-What is the best way for people to deal with their differences?- Roger Fisher and William Ury Story no. 29 for the blog, www.architects-tales.com; Copyright 2019 by Dale R. Ellickson Many architects of my generation lament that they had...
-What is the best way for people to deal with their differences?-
Roger Fisher and William UryStory no. 29 for the blog, www.architects-tales.com; Copyright 2019 by Dale R. Ellickson
Many architects of my generation lament that they had no formal training in negotiating. That is no accident. Schools of architecture have a notorious reputation for over-emphasizing design theory and shying away from practical practice issues. Yet, the blame does not exactly belong with the schools back then since the systematic and scientific teaching of negotiating is actually a very recent development.
By chance while browsing a Washington, DC bookstore, I came across a small paperback by the title, Getting to Yes – Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In[1], by Roger Fisher[2] and William Ury[3]. It is an easy read. At the end of the book was a note about the Harvard Negotiating Project and its two-week long courses based on the book at Harvard Law School’s Summer Program for Lawyers. I took both the basic and advanced courses.[4]
During one memorable breakout session where a few of us had a chance for a face-to-face discussion with Roger Fisher, one of my fellow students asked him, “How did the Negotiating Project start?”
Here is my recollection of Roger’s answer.
Background
The natural tendency in any negotiation is for the parties to adopt a strategy where each party takes the position that a win requires a loss by the opposing party. Because neither party wants to lose, this negotiating strategy often leads to a stalemate. This is exactly what happened in the early 1970’s when the U.S. and the Soviet Union (including Russia) began discussions called the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT). It was about halting their nuclear arms race, which was getting seriously out of control. After two and a half years of discussions, they had made no progress.
The U.S. State Department was at wits end – so they turned to academia for help to find a training course on negotiating for their negotiators. Eventually, Harvard University was contacted at its highest levels and asked if it had such a course. No, none of its departments had such a course. Then, the university was asked to survey all the higher educational institutions in the country, and even the world. Again, the answer was, “No.” There was no such course anywhere.
The State Department then asked Harvard, “Could you develop such a course to teach our negotiators?” Considering that Harvard had a plethora of talent including lawyers, anthropologists, sociologist, psychologists, etc., the university agreed to try, but it needed money for the research, which would be done in a scientific way. For whatever reasons, a private philanthropy stepped forward to fund the project.
The project was started by contacting the Fortune 500 companies and asking them for the names of their best negotiators. These would be people who intuitively developed their own negotiating methods to overcome the stalemates caused by positional bargaining. The university’s staff interviewed and surveyed the Fortune 500 negotiators. Out of their data they were able to find seven common principles that good negotiators use to plan and execute a successful, win-win result.
The seven principles were then taught to the State Department’s negotiators who subsequently were able to overcome the stalemate and obtain an agreement and treaty called SALT I, which was signed by presidents Nixon and Brezhnez on May 26, 1972.[5]
The Principles
During one of the question and answer sessions at the Negotiating Project seminar, one of my fellow students blurted out a handy mnemonic for remembering the seven principles. It is CALORIC. You will not find that mnemonic in any of the Negotiating Project’s materials. Yet, I still use it because it is a great memory tool.
Please note that these seven principles are NOT in any way rigid steps or sequences to negotiating, such as trying to learn to swing a golf club using a 1,2,3… method. Rather they are more like a road map where you can begin or end up at various places of your own choosing on the way to a successful negotiation. Here are the seven principles using CALORIC as our outline.
C stands for COMMUNICATION. If there is a first step in negotiations, it is communications. Without it there is no way that the parties can have a “meeting of the minds.” A classic failure in negotiation occurs when one or both parties refuse to talk to one another. For instance, in the Israelis-Arab-Palestinian negotiations, the Israelis refused to talk to the Palestinians unless certain non-negotiable conditions were first met regarding who represented the Palestinians. (That is, the Israelis considered the PLO to be a terrorist organization who they refused to negotiate with.) This position for the Israelis boxed themselves into an approach with no options for a way out. The U.S. stepped in and offered to help mediate – but first in secret so as to save face for the Israelis. The first result was the 1978 Camp David Accord with Egypt and Jordon. The next step was again with secret talks, but this time in Oslo where agreement was reached that officially recognized the right to a Palestinian state. In most cases, where there is a breakdown in communications, the use of an intermediary or a formal mediator may be helpful towards overcoming impasses to communications.
