Contrary to popular believes, in many negotiations, there need not be winners and losers. All parties can gain. Granted that how much each party can gain from the negotiation depends on how well prepared or how “good” the negotiators are, there should not be a need for the parties to walk away from the deal feeling like losers. Integrative negotiation, also known as cooperative, collaborative, win-win, mutual gains, or problem solving – is a negotiation philosophy that seeks to “expand the pie” to allow for satisfaction from the deals.
The major differences between win-win and win-lose philosophy are based on the immediate substantive outcomes of the negotiation in relation to the long term relationship between the parties. Indeed, while the parties in a win-lose negotiation use all of their tactics to gain the “upper hand”, they completely disregard the possibility of dealing with each other again the in the future (buying a car, price-haggling in an open market, etc.). One would tend to choose a win/lose negotiation strategy if one only wants to get the “best single deal”, completely disregard of the other party’s goals, aspirations and the importance of future relationships.
At the opposite of the win/lose philosophy is the win/win philosophy. As mentioned, a win-win philosophy recognizes that the goals of the parties are not mutually exclusive – i.e. each party wants the best deal possible for themselves. One party’s gain is not necessarily at the other party’s expense. A win-win philosophy and strategy is crucial for negotiations among parties who look to establish a long-term relationship (supply-demand, prime – sub contractors, friends and family, compatriots, etc.)
As we compare the two philosophies, we immediately recognize that a win-win strategy is more difficult and hence takes more “brain cells” to formulate and execute. No doubt that it would take a great deal of flexibility, creativity and teamwork from both sides of the negotiating table to achieve common, collective or compatible goals.
Let’s take it a step further and ask the question of whether the two philosophies are mutual exclusive or can they co-exist in certain conditions. Are there situations that allow both strategies? The answers will have to depend on the conditions of the deals; which in turns dictate the causal relationship of the two parties. My contention is that one can start off with an integrative strategy and later switch to a distributive strategy. A reversal of orders however will not work. The risk of first implementing a distributive strategy – hence, using all available tactics to get the best deals – before the integrative strategy is too high. Not only does this send a mix/confusing signals to the other party, it is one sure way to establish mistrust and destroy the relationship.
The Vietnamese government is now implementing a “glasnost” policy of opening up and trying to solicit help from the Vietnamese American professional community. “Getting to Yes” with the Vietnamese government is still as difficult and tricky as can be. Obstacles and drawbacks from this method of negotiating abound. So what are the obstacles?
The lack or willingness to exchange information:
At the heart of a win-win negotiation is the willingness to share information on the below-the-surface interests and needs. Why one wants something is often more important than what one wants. The Vietnamese government wants to control access to all information flowing out and coming in to the country, but why do they want that? Unless the negotiating party admits to their needs, desires or fears that dictate their positions, the objectives – not matter how clearly defined – are extremely limited. The Vietnamese officials want to control information because they fear the proliferation of democracy and hence weaken their grip on power. However, unless they are willing to get to the core issues, we can not explore alternatives to the solutions.
Cannot separate the people from the problem:
Not less important is the issue of trust among the parties. Unless there is trust, people will continue to be reserved and wary of each other. Their behaviors will be contradictory to what they say. They can agree to a win-win strategy but they will instead implement win-lose tactics. They can use their power to bully the other team, or use psychological warfare or deceptive tactics to get what they way. Obviously, there is a deep mistrust between the Vietnamese-American community and the Vietnamese government. It is fair to say that the Vietnamese-American community “has been burnt” too many times and hence they view the actions from the government as some form of trickeries.
As cliché as it sounds, “trust has to be earn” and can not be demanded. Parties need to architect a plan of action that consists of small, specific and measurable actions that will demonstrate their good wills. More importantly, at the first steps to negotiation, is the need to separate the issues from the people. De-personalization of the problems is a crucial prerequisite to the negotiation success.
Cannot identify and define the Problems without assigning blames:
Parties need to define the problems based on interests and not positions. Opening a negotiation with statement like: “These problems arise because you have done the followings ….” is a bad start. There should not be an assignment of blame in our goals. The problems will need to be recognized as mutual and without “ownerships”. To “own the problem” is to be responsible and possibly be the cause of the problem.
The parties will need to explore the solutions of the problems together. They should not get stuck with the obvious solutions. Instead they need to brainstorm and be creative in finding all solutions without being judgmental. Once the list of possible solution is exhaustive, they can review and choose the most appropriate solution to implement. There is a need to invent options for mutual gains.
Cannot define objective criteria:
Parties need to define ways to rank and weigh each option. Without clearly defined objectives, parties can not be clear on what options to take. Be alert to the intangibles options; invent ways to logroll solutions and expectations, risk and time preferences.
Our struggle for a democratic and prosperous
No comments:
Post a Comment