2. Positional versus principled negotiation

Two parties each name a figure and from then on only defend what they have said. It is the way most negotiations go, and at the same time the way that yields the least. In chapter 1 you saw that the soft and the hard negotiator both face the same choice: the relationship or the result. This chapter shows where that choice comes from, and how to get out from under it.

Digging in on positions

In positional negotiation each party takes up a position, defends that position and gives away a little of it at a time until a compromise is reached. You are then negotiating about what you say you want, not about why you want it. That looks straightforward. Everyone knows where they stand, and the give and take has something of a game about it. But it takes time, it usually produces a mediocre outcome, and it eats away at the relationship.

That is because something happens the moment you state a position. You start defending it. Your ego becomes entangled with the figure you named, and going back on your position then feels like losing face, even when you have long known that a better solution exists. The more firmly you have staked out your position, and the more people have heard it, the more expensive it becomes to deviate from it.

The choice between the relationship and the result

There is a second problem attached to positional negotiation, and that is the problem from chapter 1. As soon as the conversation is only about positions, it forces you to choose. Choose the relationship and you drift towards the behaviour of the soft negotiator and give in too quickly. Choose the result and you end up as the hard negotiator, pushing on until the other person drops out or walks away.

Both choices come at a price you only pay later. The soft negotiator ends up with an agreement he cannot explain to his own organisation. The hard negotiator gets a better deal and a counterpart who pushes back harder next time. Anyone who regularly sits at the table with the same people loses in the long run what they won in the short run.

Hard on the issue, soft on the person

The third way is not the middle ground between hard and soft. Principled negotiation combines both, but directs them at different things: firm on the substance, flexible on the relationship. You do not give up your interest to save the atmosphere, and you do not put the other party under pressure to get your way.

The three styles differ on four points. They see the other party differently: the soft negotiator sees a friend, the hard one an opponent, the principled one someone with whom he shares a problem. They want something different: the soft one wants an agreement, the hard one wants to win, the principled one wants an outcome that holds up. They deal with concessions differently: the soft one makes them to preserve the atmosphere, the hard one demands them as a condition for continuing, the principled one trades them for something of equal value. And they respond differently to pressure: the soft one gives in to it, the hard one applies it himself, the principled one does not go along with it but asks for the reasoning behind it.

In practice, that distinction feels unnatural. Anyone who holds firm on the substance is easily seen as unpleasant. Anyone who stays friendly feels the urge to give way on the substance as well. It is precisely that link you let go of. You can like someone a great deal and find their proposal completely unworkable.

The result of that separation is that your position is no longer your identity. If the other person rejects your proposal, they are rejecting a proposal, not you. That saves a great deal of defensive energy, and you can put that energy into the solution instead.

The four principles

Principled negotiation is set out in four principles that reinforce one another. Together they form the thread running through the rest of this course and of the training course.

Separate the people from the problem. You treat the person and the issue as two separate things. The next chapter is about that: how to do it when emotions run high.

Focus on interests, not on positions. Behind every position lies a reason. A position is a single point you can only shift towards; an interest can be served in several ways. That is why Rachid and Els would have got further with a two-year contract than with that 90 euro.

Look for solutions that serve mutual interests. Before you choose, you gather variants. More options on the table means a better chance of a division that leaves both parties better off. Keep that gathering and that choosing separate.

Insist on objective criteria. The outcome rests on a yardstick outside the two of you: a market price, an index, a valuation, an earlier agreement. It is then no longer about who pushes hardest, but about what is reasonable.

Summary

• Positional negotiation revolves around positions you defend and slowly adjust. It takes time and rarely produces the best outcome.
• Once you have stated a position, you will defend it, even when you have long known that something better exists.
• Positional bargaining forces you to choose between the relationship and the result. Principled negotiation removes that choice: soft on the people, hard on the problem.
• Soft, hard and principled differ in how they see the other party, what they want, how they handle concessions and how they respond to pressure.
• The four principles: separate the people from the problem, focus on interests, look for solutions of mutual benefit and insist on objective criteria.