Belief-based styles: There is a common spectrum of negotiation that ranges from collaborative to competitive. The approach taken is generally based on
The spectrum of negotiation styles
Although negotiation styles can be classified as competitive or collaborative, in practice there are a range of styles, based on the degree to which a person thinks about themself or thinks about the other person.
Consideration for self
Considering yourself in negotiation is natural and reasonable -- after all, the main point is to get something that you want. In particular, if you care little about the other person or the relationship, then you will prioritize your needs actions above those of others.
Excessive consideration for self leads to a Machiavellian approach, where the ends justifies the means. Overt aggression, intimidation and coercive deception are considered normal and necessary and destroying the other person in some way may be a symbol of your victory over them.
Consideration for others
Consideration for others will depend on your values, which are often based on your beliefs about people. In particular, if you put yourself down (for example if you have low self-esteem) or you escalate the importance of others too highly, then you will think considerably more about the other person and prioritize their needs well above your own.
Excessive consideration for others leads to relentless concession, where you create a lose-win situation with you as the loser. You may even lose elements of the relationship as giving away too much can just end up in you losing respect. Some people like being the victim, but it is no way to conduct a negotiation.
A middle way
Between concession and competition lies balance, although in practice this may be more dynamic and variable than may be expected. Thus, what should be a highly collaborative negotiation may become a balanced negotiation, even with competitive elements. Shared values are commonly used, however, to protect the relationship and ensure fair play. At worst, some third person is called in to ensure a reasonable balance.
Collaborative negotiation
In collaborative negotiation, the approach is to treat the relationship as an important and valuable element.
Win-win
The competitive approach to negotiation assumes a fixed pie, zero-sum, win-lose situation. In collaborative negotiation, it is assumed that the pie can be enlarged by finding things of value to both parties, thus creating a win-win situation where both parties can leave the table feeling that they have gained something of value.
Fair process
As humans we have a deep need for fairness, and when this does not happen, even if we emerge as winners from a competitive negotiation, the result is not truly satisfying. The most comfortable result from a negotiation happens when our needs are met, including the need for fairness.
Joint problem-solving
The collaborative approach to negotiation seeks to convert individual wants into a single problem and to bring both parties together to work on solving this problem.
By converting individual positions and wants into separated problems, the people can be freed up from jealous and personal attachment to their requirements so they can then take a more objective and equitable position from which they can act in a more collaborative way.
Collaborative strategy
Being collaborative does not mean being weak and giving in. On the contrary, a collaborative approach seeks to gain the best possible solution.
Transparency and trust
Whilst you may not give away all of your information, deceptive practices need to be curtailed if trust is to be gained. A simple way of eliminating suspicion is to be open and transparent, giving information before it is requested.
When the other person is competitive
The biggest dilemma occurs when the other person is acting competitively, and will try to take advantage of your collaborative approach (possibly seeing it as a weakness).
The approach with aggressive others is to be assertive and adult rather than fall into the fight-or-flight reaction, for example naming attempts at deception and showing your strength whilst offering an olive branch. A critical preparation for this is to have your fall-back alternative to a negotiated agreement ready, and to show that you are prepared to use it.
Competitive negotiation
In competitive negotiation, the approach is to treat the process as a competition that is to be won or lost.
Zero sum
The basic assumption of competitive negotiation is that it is a 'zero sum game'. That is, the people involved believe that there is a fixed amount to be gained which both people desire, and if one person gains then the other person loses. It is like arguing over a pie: if one person gets a piece of the pie then the other person does not.
Win-lose
The outcome of zero-sum negotiation is defined in terms of winners and losers. One person gets what they want and feels smug (or maybe a bit guilty) whilst the other person gets loses out and feels cheated or a failure.
Substance only
In competitive negotiation, the substance of what is being traded is the only real concern, and dealings are done in a hard and 'what I can get' way.
A way of thinking zero-sum is to translate everything into financial terms. Thus, for example, if you are buying or selling a car, you think first in terms of its resale value. Thus the only real negotiable for many competitive negotiators is price.
Unimportant relationship
In competitive negotiation, the relationship between the people is unimportant. They do not care about one another or what the other thinks about them. For example, this may occur in one-off sales where 'caveat emptor' is a key rule.
