There is much more to 'negotiation' than the immediate associations it builds—of conflict, confrontation, win-lose, and the like. Even mutual gain is a possibility if we are creative and flexible enough. Dr Joshua N Weiss busts a few myths
Q. ‘Negotiation’ is mostly seen as a scenario of conflict. Is this the right approach?
There is a lot wrong with this perspective. Generally, there are three reasons to negotiate: To create a deal with someone for mutual benefit; to build a long-term relationship; and to resolve conflicts. An important decision is whether it is a one-time scenario or if you will be negotiating with the same person/organisation over the long term. A majority of people in business say the majority of their negotiations are of the long-term variety. If so, you never want to engage in a win-lose approach, which only causes mistrust and challenges in the future. Instead, strive to meet each party’s needs as best as possible. That stated, I do not believe win-win agreements are ‘always’ possible. I believe mutual gains agreements, where each party gets much of what they need, are achievable. The last key to negotiations where relationships are important is to balance short-term goals with building long-term relationship.
Q. Is compromise inevitable in negotiations?
Compromise is not inevitable, particularly when you get creative. It should be the last decision, not the first. You can always give something up, but wait and see if there are other solutions. Envision an employee who asks for a raise. Her boss replies, “Sorry we are already over budget. Is there anything else?” Imagine she asked for a raise because she had taken on extra work and had a junior title compared to other team members. Had the boss asked “Why do you want a raise or feel it is justifiable?”, he would have learnt this was more about fairness and equity, and been able to meet her needs. They both could have gained if the boss truly understood what his employee valued.