Negotiation is a process in which two or more parties with different needs, interests, goals and positions discuss an issue (or a series of issues) in order to find a mutually acceptable path forward, or a solution.
Many of us think of negotiations as in a formal, structured process such as negotiating a price of product or service, deadlines in a project, matters of peace and conflict etc. I want to focus, however, on informal, often disguised, small negotiations that take place in the context of our work lives. I refer to these as “micro-negotiations”.
Negotiative communication is required when we ask somebody to do something and they don’t respond cooperatively or show hesitation, resistance or give a non-committal yes without following through on the yes. Perhaps we communicate an order, disguised as a wish or voluntary act and assume the recipient will respond as we expect or wish them to.
Why is it important to me to be aware of situations in which communication is a negotiation?
In Getting to Yes (Fisher & Urs, 2012) the authors emphasize the importance of focusing on the communication on mutual interests rather than on positions. Agreements are more often reached when communication focuses on “why I want or need something”. Formulating requests as interest often enhance the communication as it brings transparency and clarity. In addition, it may help me as a recipient of the message to see that your interest may correspond with my own interests and needs.
Here are a few examples:
Position:
Start the assignment a month early
Interest:
Finish the project on time
Position: Give a short answer and only say what refers to the question
Interest: Help us understand what happened
Position: I want to end this interrogation at 5pm.
Interest: I have another appointment coming up and suggest we continue the interrogation at a later point, so we have enough time to cover all the issues.
Positions are often explicitly mentioned in communication while interests are held inside.
Interest focuses on the “Why”, positions on the “What” and “How”.
Positions are not negative or bad, but first formulating the interest clearly enhances the chance of a smoother communication process.
Order or micro-negotiation?
I was at the airport in Bangkok when the personnel at the security said to a Swiss traveller in English “Would you mind taking off your shoes and placing them in the plastic tray?” The lady responded: “Rather not, because my back hurts when removing them.” She walked through the scanner with her shoes on, triggering an alarm for not responding to the security officer’s order. I assumed that because the elder Swiss lady was not fluent in English, she didn’t recognize that this was an order wrapped politely in a soft question. The Thai security officer replied by saying: “Ma’am, take off your shoes, please.” “I cannot.” Was her reply. At this point the nature of the communication changed, as the superior came and she was taken to the side where I was no longer able to follow the communication. From here on I am quite sure there was no room for negotiation, but rather of order and compliance only. She had clearly understood this communication as micro-negotiation rather than as order, leading to an escalation.
Creating clarity and focusing on mutual interests
The quality of communication increases when it is clear to all involved whether this is a micro-negotiation or whether I am using my position, function, authority to demand action. (I am smiling, as I think of countless situations in our family life where this line was not clear to all involved .)
Communication in a negotiation is marked by mutual dependance of the involved parties, as they require each other to achieve their accomplishment or to get what they need. Do we need consent or not? What is the price for getting consent versus demanding obedience? In security work it is obviously often not up to discussion or negotiation, but actions need to be enforced. The boundaries however are often not clearly marked.
Be clear in distinguishing whether something is an order (non-negotiable, meaning there is no clear mutual dependance) and what aspects are negotiable.
Communication delivered as an order may save time, bring more clarity and safety and is surely often required. However, where possible, it is advisable to formulate the communication as a request which is negotiable, as this empowers the involved party and enables and enhances trust building, which may then pay off as the cooperation and communication (for example willingness to give a testimony) moves on.
One of the keys in successful micro-negotiations, is to give the involved persons multiple options. Rather than: “Would it be ok to re-schedule our talk for tomorrow 11am?”, say: “Would it be more convenient for you to re-schedule our discussion for Thursday this week or rather in 2 weeks’ time?”.
Working in Thailand a few weeks ago, I realized my colleagues were stuck in positional communication with a donor. Emails were flying back and forth regarding deliveries and deadlines. I encouraged the project partner to emphasize the objectives and to remind the donor of their own interests in a successful execution of the project.
Often, taking a step back, changing the line of discussion from position to mutual interests requires us assisting our communication partner in helping them discover their own interests.
PS. I will be running a course at the FHNW “Communication in Negotiations und Interviews” in spring 2023 in which we dive deeper into this topic. More information can be found here: