For the past few weeks I’ve been detailing the four components of Principled Negotiation. I strongly recommend you get a copy of Getting to Yes. In the book, you will learn more information on this productive dispute resolution and negotiation strategy.
For a quick review, these components, or steps, are Separate the People from the Problem; Focus on interests, not Positions; Work Together to Generate New Options for Mutual Benefit; and Insist on Using Objective Criteria. Principled Negotiation is designed to help parties resolve their differences while maintaining their relationship.
In an ideal world, Principled Negotiation would be practiced by all parties and all disputes would be successfully resolved. Of course, in an ideal world, I guess there wouldn’t be any disputes in the first place.
One potential problem is the relative power imbalance of the parties. What should you do if the other holds more of the cards or is in a stronger position than you? In such cases the authors of Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher and William Ury, suggest you develop a BATNA or Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. Hopefully, you are going into the negotiation with a proper mindset that truly seeks a win-win outcome.
By having a BATNA, however, you are more prepared to walk away from the table should such an outcome prove unattainable. Your BATNA is by definition not your first choice. By having one in place, however, you should feel less internal pressure to reach a deal because you have a fall back if no deal is reached. If your BATNA is strong – in other words, something you could readily accept – you might want to announce it. Doing so will inform the other that you will not be coerced in any way since you have a Plan B, as it were.
It might prove worthwhile for you also to consider what might be a suitable BATNA for the other party. In so doing you might be able to suggest that as a possible outcome should negotiations hit an apparent impasse.
Again, please remember that in Principled Negotiation you have won nothing if the other party leaves the table dissatisfied or disgruntled with the outcome. For this to work well, you hope, the other party, must be attuned to the needs/concerns of each other. Since you cannot control what the other may do, it is incumbent upon you to hold to the process. Don’t worry that this might set you up to be taken advantage of.
That would be lose-win and totally contrary to the spirit of the process.
Taking the time to develop a BATNA can pay large dividends in two ways when dealing with someone who is in a stronger bargaining position then you are. In addition to helping prevent you from accepting a deal you really don’t want to accept, it also diminishes the other’s ability to pressure you or in any way coerce you to accept their terms. This is, of course, assuming that you are truly at peace with your next best alternative.
I guess there may be times when you might have to act that way, but that’s a tactic more suited to adversarial negotiating and not Principled Negotiating.
One last point. A BATNA may seem like a “bottom line,” but it is not. A bottom line, or established minimum beneath which you will not go, can serve to protect you from making a hasty decision you might regret later on.
But it also limits your creativity in searching for a mutually agreeable resolution. Once you have set your bottom line, you refuse to listen to anything the other side might propose which could possibly be acceptable to you even though it is lower than your bottom line.
With a BATNA in place, however, you are free to listen fully to any and all suggestions from the other and to give them full consideration. If somehow they come up with an idea that had not been proposed before you will accept it more freely than you would be if you had drawn an arbitrary line in the sand.
I can promise you that Principled Negotiation is a proven, effective technique that will resolve many conflicts.
I cannot, however, guarantee it works in every case.
I admit that, while Principle Negotiation is usually the right way to go, it is likely the other side may not decide to go along with you. So what do you do when the other won’t act in a principled way?
So glad you asked. We’ll cover that next week.
Ron is a member of the San Juan Rotary Club, workshops committee co-chair for the Four Corners Conference for Professional Development, and the Executive Director of the Four Corners Coalition for Marriage & Family, Inc.
