interests, a win/win, not a win/lose model. So what is important is the problem and not the people, the intentions not the behavior, the interests of the parties not their positions.

It's also essential to have an evidence procedure that is independent of the parties involved. If the negotiation is framed as a joint search for a solution, it will be governed by principles and not pressure. Yield only to principle, not pressure.

There are some specific ideas to keep in mind while negotiating. Do not make a counterproposal immediately after the other side has made a proposal. This is precisely the time when they are least interested in your offering. Discuss their proposal first. If you disagree, give the reasons first. Saying you disagree immediately is a good way to make the other person's deaf to your next few sentences.

All good negotiators use a lot of questions. In fact, two good negotiators will often start negotiating over the number of questions. "I've answered three of your questions, now you answer some of mine..."

Questions give you time to think and they are an alternative to disagreement. It's far better to get the other person to see the weakness in his position by asking him questions about it, rather than by telling him the weaknesses you perceive.

Good negotiators also explicitly signaled their questions. They will say something like, "May I ask you a question about that?" By doing so they focus the attention of the meeting on the answer and make it difficult for the person questioned to evade the point if he has agreed to answer the question.

It would seem that the more reason to give for your point of view, the better. Phrases like "the weight of the argument" seem to suggest it is good to pile arguments on the scales until it comes down on your side. In fact the opposite is true.

The fewer the reasons you give, the better, because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. A weak argument dilutes a strong one, and if you are drawn into defending it, you are on poor ground.

Beware of a person who says, "Is that your only argument?" If you have a good one, say, "Yes". Do not get drawn into giving them another, necessarily weaker one. The follow-up may be, "Is that all?" If you take the bait you'll just give him ammunition. Hopefully, if the negotiation is framed as a joint search for a solution, this sort of trick will not occur.

Finally, you can use the As If frame and play the devil's advocate to test the agreement ("No, I don't really think this is going to work, it all seems too flimsy to me..."). If other people agree with you, you know that there is still work to be done. If they argue, all is well.

Negotiation can be tricky, and it can also be a lot of fun. Use the above checklists as a guide. Study, practice and adapt these prescribed strategies and make them your own.

Mastery starts with you. As I've said many times before, Master yourself and you'll Master your world.

The Best is yet to come!

David Martin.
Answer Concepts, S.A.
answerconcepts@msn.com