Six Habits of Merely Effective Negotiators
own problem clearly and have sought to under- stand and influence the other side’s such that what it chooses is what you want. Plenty of errors still lie in wait: cultural gaffes, an irritating style, inadvertent signals of disrespect or untrustworthiness, miscommuni- cation, bad timing, revealing too much or too little, a poorly designed agenda, sequencing mistakes, negotiating with the wrong person on the other side, personalizing issues, and so on. Even if you manage to avoid these mistakes as well, you may still run into difficulties by ap- proaching the negotiation far too narrowly, tak- ing too many of the elements of the “problem” as fixed. The very best negotiators take a broader ap- proach to setting up and solving the right prob- lem. With a keen sense of the potential value to be created as their guiding beacon, these negoti- ators are game-changing entrepreneurs. They envision the most promising architecture and take action to bring it into being. These virtuoso negotiators not only play the game as given at the table, they are masters at setting it up and changing it away from the table to maximize the chances for better results. To advance the full set of their interests, they understand and shape the other side’s choice—deal versus no deal—such that the other chooses what they want. As François de Callières, an eighteenth-century commenta- tor, once put it, negotiation masters possess “the supreme art of making every man offer him as a gift that which it was his chief design to secure.” 2. This and other studies illustrating this point can be found in Leigh Thompson’s The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator (Prentice Hall, 1998). 3. See Robert J. Robinson, “Errors in Social Judgment: Im- plications for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, Part I: Biased Assimilation of Information,” Harvard Business School, 1997 and Robert J. Robinson, “Errors in Social Judg- ment: Implications for Negotiation and Conflict Resolu- tion, Part II: Partisan Perceptions,” Harvard Business School, 1997. Reprint R0104E; Harvard Business Review OnPoint 9411 To order, see the next page or call 800-988-0886 or 617-783-7500 or go to www.hbr.org 1. W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, “Fair Process: Man- aging in the Knowledge Economy,” HBR July–August 1997.
ern Ireland. Partisan perceptions can easily become self- fulfilling prophecies. Experiments testing the ef- fects of teachers’ expectations of students, psy- chiatrists’ diagnoses of mental patients, and pla- toon leaders’ expectations of their trainees confirm the notion that partisan perceptions often shape behavior. At the negotiating table, clinging firmly to the idea that one’s counter- part is stubborn or extreme, for example, is likely to trigger just that behavior, sharply re- ducing the possibility of reaching a constructive agreement. As disagreement and conflict intensify, so- phisticated negotiators should expect biased perceptions, both on their own side and the other side. Less seasoned players tend to be shocked and outraged by perceived extremism and are wholly unaware that their own views are likely colored by their roles. How to coun- teract these powerful biases? Just knowing that they exist helps. Seeking the views of outside, uninvolved parties is useful, too. And having people on your side prepare the strongest possi- ble case for the other side can serve as the basis for preparatory role-playing that can generate valuable insights. A few years ago, helping a cli- ent get ready for a tough deal, I suggested that the client create a detailed “brief” for each side and have the team’s best people negotiate for the other side in a reverse role-play. The brief for my client’s side was lengthy, eloquent, and persuasive. Tellingly, the brief describing the other side’s situation was only two pages long and consisted mainly of reasons for conceding quickly to my client’s superior arguments. Not only were my client’s executives fixated on their own problem (mistake 1), their perceptions of each side were also hopelessly biased (mistake 6). To prepare effectively, they needed to un- dertake significant competitive research and re- ality-test their views with uninvolved outsiders. So you have navigated the shoals of merely effec- tive deal making to face what is truly the right problem. You have focused on the full set of in- terests of all parties, rather than fixating on price and positions. You have looked beyond common ground to unearth value-creating differences. You have assessed and shaped BATNAs. You have taken steps to avoid role biases and partisan perceptions. In short, you have grasped your FromMerely Effective to Superior Negotiation
harvard business review • april 2001
page 9
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs