Relationships don’t work too well when one person does all the giving or all the taking, so it’s vital that you understand the other people when negotiating. Specifically, you must understand their needs and wants.
Since we established last week that knowing what we want is difficult, you can imagine that knowing what others need or want is even more so.
So how do you find out? You can ask, and that’s not a bad way to start. But the best tools are simple ones. Observation and careful listening. Notice I didn’t say they were easy. That’s because simple doesn’t always mean easy.
For example, I often negotiate with my youngest daughter. She is a darling little girl who, when asked what she wants doesn’t EVER hesitate to tell you in detailed language. She prefers to pick out her own clothes, to determine her own lunch (and dinner) menu, to manage her speed and to set her own schedule. She doesn’t take too well to someone encroaching on any of these decisions, physically or verbally. While she might want to wear gym shorts with cowboy boots, eat baked beans and black olives, speed through homework but poke around in the garden and wake up at 4:30 a.m. on the weekends, I think it’s safe to say that one of her driving needs is independence (and maybe control too).
It’s part of her charm. And I respect that in my negotiations with her. This isn’t to say she has the upper hand. It means, that knowing she prefers to be independent, I might frame my language to show her how my needs can be met without infringing on her independence.
I hear you. No. It’s not manipulation. I truly care about her independence. I truly want her to feel fulfilled at the end of our negotiation. But not at the detriment of my need to keep her safe, healthy, educated, etc. That would be a sacrifice, and like Abbe Faria said in my favorite pirate story, The Count of Monte Cristo, “I’m not a saint.”
But we’ll talk about that next week when we learn how to Evaluate All The Posibilities.
Steven Covey nails this one in his 7 Habits Book – Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood. If you can learn what is truly important – perhaps independence – to the other person, than you can present them with solutions that satisfy that need. It may not be the same solution they initially proposed, but hopefully is something better suited to meet the true need.
The Dalai Lama speaks frequently of the need for greater empathy, which I think is the appropriate frame of mind in negotiations. Learning what the person across the table from you is feeling, thinking, and needing, allows you to better address their needs. It is only manipulation if you choose to use this understanding purely for your gain, as opposed to collaboratively developing the “best” solution for all parties. Manipulation might equate to small victories, but will never lead to true progress. Trust will quickly erode, and thus there will be no means for a dialog at all. Empathy, Trust, and Respect when combined together, consistently yield better results for all involved.
One last point, and this one is important, is that in negotiations empathy does not equate to weakness, but rather strength. The ability to let your guard down and listen with empathy is no easy task. Empathy does not mean sacrificing your beliefs, but rather being secure enough in them that you are open to listen and truly understand others. Not something for the weak in principle to embark upon.
Another great post MMEWS.
David,
I’m glad to hear your point about empathy not meaning weakness. I will talk about that in next week’s post on “Evaluating all the possibilities.” It is interesting to me that people assume anything less than forceful is weak. I actually find force to be weak. When I use force with my children, I always lose. I definitely lose when I use force at work; I win when I use charm. Sun Tzu speaks to this phenomenon quite clearly in The Art of War. I will especially speak to “sacrificing” next week. People don’t understand that word, and I look forward to setting the record straight. With Merriam Webster’s help, of course.
I should have been an etymologist!