Negotiation: Holding Your Own While Holding Out For More

Jan. 30, 2008

Ryan and Brian are twin brothers who interview for the same job.

Ryan decides that he will settle for no less than a six-figure salary and four weeks of vacation. He states his demands to his interviewer, who counters with the company standard new employment package. Ryan becomes visibly upset when it becomes obvious to him that his demands cannot be met. The interviewer restates the company’s offer as calmly as possible, but Ryan has had enough. He says “I guess I wasted my time here!” and leaves abruptly.

Brian talks to a friend of his within the company before going to his interview. He learns that while he will not start at a six-figure salary, that there is potential for him to advance to a well-paid position within a year of hire. When he meets with the interviewer, Brian is polite and friendly. When the interviewer explains the company’s standard new employment package, Brian is gracious, but asks whether or not there is any flexibility for a better pay rate. The interviewer explains that exemplary work performance could earn him promotions, wherein he could make more money. Brian also finds out that taking on additional responsibilities on the job could earn him extra wages.

Who would you rather negotiate with, Ryan or Brian?

Negotiation can be a tricky process. A negotiator risks the chance of conceding too much or not gaining enough, as well as the chance of losing a prospective alliance with the person they enter into a negotiation with. A negotiator must learn to see a path from the opening conversation to an amicable solution.

According to Brad Spangler from Beyond Intractibility.org, there are two types of negotiations: positional bargaining and integrative/interest-based bargaining.

Spangler says that positional bargaining is the act of holding onto a fixed idea or position and arguing within its parameters only, like Ryan did in the above example. Having no openness to new ideas or to modifications of your original idea or position makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the end result of the negotiation to please both parties. When one enters into a negotiation with no intention of bargaining, one can only expect that the other party will feel dissatisfied, and possibly attacked. Odds are that the company with whom Ryan and Brian applied will not consider Ryan for future employment.

When one enters into a negotiation with an integrative/interest-based approach, he or she will be much more likely to end the negotiation with a “win-win” outcome, Spangler says. This approach considers the needs, desires, fears, and concerns of each side. It also considers the reasoning behind these tenets and incorporates them into a solution that pleases both parties. Brian took the time to find out from his friend what to expect as an offer for pay if hired. He also asked questions and found out about other opportunities that his brother never learned about.

An example of an integrative/interest-based negotiation that Spangler provides is that of two people who want an orange. Though the easiest solution might seem to be to cut the orange in half to divide it evenly between the two people, it does not take into account the reason why both parties want the orange to begin with. If both parties took a positional bargaining approach of wanting the entire orange for themselves, both would be dissatisfied with the outcome if they split the orange evenly. It’s possible that one person would want to eat the meat of the orange, and the other would only want the rind to add zest to their baking. With that reasoning in play in an integrative/interest-based process, the parties could agree that one could have the peel and one could have the contents. This would satisfy both sides and would make it more likely for the two people involved to be willing to deal with each other again in the future.

The above example shows the role that creativity can play in an integrative/interest-based bargain. Trade-offs can be made to achieve a compromise.

Use of positional bargaining tends to reflect a “my way or no way” mentality. Positional bargaining is based more on pressure and insistence, whereas integrative/interest-based bargaining uses reason and compromise.

As part of its Aviation Interpersonal Maintenance Management (AIMM) training course, Global Jet Services Inc. gives participants suggestions for successful negotiations. Its suggestions align mostly with the integrative/interest-based bargaining approach that Spangler suggests.

Global Jet Services advises that one must take an inventory of factors and goals before entering into a negotiation. A negotiator should consider their own goals and needs as well as those of the other party. The negotiator should also consider what they know about the other party and any common ground shared with that party.

Global Jet Services suggests that preparation, emotional levity, an open mind, and good communication are components of a plan for a successful negotiation. They recommend knowing how to open the conversation as well as when to end it.

Dos and don’ts, as provided in the AIMM course, are:

DO:
Anticipate your emotions and consider how to best deal with them
Take a break if needed to calm the air or to reassess the situation
Plan ahead – know what you want and consider what else is acceptable

DON’T:
Enter into a negotiation with unreasonably high demands and hope for a fast compromise
Express disapproval or give up on an unfavorable option too fast
Try to handle the toughest issues first
Assume anything
Get defensive and hide information
Be afraid to be silent

Learning and using integrative/interest-based bargaining skills can lead to more successful negotiations. Success can be a new position, a raise, or even an orange.

For additional resources visit www.BeyondIntractibility.org and www.globaljetservices.com.