To show concern for the other is to show weakness that may be taken advantage of. This can lead to trickery where false concern is shown, and reactions where any show of concern is perceived as likely trickery (and can lead to attempts of two-faced double-dealing).
Competitive strategy
Competitive strategies that seek substantial gains focus either on hard exchange or
Hard exchange
In a hard exchange, what is being exchanged is clear and above-board and both sides agree to the deal. There is no trickery or pressure and the players agree to the exchange, albeit with one person potentially more satisfied than the other.
The hard exchange is like a fair fight. Both players accept the rules and play cleanly (although more for a respect of the rules than a respect of the other person). This may be encouraged by potential punishment for double dealing, such as the legislation that sellers may face.
Double dealing
The alternative method of competitive negotiation is to throw the rulebook out of the window and resort to approaches such as aggression and deception. Either party may tell lies and use verbal or even physical persuasive methods. We are all bound by internal values and the level of trickery or physicality used will vary along a spectrum. Although we may find this distasteful, we all know that it happens and many of us have been less than truthful in our negotiations.
Balanced negotiation
Summary of differences
There are a number of differences between Competitive and Collaborative negotiation, which are summarized in the following table:
Characteristic
Competitive approach
Collaborative approach
Relationship
Temporary
Long-term
Consideration
Self
Both parties
Atmosphere
Distrust
Trust
Focus
Positions
Interest
Aim to gain
Advantage, concession
Fair agreement
Information
Concealed, power
Shared, open
Strategy
End justifies means
Objective and fair rules
Tactics
Coercion, tricks
Stick to principles
Outcome
Win-lose
Win-win
The way between
Between competitive and collaborative negotiation is a narrow path where competitive elements highlight win-lose elements and where collaborative concerns temper any Machiavellian tendencies.
It is in this gray zone between black and white where many real-life negotiations tread, as the participants struggle between the need to achieve their more immediate substantive goals whilst also keeping within social norms and personal values.
It is within this middle way that social norms can vary greatly. In some global cultures, it is acceptable, or even expected, that negotiations are full of rude personal insults and outrageous lies, yet in other cultures, even a hint of rudeness would cause the negotiation to be immediately called off. In fact, the insulting and apparently highly competitive approach often works within strict social rules and, when the negotiation concludes, the parties can act as friendly acquaintances again.
When either side of the negotiation table comes from a different negotiation culture, then the results can be quite interesting. It can be entertaining, for example, to watch a polite (in their terms) Western person trying to barter in an Eastern market. Even within national cultures, different social positions can lead to very different styles.
The trick, then, is to first understand the other person's natural negotiating style and the degree of movement into gray areas that they will expect or accept. When you have identified the style boundaries in which they negotiate, then you can adapt your style to find an optimally effective solution.
Balanced negotiation
Summary of differences
There are a number of differences between Competitive and Collaborative negotiation, which are summarized in the following table:
Characteristic
Competitive approach
Collaborative approach
Relationship
Temporary
Long-term
Consideration
Self
Both parties
Atmosphere
Distrust
Trust
Focus
Positions
Interest
Aim to gain
Advantage, concession
Fair agreement
Information
Concealed, power
Shared, open
Strategy
End justifies means
Objective and fair rules
Tactics
Coercion, tricks
Stick to principles
Outcome
Win-lose
Win-win
The way between
Between competitive and collaborative negotiation is a narrow path where competitive elements highlight win-lose elements and where collaborative concerns temper any Machiavellian tendencies.
It is in this gray zone between black and white where many real-life negotiations tread, as the participants struggle between the need to achieve their more immediate substantive goals whilst also keeping within social norms and personal values.
It is within this middle way that social norms can vary greatly. In some global cultures, it is acceptable, or even expected, that negotiations are full of rude personal insults and outrageous lies, yet in other cultures, even a hint of rudeness would cause the negotiation to be immediately called off. In fact, the insulting and apparently highly competitive approach often works within strict social rules and, when the negotiation concludes, the parties can act as friendly acquaintances again.
