Theory

On this page, I want to consider some of the theory behind negotiation. We’ll start with a few notes on the dynamics of conflict, before considering why we might negotiate and finally how we might negotiate.

Dynamics of Conflict:

    • John Galtung (1996)Peace by Peaceful Means. London, Sage) highlights notion of incompatibility at heart of conflict, which underpins any negotiation. Understanding conflict helps understand negotiation.
    • ‘It takes two to conflict’, as it necessarily requires different parties to be incompatible.
    • The figure below highlights possible outcomes of incompatibility:
    • A and B are the two sides’ starting points. Logically, one side can accept completely the other’s position.
    • More typically, we find a compromise in the arc between A and B, often around C.
    • However, it is also possible for both sides to lose to a third party and end up at D.
    • Finally, it might be possible to transcend/reconcile differences and have a win-win situation (E).
    • So how do we transcend incompatibility?:
    • Shift priorities: not wholesale, but in terms of their ordering, i.e. make less important things more important and more important things less important;
    • Divide resources: the classic solution. Here both sides move. Most easily done with money;
    • Horse-trading: give one thing, take another;
    • Shared control;
    • Leave control to someone else;
    • Use conflict resolution mechanisms: arbitration or legal process to reach solutions one of the above in an independent way;
    • Leave it to later: delay, to reduce significance. Requires second chance for resolutions.
    • Peter Wallensteen (2007, Understanding Conflict Resolution, London, Sage) has much more discussion on conflict and its role.

Why negotiate?

    • Negotiations occur when those involved either:
    • have an interest in reaching a bargained solution, or
    • don’t have enough power to impose their preferences on others;
    • If you can force others to do what you want then there is no immediate incentive to negotiate;
    • However, most negotiations are not one-offs, but are repeated and since we cannot rely on always being strong, it’s necessary to consider the future consequences of current actions;
    • Therefore, even if one party can impose a solution on another, they choose to negotiate – to produce a more durable solution;
    • In addition, the more iterations a negotiation goes through, the more trust is built up between negotiators;
    • Negotiating allows those involved to do two things:
    • Produce a ‘wise agreement’, if one is possible (an agreement which meets each party’s needs, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durable and takes wider interests into account)
    • Improves (or at least doesn’t damage) the relationship between the parties

How to negotiate:

This draws directly on the work of Fisher & Ury (R. Fisher, W. Ury & B. Patton, 2003, Getting to Yes: Negotiation an Agreement without Giving in, Random House), two of the foremost experts on negotiating, based at Harvard’s Program on Negotiation. Three stages of a ‘principled negotiation’: 1. Analyse

    • Gather information, organize it and think about it
    • Consider the ‘people problems’
    • Identify your interests and those of the other side
    • Note options on the table
    • Identify any criteria already suggested as a basis for agreement

2. Plan

    • How will you deal with the people problem?
    • Of your interests, which are the most important?
    • What are some realistic objectives?
    • Additional options and additional criteria for deciding between them

3. Discuss

    • Parties communicate back and forth, looking for agreement
    • Same 4 elements used in planning are the best to discuss (people, interests, options, criteria)
    • Differences and difficulties should be acknowledged
    • Each side should come to understand the interests of the other – can then jointly generate mutually beneficial solutions and seek agreement on objective standards

How best to negotiate?

    • Separate the people from the problem – put emotions to one side; attack the problem not each other
    • Focus on interests not positions – a negotiating position often obscures what you really want
    • Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do
    • Insist on using objective criteria

Theory? Bah! Humbug!

Theory's good for getting people to think ab out what's important, but one of the things that has been evident in my work in this field is that you need to have a personal experience of negotiation to understand properly what's happening.

For example, you and watch the video here and see how you can (and cannot) apply theory in this case.