A stands for ALTERNATIVES. Preferably before commencing a negotiation, you will consider the consequences of NOT reaching an agreement, and what alternatives you have to select from at that point. For instance, when negotiating for the purchase of a new car, an alternative may be to go to a competitive dealer to find a better deal or to delay the purchase for another time. One of your alternatives will be your Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement or BATNA. The BATNA is your “walk” point. When your BATNA looks more appealing to you than the offer from the other party, that is when you move on and negotiations are over. Your job is to make your BATNA as strong as you can, but even then your job is not over. You should step in the shoes of your opposing party and brainstorm that party’s alternatives including its BATNA. At that point, your job is to show (overtly or subtly) to the other party that its BATNA is weaker than a negotiated agreement with you.
L stands for LEGITIMATE STANDARD. The parties to a negotiation frequently need the help of a benchmark to validate the fairness of their bargain. Pitting your will against the other party’s will can, and often does, lead to bad feelings and disappointing results. Agreeing together on a legitimate standard will just as often avoid the contest of wills. For instance, in the purchase of a car, the legitimate standard may be the Blue Book value. For the purchase of a house, it may be the comparable recent sales of other similar houses as determined by a licensed appraiser or a real estate agent. In any negotiation, the parties will have a better chance of success when and if they seek, find and agree upon a legitimate standard.
O stands for OPTIONS. Here is where a good imagination comes in handy. Brainstorming other options for agreement may help close a deal. For instance, there was a pizza restaurant owner who wanted to move to a new ground-floor space in an office building with a lot of hungry workers, but the asking rent was too high. In exchange for a reduced rent, the pizza restaurant promised to attach a flier to every take-out box of pizza delivered outside of the office building advertising the benefits of the new office building and its other retail tenants. Thus, the landlord received a lot of free advertising that justified the reduction in the restaurant’s rent. Finding an option that works for both parties separates the creative negotiator from the herd.
R stands for RELATIONSHIPS. An adage in negotiating circles is “be soft on relationships and hard on the issues.” A sure way to destroy the chances for a win-win outcome is to attack the other party. Do not ignore personal attacks by the other party – when necessary, stop them by negotiating relationships before continuing discussions about any other issues! My philosophy is that the first rule of negotiations is to protect the relationships. In another situation, one party will suddenly make friendly overtures to the other party, but the gestures are not heartfelt and are a strategy to exchange good relationships for a tangible benefit. For instance, the underlying message may be, “I will be your friend if you buy my used car at the price I want.” Do not trade relationships for substance.
I stands for INTERESTS. Each party has intangible interests that must not be obscured by its bargaining position. Focus on the interests rather than the positions. “The basic problem in a negotiation lies not in conflicting positions, but in the conflict between each side’s needs, desires, concerns, and fears.”[6] Use brainstorming to create a list of interest for you, and then a list for your opposition. For example, maybe the opposing party has a time constraint that may mean more to them than money. By comprehending where each party’s interests meet, or are in conflict, you will have a better understanding about how to achieve a workable agreement.
C stands for CLOSURE. Closure means what it says – bring all matters to a conclusion. This is not easy for everybody because sometime there is a reluctance to end. Just stop talking. Then, ask questions of the other party like, “Are you satisfied? What more do you need or want? Can we now sign our agreement?” and so on. Tie up the loose ends!
That’s it. Get the book!
End Notes
[1] First published by Penguin Books in 1981.
[2] Roger Fisher (1922-2012) was an attorney and professor at Harvard Law School.
[3] William Ury (1953- ) is a trained doctor of anthropologist and negotiator.
[4] I took the courses on negotiating after an especially difficult several years of negotiating with the Associated General Contractor (AGC) to obtain their eventual endorsement of AIA’s 1987 edition of its General Conditions , Document A201.
[5] After several more years of study and refinement, Getting to Yes… was first published in 1981. Subsequent editions were published in 1991 and 2001 that were edited by Bruce Patton.
[6] From page 40 of Getting to Yes… by Fisher and Ury with Patton as editor, 2nd edition, Penguin Books,1991.
The post C.A.L.O.R.I.C – Principled Negotiating appeared first on architects tales.