When either side of the negotiation table comes from a different negotiation culture, then the results can be quite interesting. It can be entertaining, for example, to watch a polite (in their terms) Western person trying to barter in an Eastern market. Even within national cultures, different social positions can lead to very different styles.
The trick, then, is to first understand the other person's natural negotiating style and the degree of movement into gray areas that they will expect or accept. When you have identified the style boundaries in which they negotiate, then you can adapt your style to find an optimally effective solution.
Professional styles
Professional styles are those use by people who have a significant element of negotiation in their roles. Here is a selection of different contexts in which such negotiation takes place.
Industrial relations negotiations
Negotiation in industrial situations are typified by trade union negotiations where a team from the trade union seeks to gain better pay and working conditions from a reluctant management.
Although many companies are more enlightened about such negotiations these days, the 'traditional' confrontational methods are illustrative of a particular style and still may be found in many other organizations.
Confrontation and competition
The typical industrial negotiation between trade unions and managers can be very confrontational and competitive style.
Team negotiation
Both sides of the negotiation usually have multiple members on the team. The team is typically led by a lead negotiator and supported by experts and people whose main job is to observe the other side and watch for body language and other subtle signals.
The presence of other people can also create a sense of intimidation. This is exacerbated if they are physically large, look scary and use aggressive body language.
Robust style
The standard opener is with the trade union making demands that have been determined through many meetings and deliberations. They are usually very well prepared and have a clear concession strategy and walk-away alternative (that typically involves strike action or other punishment).
Managers also may respond in kind, flatly refusing any possibility of pay rises or reducing hours or maybe even requiring cuts in staff, pay or conditions to cope with downturns in business.
Powerful brinksmanship
The industrial negotiation are also characterized by overt use of power, threats and taking things to the edge (and over).
The power of the membership
The basic weapon of employees is withdrawal of labor. Although the company could punish one person or allow them to resign. However, the fact that trade union are representing a large number of people gives them power, both in the mandate that they bring and in the potential consequences of failure to agree, for example in taking strike action or 'working to rule'.
Managers also have a strong mandate in that their position: their more senior managers will have given them a clear directive about what they can and cannot offer. Their basic weapon is continued employment as provision of amenities and requirement that employees do specified work.
Argument and breakdown
Rather than gentle bargaining, the approach is often to play the game right up to the wire, squeezing the maximum concessions out of the other side without a great deal of consideration for the relationship.
This typically includes abrasive argument and strong use of negative negotiation tactics. Negotiators may dramatically walk out of the room and play a waiting or posturing game. In larger organizations particularly, the press may be deliberately drawn into the game with each side pleading its case to the public at large whilst journalists seek interesting angles for their stories.
Mediation and arbitration
When relationships break down and trust has completely evaporated such that either or both sides refuse to negotiate further, the only chance of resolution comes from the use of third parties.
There is a dilemma in using third parties as, for such arrangements to work, both sides of the negotiation need to agree on who they will both trust. Independent organizations exist to carry out such services and these may need to be interviewed by either side before they are hired.
Mediation
Mediators shuttle up and down between the two sides, impartially carrying messages and encouraging the warring parties to find some place of agreement. The mediator may also coach the negotiators, showing how their current position is unlikely to result in a desired resolution and that some movement is necessary.
Arbitration
If mediation does not work, then an arbitrators may be engaged. This person listens to both sides and then tells them what the solution will be. In order for this to work, both sides must first agree to be bound by whatever the arbitrator decides. Generally, the arbitrator will look at similar cases in other circumstances as well as the demands and constraints of both sides before making their final judgment.
Managing board negotiations
Top management teams often have to negotiate amongst themselves for the limited resources in the organization, whether it is budget, people or something else. Although this pattern appears largely in companies, it also happens at national levels, where a cabinet of ministers jostle for power and budgets.
Power and control
Something that defines the people at the top of the company is that they have, by dint of their position, significant control the working lives of many people. The cogwheels at the top of the company turn a few degrees and the wheels at the bottom spin like mad. They also may control significant budgets, which they gain through potentially quite political negotiations and often at the expense of other directors.
People who rise to the top of the pile very often are both motivated by power and are very good at acquiring it and using it. The top team thus represents the most powerful people in the company who are skilled at managing and using that power.
