Negotiation is a process business leaders cannot avoid. It’s central to transactions ranging from simple product sales to mergers and acquisitions and everything in between.
More importantly, negotiation is part of the ongoing dialogue every leader has with his or her team. The exchanges leaders have as they seek to motivate and direct their employees are often a form of negotiation.
Yet, business leaders typically approach negotiation with the wrong mindset. They misunderstand the essence of true negotiation, which results in false expectations and, in many cases, less-than-optimal results.
“If you believe negotiation requires compromise from both sides of the table, you’re consistent with what most believe to be true,” says Jim Camp, author of “Lead From No” and Co-owner of Camp Negotiations. “Phrases like ‘win-win,’ ‘give and take,’ ‘collective bargaining,’ and ‘protecting the relationship’ are what typically come to mind when people think of ‘negotiation.’ Unfortunately, seeing it from that angle puts negotiation on the wrong track from the start.”
Camp is a retired Major General in the United States Air Force who served for many years as the Commander of the Ohio Air National Guard and National Guard Assistant to the Commander of the US Transportation Command. He was personally responsible for negotiating the largest pay increase in history for thousands of Air National Guard Instructor Pilots. In the corporate world, Camp helped build Camp Negotiations as a coach and contributor to the book, “No: The Only System of Negotiation You Need For Work and Home.”
The contrarian mindset Camp promotes is anchored in the actual definition of negotiation, which stipulates all parties involved must have the right to veto as they seek to bring about an agreement.
“When the efforts to build agreements or the right to veto are removed, the event taking place is no longer a negotiation,” Camp explains. “In both cases, the faux-negotiation typically leads to problems like financial loss, careers in jeopardy, or outright violence.”
When negotiators seek the “win-win” or “collective bargaining” approach Camp warns of, they typically trigger one of three unproductive results: fight, flight, or compromise.
True negotiation offers freedom
South African politician and anti-apartheid activist Nelson Mandela was a master negotiator who famously said, “Only free men can negotiate; prisoners cannot enter into contracts.” Without the sense of freedom found in the right to veto, those engaged in negotiations can feel like they are being backed into a corner. When that occurs, it is only natural to push back with an instinctual “fight” response.
“Freedom and the right to veto are inseparable, and to deny one is to deny the other,” Camp warns. “In the absence of the right to veto, conflicts and fights often take the place of negotiations.”
Fights often erupt in negotiations because of the emotional component they involve. On the front end of a negotiation, a wide variety of emotions — fear, excitement, frustration, nervousness — can crowd out logical thinking. Once a participant utters “no,” however, thinking can shift from emotions to intellect.
“When people are negotiating, they tend to fear making a bad decision,” Camp explains. “Once a decision is made, the transition to logic and intellect begins. Only then can they justify a decision. Giving participants the right to veto shifts the negotiation to a more neutral state.”
True negotiation builds agreements
“Flight” is the second response that often results from misguided negotiations. It occurs when one party exercises its right to veto without even attempting to build an agreement.
“Flight is a refusal to engage,” Camp says. “It is most often seen in parties that feel they have no ‘leverage’ or ‘power’ in the process. They either assume the other side won’t accept their proposal, or they don’t feel empowered or confident enough to deliver a ‘no.’”
Avoiding the flight response requires understanding how negotiations can move to and through a “no” to build an agreement, though achieving this can sometimes require some coaxing. Responding to a “no” with a request for an explanation can provide the understanding needed to re-engage and continue building toward an agreement.
“Strong agreements depend on transparency,” Camp shares. “The decisions you’re after can be unreliable if you can’t see the motivations behind them.”
True negotiation doesn’t require compromise
Many people enter a negotiation assuming a compromise is a necessary part of success, but the truth is that the best solution for both parties may not require compromise. Starting with that as the goal creates false expectations.
“Compromise is the poison pill predatory negotiators demand,” Camp says. “They label you a bad partner if you refuse to give them what they want, but they seldom offer you something in return for bending to their needs. The better alternative to compromise is discovering together the real pain involved and the solution that can address it.”
Negotiation is an essential and often misunderstood business skill. Approaching it in a way that triggers fight, flight, or compromise rarely delivers the best results. Rather, business leaders should seek to guide negotiations in a way that allows for vetoes, builds agreements, and values solutions over compromise.
The post How to Deal with Fight, Flight, or Compromise in Negotiations appeared first on The American Reporter.
