Negotiating Strategies
2 negotiation strategies that always result in success.
America became a country after revolting, angry at the disrespect from England. Hitler soared to power because Germany felt humiliated after World War I. China is citing the Opium Wars and the ensuing century of disrespect as the drive behind their increasingly aggressive rise. Putin insists that his leadership is needed to make Russia great again, supporting his perception that Russia was weakened and humiliated on the global stage. Trump won by convincing voters that he could “make America great again”, an effective but baffling strategy given that the U.S. was already the preeminent global power.
There is a definite historic pattern of perceived or real humiliation leading to revolution, war, authoritarian regimes, and the transfer of power.
During meetings last week on a far smaller and non-incendiary issue, the same tensions arose. If a partnership is formed, does one side win? Does one size lose? What does a true partnership look like?
It doesn’t matter whether you are talking with your family, exploring deals with other companies, creating alliances with other organizations working towards the same social change, or working with countries at a high governing level, knowing and using good negotiation strategies will result in better outcomes. More satisfaction. More profit. More positive change. Peace.
The two classes in my academic career which stand out as the best, most useful, and most relevant every single day of my life since, were “Negotiations” and “Power and Politics”. Negotiations was taught by Prof. Jeanne Brett, who has literally written the books on negotiation. I’d like to share two key points from that class that have stuck with me, that I use to this day.
1. A successful negotiation leaves both parties feeling that the outcome was fair.
‘Fair’ may not mean equal. ‘Fair’ may not mean exactly comparable (an eye for an eye). But ‘fair’ means that each party felt that their specific needs and concerns were heard and accounted for. Fair means that each party knows they may have given a little but gained a lot.
For example, you are talking with your spouse or kids about doing the dishes. You would prefer the dishes be done immediately after dinner. They want to unwind for a bit, go for a walk, or hang out with friends. ‘Fair’ may mean that you reach a negotiated agreement that the dishes are done before 10pm, but not right after dinner. Both parties have compromised a bit, but both got what was most important to them - dishes done and some down time.
In a business environment, it may be the division of roles. Maybe your organization wants a more dominant role in crafting a social media presence, but a partner’s focus is the legislative process. Both organizations are involved in social media and legislation, but there is an agreement to play to the strengths and priorities of each individual organization for the best outcome.
Creating coalitions of organizations working for social change may involve assessing the relative strategic advantages of each group and agreeing when each group should be center stage, and when they should be supporting partners. Successful negotiation determines when and how the delicate balance of shifting power occurs for the best advantage.
2. Going into any negotiation, be prepared and know your BATNA - your ‘best alternative negotiated agreement’.
Being prepared means thinking through exactly what you want to accomplish. Write down your ‘must haves’, ‘willing to compromise/wish list/ideal world’ and ‘no way, will walk if these conditions are not met’. Your BATNA is the ‘this is what I’m willing to give, knowing I’ll win in the long run’. It’s a strategy, but it’s also an attitude.
If your starting point is ‘there are only winners and losers’, or ‘my way or the highway’, you will never have a successful negotiation. As Greek tragedies show us, this attitude usually results in failure, one way or the other. You make so many enemies that eventually you end up in jail, wearing concrete boots, or dying alone. Your allies desert you to save their own skin. Your business fades away, or spectacularly implodes as you lose the perspective and key negotiating skill of listening and adapting that it takes to build and keep a client base. Your country goes to war and you live a life of paranoia while fearing for your life, are indicted for war crimes, or you die of natural causes but history eventually announces your failings to the whole world, for all eternity. As the saying goes, ‘karma is only a bitch if you are’, also known as ‘what goes around, comes around’.
Unfortunately, we seem to be at a point in history where ‘strength’ is valued more than diplomacy and negotiation. On a global level, I don’t see it ending well. I attended a lecture a couple of years ago that looked at the data contained in the largest global indicator database. The professor noted that the only time in recorded history there has been a peaceful transfer of power was after World War II, when Great Britain essentially handed the ‘global power’ mantel to the U.S. after 400-600 years. In every other case, war forced the transfer of power. The database that tracks a range of indicators of power shows the lines of China and the U.S. intersecting sometime around 2025-2028.
Such projections add profound urgency to individuals and organizations who are pushing for positive social change to work together, to negotiate effectively, to create a different alternative, and to steer the outcome of conflicts towards a more equitable and just world.
We focus too often, in life, business, and global politics, on hard number indicators like economic indicators, market share, client base, social media presence, or weapons systems. As important, often more important, is to identify the ‘soft power’ issues. The ‘soft power’ issues are key to negotiating successfully. Recognition, accommodation, preservation of key cultural components. It comes down to understanding the underlying emotions. Identifying what others value.
War has always been a very convenient way of correcting societal imbalances to retain power. Creating an ‘other’ to rally the people diverts the public’s attention from inept governing, growing wealth inequality, poverty, and the imminent threat posed by climate change. It is so much easier for power-hungry leaders, whether despots or do-good activists, to sweep their own failings under the rug and cry ‘humiliation!’ then to face their role in creating or supporting the current situation. It is possible that World War II would never have happened if the defeated nations were allowed to keep some dignity, given a chance to rebuild and become part of the global community, rather than the financially devastating punitive policies. Instead, Hitler, followed by Stalin, Mao Zedong, and countless other leaders have killed tens of millions of people. The societal threats, ‘soft power’ are rarely discussed, especially as they often point to the failure of those in power. In the U.S., the growing and gaping wealth inequality which has destabilized society has been created and supported by both political parties. China never mentions the destabilizing effect of their one child policy, which, coupled with a cultural belief that boys were superior because they would care for their aging parents has created an excess of men. India’s cultural beliefs about the higher value of boys has created the same problem. The two countries have an estimated 70 million more men than women. Too many men is destabilizing to societies. War is certainly a convenient way of reducing the surplus of men, thereby rebalancing society and turning the public’s eye away from the failure of the policy-makers.
As I read about the rise of China, much is written now of their perceived humiliation of a century, but this is a blip in their civilization. There is, rightfully so, celebration of the rich and lengthy Chinese culture which goes back to at least 3000 B.C., with written history 3,500 years old. If the West focused on recognizing and celebrating the thousands of years of cultural greatness, would we be able to change the trajectory of the line indicating another massive global conflict? If countries negotiated a relationship with a view to recognizing and acknowledging the individual goals, while understanding that every country needs to give a little, will it make a difference?
I have zero influence in the global diplomatic arena, but I do know that if social change activists are providing a strong alternative vision and creating that reality by working together, negotiating to harness the strengths of each organization rather than fighting among themselves for primacy, we will win. It seems urgent that we do so.