Together and apart
The managing board has a unique dilemma in that whilst they negotiate with one another for resources and may disagree about strategy or policy, they are still a single unit with a single purpose of sustaining and growing the company. This cohesive force provides a common drive in their negotiations and decision-making that pushes them towards agreement.
The board members thus experience contradictory forces and have to manage this dilemma of being both together and apart. As board members, they must appear as a single mind to employees, investors and the public at large. Yet as heads of their own functions, they must battle for resources, and as leaders one step below the ultimate position, they may build empires and curry favor with their chief.
Power deals and horse trading
The style of negotiation of board members, then, may well be quite political and often makes use of whatever forms of power they have at their disposal.
Whilst decision-making may appear as polite (or maybe not so polite) debate in the boardroom, much of the negotiation happens in the corridors of power or on the golf course. Alliances and coalitions may form and the use (and calling in) of favors are used to gain power and achieve goals.
Conflict at the top can actually be quite healthy, as an alternative to a back-slapping country club or timid following of the chief's orders. Open disagreement, where the benefits of shareholders, customers and employees are balanced and debated, will help create a healthy culture. Constructive criticism of alternative strategies will lead to a better way forward.
Executive conflict fails where personal ambition overshadows the real job of creating value for shareholders and other stakeholders. When power-play is used to grab control and discredit other board members, the net result is personal gain and company loss.
Sometimes companies indirectly reward this negative activity, with bonuses based on individual performance rather than team success. Sometimes also the boost to the sense of control is sufficient to motivate dysfunctional behavior.
International negotiations
Between countries
International negotiation is as it says: inter-national. It is about negotiation between countries. International negotiation occurs all the time between governments and is the main subject of this page. It also happens between individuals and companies, where the traps and tricks of cross-border negotiation can ensnare even the most experienced home-country negotiators.
International negotiation is often not just between individual people, but between large delegations, each of which is well organized and where every person has specialized and skilled work. There may be cultural experts, linguists and subject specialists as well as a chief negotiator and support negotiators. In a complex negotiation, there may be multiple and interlined sub-negotiations going on at the same time, for example where a trade negotiation includes deal involving various industries and interests.
Cultural confusion
A big trap in negotiation lies in misunderstanding the culture of other countries, especially in the rules that they use to negotiate. Whilst one country may emphasize politeness and integrity, another might use deception and coercive methods as a norm of negotiation, whilst being polite and friendly outside of the negotiation arena.
It is easy also to offend people from other cultures without realizing what you are doing. Body Language, and particularly gestures, can have very different meaning, and what may seem an innocent movement to one person can be extremely rude to another.
Diplomacy and tact
International negotiation, done well, takes very careful notice of local cultures and customs, and is conducted with remarkable diplomacy and tact. Good international negotiators are very smooth and practiced in their art, and ensure they are extremely well informed not only about national cultures but also about the very individual perceptions of the people on the others side.
The complexity and care of international negotiations may mean that the process can take an inordinately long time, quite likely months and possibly even years. Some negotiations never conclude, but the very fact that the two sides are talking is sufficient to distract them from more violent interplay.
Blocs and alliances
International negotiation often happens between many countries at the same time. These may band together into economic blocs (such as the European Union) or develop shorter-term strategic alliances, such as where smaller countries band together to confront a dominant larger nation.
Such collective negotiations are often as much marriages of convenience as the joint action of true friends. Whilst international relationships are essential, each country eventually puts its own needs above the needs of others. Even when countries go to war on behalf of one another, the ultimate goal is still national at root.
War and destruction
International negotiation can be about life and death, literally, and even survival of the entire planet. In the cold war period, Russia and America engaged in an endless series of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) to prevent the horrors of mutually-assured destruction (MAD). More recently, negotiations on limiting global warming have met with limited success that may yet (depending on who you believe) lead to even more damaging outcomes than nuclear war.
The madness of not agreeing on matters of global destruction illustrates well the difficulties of international negotiation. It is easy on the international stage to paint yourself into a corner, and for personal posturing and political ambition to morph into extreme and ultimately foolish acts.
