Focus on interests, not positions

In this book and others by William Ury, a good negotiator does much more than just trying to get the best possible deal for himself, possibly at the expense of others.  Instead, negotiation is a "win-win" process.  All sides identify their interests, and then creatively and jointly develop solutions.  The best solutions balance the competing interests of the negotiators.  And they also satisfy SHARED interests.  When negotiating is defined this way, it is one of the most constructive, rewarding things we can do in life.

I've gotten a lot out of this book, but I think the best thing is the idea of focusing on interests, rather than positions.  The other party says, "This is what I insist on.  I demand it!  I won't accept anything else!"  That is their position.  The natural temptation is to counter with my position, "NO!  This is what I think we must do!"  The author suggests that, instead, we sidestep the other's position and instead probe into their interests.  What is their need or desire that fuels their position?  Their position itself often is something you can't accept without sacrificing your own needs.  But if you clarify their interests--the real needs they are trying to address--and clarify your own interests, you may find a solution that meets everybody's most important needs.

A few months ago, I had an opportunity to put this idea into practice.  I ran into an upper level manager during a project.  He told me, in essence, "I don't like your approach on this project.  Do it my way or I'll tell my people not to work with you!"  I was shaken up because I had not realized that he felt this way and would take such a firm position.  I suggested we talk about it.  He said we could talk as long as we wanted, but he wasn't going to change his mind.

I was not hopeful, but I scheduled the meeting.  I prepared for it like no other meeting in my life.  It went as well as I could expect.  I didn't completely sell him, but I was tentatively allowed to continue using my approach.  What made the difference?  I addressed the need that was fueling his position.

What I learned was that he was upset with the complexity of certain computer reports.  If we switched to the approach he was recommending--his position--these reports would be simplified.  He had a legitimate complaint.  The reports were so complex they were useless!  But I did not agree with his position.  I thought his solution would simplify the reports but would create far more important new problems.  So I developed another way to simplify the reports.  I showed up at his office with a copy of these simplified reports.  I explained how we could meet his legitimate need for simplification while continuing with the approach I had been using on the project.

He was still skeptical, but was willing to let me proceed.  I think the only reason I "got out of his office alive" is that I decided not to debate whether his position or my position was better.  Instead, I focused on giving him the thing he wanted that was causing him to take a firm stance.