Political negotiation
In politics, both national and local, negotiation can be a brutal career-changing affair. Whilst some negotiation takes a friendly and collaborative approach, many exchanges are based on personal and political gains.
Favors and back-scratching
A common scenario in the political arena occurs where one person has some legislation which they want to get approved. In order pass this, they first have to get a majority of their own party to back the proposal. Whilst many may agree, they may also see this as an opportunity to ratchet up the points they are owed or demand a particular concession.
Political parties are typified by an inner circle (and maybe more circles with circles). Currying favor with those higher up in the party who have greater influence and power is a normal route to advancement. 'Old boy' networks of people who went to the same schools or belong the same societies may abound, as will a social web of real and convenient friendships.
Negotiations are integral to the fabric of daily political life and their effects ripple outwards into the future. To be a politician is to navigate treacherous shoals and clearer waters of the history and effects of negotiations by many other people as well as yourself.
Skeletons and blackmail
Politicians live on their public persona and anything that might besmirch their squeaky-clean image can be not only damaging but finish their career in very short order. Stories from a mis-spent youth can come back to haunt politicians later in life, for example with questions as to whether they experimented with drugs. Sexual adventures are also a wonderful hunting ground for opponents and journalists.
Negotiations that were used in the past to climb the political ladder may also prove unwise at a later date. A classic here is allowing political influence from major sponsors. If a person or company contributes funds to your party, they may well believe that you owe them a favor, which they will one day call in -- and may threaten to expose the politician if the favor is not returned as requested.
As a effect of all this, much energy is spent in covering up any career-limiting history, which itself then becomes even more corrupt. The net result is easily that most people in the political arena has something to hide, leading to the stalemate of a tacit agreement to not expose others if they do not expose you.
When a new person appears on the scene, this can lead to a flurry of research into their background and a determined seduction of them in order to bring them into the fold of safe corruption.
Of course the extent to which this happens is unlikely to be universal -- but we are also unlikely to ever find out that which is well-hidden. There are politicians who, against currents of subtle corruption, maintain their integrity throughout their careers, which may be limited as a result of their refusal to compromise on their ideals.
Selling and buying
Business to business
Much selling is not done to the general public, but from one business to another. These 'B2B' sales are typified by being for much larger sums than the general consumer sale. Businesses buy in bulk, spending large sums in order to minimize unit costs and hence gain economies of scale. Where they make individual purchases for such as computers or industrial machines, they cannot afford to buy low-quality equipment that will easily break down. Stoppages in production can be far more costly than spending more on acquiring reliable equipment.
This, coupled with the common need of the sales person to make multiple repeat sales means that they will most likely seek to use relationship selling rather than use the trickier one-off selling methods.
The professional buyer
In industrial buying and selling, the person doing the buying has a significant responsibility to get the best deal for their company whilst not buying shoddy goods. Professional purchasing people are thus used, who are qualified and experienced in their craft, and may even have gone on the same sales training courses as the people who are going to sell to them.
Buyers can spot closing techniques and objection-handling at fifty paces and will push back strongly against any inappropriate manipulation by the sales person. They need sales people from suppliers, but seek those who will take time to understand their real business needs and offer superior value.
The rest of the clan
The sales person may need to persuade a range of other people across the customer company, in particular three customer types. There may be many presentations and exchanges which form the overall negotiation. In some circumstances the purchasing manager may make the primary purchasing decisions, but in other circumstances they support the negotiation but make neither the initial or final choice.
Hostage negotiations
A hostage negotiation happens when a criminal uses innocent people as bargaining chips. This can happen in a range of circumstances, including:
A desperate mother who barricades herself in with her own child.
A bank robber who is disturbed on the job.
Terrorists who take foreign nationals.
Thus:
There may be one or more hostages of any age
The situation may be planned or ad hoc.
There may be one or more hostage-takers, who are usually armed.
Fortunately for most of us, we never meet these situations. Fortunately for those who become hostages, there are professionals whose job it is to get them safely released.
Assessing the situation
Preventing early harm
The first job of the hostage negotiator is to create safety. When they arrive on the scene, there may be armed police, high emotion and general confusion in which hostages may get hurt.
Their immediate task is to get a swift briefing from the officer in charge and to ensure that any actions by the police do not lead to hostages being harmed. The police (or whatever authority is in charge) will have a high interest in capturing the hostage-taker, whilst the negotiator is only interested in the safety of the hostages.
Getting organized
The next step is to organize communications with the hostage-takers. Hostage-takers usually want this, to make their demands known. If the negotiation looks like it could take some time (which may be days or more), then a permanent position must be found.
There may also be covert monitoring, for example with window lasers and hidden cameras. Everything that provides information is used, including relatives, friends and other sources.
Finding information
The negotiator will want to find as much information about the situation as possible, including:
The numbers and names of the hostage-takers.
What they are demanding and what they really want.
Their emotional state and how close they are to harming hostages.
The numbers and general health of hostages.
Some of this information may be available from the authorities. Other will be gained from the hostage-takers. In the early conversation with them, which is very much about listening, the negotiators may find out much of this. Some other information may take a while to extract.
The hostage-takers will want to make their demands known, but may be very cagey with other information as they fear deception and attack.
The police will also want all information, including the location of everyone in the situation, in case an armed assault is required.
Getting close
A critical process used in many hostage negotiations is to get close to them, to gain their trust.
Creating normality
Whilst there may be chaos and panic on all sides, the negotiator first seeks to create calm. They talk in a calm voice and do a great deal of listening. In particular, they seek to establish a sense of normality amongst the emotion, a space in which the hostage-takers can talk with the negotiator as reasonable people, much as you would talk with any normal person on the phone.
The negotiator is always there and always ready to talk. They will listen to everything and will create an even keel on which reasonable negotiation can be conducted.
Creating humanity
Within the normality, the negotiator listens uncritically to the hostage-taker, accepting them as they are and creating a sense of humanity. From that humanity, they then can extend to discussing the hostages, how they are bearing up and whether they are unwell.
Developing authority
The negotiator may also seek to position themselves as an authority figure. This may start by being authoritative on behalf of the hostage-taker, for example in getting them communications and food. This may later turn to being authoritative with the hostage-taker. This can be a tricky and dangerous activity, as the hostage-taker wants to be in charge. Authoritative work may thus be done in particular circumstances. Nevertheless, if the negotiators can establish this relationship, they may be able to direct the hostage-taker's actions more effectively.
Developing the scene
Once a relationship is established, the negotiator can seek to move the situation forward.
Small steps
Progress may be in small steps, as trust and relationships continue to be built. Food and medicine may be given. Conversation with a hostage may be requested. Everyday chat creates normality.
Depending on the urgency of the situation, the negotiator may seek to speed up or slow down the talking. If hostages are hurt, then speed may be needed. If the hostage-takers are requiring transport or other things that would lead to more problems, then it may be more prudent to insert delays, such as saying you are 'looking into it'.
Managing stress
Stress and tension will continue throughout the negotiation in some way. The negotiator may deliberately manage this, reducing stress to create hostage safety, but also possibly increasing stress to wear down the hostage-taker.
Exploring solutions
Talks will eventually get around to what can be done to resolve the situation. The negotiator may ask the hostage-taker for their thoughts and may offer possibilities themselves. Of course the safe release of the hostages is always an important element.
The goal of the hostage taker may be simply to escape and may be for publicity or other gain. If this is not acceptable to the authorities, for example release of a captured terrorist leader, then other alternatives must be found.
Releasing the hostages
Wearing them down
Sometimes, just talk, talk, talk is enough to wear down the hostage-takers and for them to give themselves up. High emotions do not last for ever and are followed by exhaustion. The ideal negotiation thus ends with the hostage-taker agreeing to let everyone go.
Releasing the weak
Depending on the number of people taken hostage, a release of children, old people and those with medical conditions may be negotiated. It allows the hostage-takers to show that they are not 'bad' people after all and also rids them of the problems of illness and wailing children.
Concessions for people
People may also be exchanged for various concessions, from food to publicity. When something is given to the hostage-takers, especially if it is on their list of demands, then a concession may be requested in return, with the ultimate concession of hostage release.
The final assault
It is a very delicate balance for the negotiator when no clear exchange can be found and the hostage-takers look like they are going to kill hostages. Whilst they are seeking to create exchange, the negotiator must also find the point at which they pull the plugs and let the armed forces take over. Even though some hostages may be killed, force may ultimately be the best solution to minimize total harm
Contextual styles
Negotiation often happens within non-professional contexts, where the people either do not know that they are negotiating or they are not skilled at it.
Domestic negotiation
Domestic negotiation includes all the exchanges that you have in the home environment, whether with your partner, children or other residents or neighbors.
Little things writ large
In the grand scheme of things domestic negotiation is seldom the most critical things for humanity. Yet they are what happens to us and include many of the most significant decisions in our lives.
When your home life is a large part of your life, then what may appear small to others becomes large to you. When others at home do things about which you disapprove, then this can be remarkably annoying. I, for example, hate it when people leave lights switched on everywhere. My wife is not very keen on the way I leave piles of books in assorted corners.
And so we negotiate at home most of the time, whether it is to answer the phone or to decide where to go on holiday.
Love and hate
It is difficult to exclude emotions from domestic negotiations. In fact, other than such traumatic circumstances as hostage negotiations, few negotiations can raise the emotional temperature so far and so fast. Love and hate can change places in seconds and domestic disputes lead to physical harm on too many occasions.
Almost by definition, you have an emotional relationship with others in your household, whether they are your children or house guests. This relationship is easily dragged into the negotiation and can quickly become a weapon ('if you love me, you'll do what I want').
Persistence and creativity
Domestic negotiators are, by definition, amateurs. They lack the subtly of industrial sellers and buyers or international negotiators, yet they can be remarkably effective.
Children, in particular, are an arch-example of how lack of training does not mean lack of skill. They famously and frequently run rings around their exhausted parents, playing mom and dad against one another or just nagging and whining until they get their way. It's not that they have subtly, but it is that they have persistence and creativity, two of the key attributes that make for successful negotiation.
Everyday negotiation
Everybody, every day
'Everyday negotiation' is a simple description of the negotiations in which we engage every day. And we do negotiate, almost every time that we meet another person.
Silent negotiation
We even negotiate silently with strangers as we dance past them on the street. We look at them, they look at us. One of us leans the body slightly one way, the other lean the other way. The leans turn into swerves. Or maybe one person just goes straight and the other has to dodge around.
Conversational dancing
In conversation, we want others to listen to us, which is a negotiation in itself as we seek to interrupt their flow. We wait for our turn or dive quickly into the pause. A slightly raised voice at the start of our speech is often used to firmly grab the talking stick.
Then we get even more serious as we try to change their minds.
At a crass level, we just assert our ideas and work on the principle that because they are obvious truths to us, they must be obvious truths to others. More subtly, we try to see things from their viewpoint and genuinely try to persuade.
Yet we are still amateurs.
Amateur vs. professional
Where things get particularly tense for us is when we have to buy something from a professional sales person. All at once, we are up against someone who knows that they are doing and knows what we are thinking. Sometimes we know this and sometimes we are lambs to the slaughter. Either way, if we are not careful we can end up with a much worse deal than we realize.
Joe buys a car
A classic scenario is where Joe (or Jane or you) buys a car.
Joe drives up to the sales lot in his old Ford. The sales person smiles broadly at Joe and shakes his hand.
'Hello sir, what are you looking for today?'
Joe smiles back and frowns. 'I need a new car.'
'Indeed sir.' The sales person also contemplates the Ford and shakes his head. 'Well, you've come at just the right time, sir. We've some new stock in, including some very popular Toyotas. I never keep those cars long. They're so comfortable and reliable that people in the know go for them every time.'
Joe raises his eyebrows. 'Toyota? I wasn't thinking about them. Can you show me one?'
'Certainly sir. Just sit in this lovely blue one over here...There, how does that feel?...Now watch this...'
Joe seems impressed and asks how much.
'Before we get to that, sir, I'd just like to show you another car. We've only one and it's just in the back at the moment, but I can see that you appreciate good motoring so I thought I'd let you have a go. In fact my manager's not in yet, so why don't we go for a drive in it...'
Guess which car Joe drives off the lot, with a smile on his face and a hole in his finances that will horrify his wife. Never mind. Bill next door will be green with envy.
Hierarchical negotiation
Domestic hierarchy
Hierarchy starts at home, where the most fundamental hierarchy is that of parent-child.
Parent power
We grow up with the imbalance of parents in charge and children who, at least for some time, were seen and not heard. Parents have financial, resource and (at least for a while) a physical advantage. Even though we railed against it from time to time, it gave us a sense of security that harked back to very early childhood where we instinctively clung to our mothers for safety.
Our parents provide the dual key needs of a sense of control and a sense of identity from early in our lives. In exchange, they demand our respect and often obedience.
Even later in life, our parents have a unique sway over what we think and do. Depending on the family and culture, parents may be friendly advisors or harsh dictators. Matriarchs and patriarchs are a regular feature around the world.
Child power
When children argue and leave, parents suffer terribly. Their bargaining chips, of compliance and relationship, are deployed even at an early age when they refuse to hug a parent who has upset them.
Asymmetrical negotiation
Domestic negotiation is affected by this hierarchy, with parents doing more telling and children doing more disobedience. This hierarchical relationship may thus seem imbalanced, but the exchange is simply different. Asymmetrical negotiation works when a balance can be found whereby each has something the other wants and each has the power to change how the other feels. It is, in the end, the relationship on which domestic negotiations stand or fall.
Social hierarchy
The hierarchies that we learn at our parent's knees are often replicated, often subconsciously, in social relationships. The fact is we like hierarchies, they make us feel comfortable and, as a result, they generally work simply because they are a mechanism that most people respect.
Building the hierarchy
When we meet with others, one of the first things we try to discover is whether they are superior or inferior to us. When we form groups and teams, one of the early negotiations is about who is going to be the leader and how the pecking order is going to work. Only when this 'storming' is complete will the team function effectively. If every command or request is debated, opposed or negotiated, then things will happen very slowly indeed.
When it's not a hierarchy
Social negotiation often works in a networked sense, in that to create any significant change you need to generate a groundswell of opinion, which means selling your ideas to many people which typically requires a lot of time and energy. Much social power lies with opinion leaders to whom many other people will listen and accept new ideas. Social negotiation is thus more effective if you can reach these people and get them to spread your ideas further.
Hierarchy at work
In the workplace, a part of the contract of employment is that you will respect the chain of command, and that disobedience and even disrespect of a manager may be grounds for instant dismissal.
Boss power
Managers have the power vested in their position to tell their subordinates what to do. They allocate work to people and, possibly as a negotiating ploy, may offer more desirable work to those who play the game.
Managers also make decisions about pay and promotion. If they like you, then you can climb the hierarchy. If they do not, then your career may be seriously limited. This power can reach beyond the company as they may give bad references to people who leave under a cloud of some sort.
Managers generally can be less pleasant to their employees than their employees have to be to them. Of course there are rules and harassment is not allowed in many companies. Yet the manager can still make the life of their people more or less comfortable, and it is the implied threat of this that can have a significant effect on general motivation and in specific negotiations.
Worker power
Workers also have power. First, they have the power of expertise, of being able to do the job. They have the power of their two feet: they are not captives and may leave at any time (although personal financial circumstances may make this). Workers also have the power of the collective, and may negotiation not as individuals but in the form of Industrial relations negotiations that is used by trade unions.
Another form of power that is often forgotten is that bosses want to be liked. A part of the reason that people want promotion is so others will look up to them and hence support their identity needs. A little flattery goes a long way and being nice to your manager builds social capital that is of significant weight in individual negotiations.
Individual negotiation
As opposed to industrial relations negotiations, individual negotiation at work can be asymmetrical in a similar way to parent-child negotiation. The manager may ask, but this is generally a face-saving way of telling. When a manager says 'Can you do this, please', they usually mean 'do this'.
Workers, on the other hand, need to think particularly carefully about how they will change the manager's mind, and may marshal evidence and otherwise employ more subtle techniques.
Managers may be concerned with leadership, which is less hierarchical as it implies optional followership. They may also be concerned with motivation of their people and so be careful about the demands that they make.
.
