Archives

by Mansoor Ghouse, Management Consultant

The negotiations associated with the Peace Process seem to be going well, despite the many "incidents" in which presumably rogue elements on both sides were involved. What should be a concern to us is the philosophy of negotiation adopted by the two parties and the degree of negotiation skills they possess.

A disparity or incongruence in this area will have the effect of operationally shifting the balance of power. It may, therefore, be relevant at this stage to briefly examine some aspects of the negotiation process.

There are two approaches to negotiation. One is to research one's own strengths and weaknesses as well as those of the other side(s) as far these can be determined, supplemented by sets of reasoned assumptions, do the same for the needs (or to use the term used by professionals), the interests of both parties, then determine the positions one will take up on core and other issues and how far it is realistic to shift from these positions, agree in advance which demands can be conceded in exchange for reciprocal (and desirably more valuable) benefits from the other side.

Demands

All this is usually preceded by the declaration of the declaration of many more demands than are actually needed by each party; one of the purposes of this strategy is to concede some of these expendable demands to extract concessions perceived to be more valuable.

This is a brief outline of the professional approach. It is a battle of wits. The approach is adversarial. Negotiators have the reputation of being seasoned and tough and to possess certain intuitive skills, even knowing just when to bluff and when to walk away. This type of negotiation becomes a zero-sum game. What one gains, the other loses. Compromise is a favourite device of negotiators who belong to this genre.

Let us assume there are two parties X and Y who are engaged in negotiation. X is shown on the vertical axis and Y on the horizontal.

Each party faces two outcomes - a Win or a Lose. These outcomes are configured into a Matrix as shown. The Matrix has 4 squares identified as A,B,C,D.

Four squares

Let us examine each of these four squares. Square A represents the situation X(Lose)/Y(Win).

This is clearly a zero sum outcome. One Wins and the other has to lose. Now let us look at Square C. Here it is a Y(Lose)/X(Win) situation - the exact opposite of Square A. Here, X wins and Y loses - again a zero sum outcome.

It also may mean capitulation and surrender. Both these outcomes are damaging to one party or the other. It results in a sense of defeat, despondency, deprivation, humiliation and revenge

However, if a cluster of issues is negotiated one by one, there will be a distribution of Win'Lose and Lose/Win outcomes in favour of one party, or the other or in favour of neither (parity).

The last outcome may result in a more acceptable situation because there may have been Give-and-take approach. In other words, you can't win 'em all; you win some and lose some.

This is an appropriate time to look at the double-arrow-headed diagonal line straddling Squares A and D. This may be termed the axis of Compromise and reflects how give-and-take can operate in a variety of situations.

In the popular imagination, Compromise is a favoured way of settling an issue. In the optional situation, each party meets the other half way or along the Axis in a sub-optimal situation. Either way, it reflects a Compromise.

Compromise

Compromise is a controversial mechanism. It can be satisfying or dissatisfying to either party or both parties.

Underlying a compromise is the sense of deprivation derived from concessions given to achieve a Compromise.

The concessions may be of a painful nature. And the exchange may not prove cost-effective. True, negotiating parties try to come prepared with a series of issues on which they can yield in order to gain victory on another perceived coveted issues from the other party.

There is usually a great deal of state-play here with more or less histrionics to suit. Compromise further can become a rather numerate and impersonal exercise.

Parties come with pre-determined game plans sketched out by prior rehearsals and role-plays., knowing what they will give away to win concessions from the other side. It's rather like a chess game but with some deadlocks but hardly any checkmate.

Extreme points

Some experts don't consider Compromise the most preferred approach in negotiation, though in practice, it is still widely used. Labour/Management negotiations are noted for using compromise as the favourite tool for settlement of issues. Both parties use every trick in the book to gain the greatest advantage overall. As it often happens in such instances, no settlement is "permanent".

The line with double headed arrows diagonally spanning the Win/Lose and Lose/Win boxes in the matrix may be called The Axis of Compromise.

The extreme points represent which party wins and which loses any one issue or on the whole negotiation itself.

However, it has to be borne in mind that in practice the parties win some and lose some on different issues.

The midpoint represents the point of balance (the Center-Point) of Compromise. The line gives meaning to the popular expression of "You can't 'em all.

You win some and lose some." Often there is a deadly earnest about this process of Compromise. Although it is touted as a desirable negotiating process, it can leave festering grievances arising from demands not won or concessions yielded under pressure/threat.

Let us leave Compromise for a moment to look at Square B which portrays a X(Lose) Y(Lose) or Lose/Lose situation. Here both parties lose. The result is a stalemate or deadlock and what is worse, both suffer damage of varying degrees. Both take up what the professionals term "Positions", dig in, are intractable, unyielding, even hostile.

Eventually both retire hurt, so to speak. Labour/Management and political negotiations were at one time notorious for this type of outcome. Clearly this is an outcome to be avoided at all costs, yet it is a fact of life that it still occurs from time to time.

The second approach -represented by Square D - is, in the writers opinion, a process which inevitably has to emerge from the model we have examined.

Win approach

The Square D in the matrix reflects what is known as the WIN/WIN approach. Here both parties win. Neither considers itself a loser. The combative, adversarial and often hostile approach in squares A,B, and D is simply not present in a Square C scenario.

How can this desirable scenario come about? What are the psychological characteristics of WIN/WIN negotiators? What are the environmental factors which promote an adoption of this approach. This approach often results in both parties achieving gains beyond than their expectations.

Creative solution

But creative solutions can be found only if the parties are genuine in intent, have no hidden agendas (the classical bane of negotiations) and are committed to discover and discuss creative solutions and, more importantly, both have a WIN/WIN mindset.

The parties come to the negotiations intent on finding creative solutions acceptable to both and which transform past bitterness into goodwill and collaboration.

This does not mean that negotiators should be naive and gullible; they should be thoroughly versed in the issues, prepared, articulate, and alert, yet be empathetic with the other side. This approach is demanding, requires abandonment of conventional thinking, stereotypes and dogmas, and the adoption of a creative mental posture.

To use a metaphor, instead of the parties fighting over the sizes of the slices of the cake, they address their minds on how the cake can be made bigger and of better quality, if nothing else. To cite a closer to real-life example, let us consider the case of a Labour/Management dispute over a demand for a wage increase.

The management's response has been a No - "We can't afford it". On the other hand, the COL has shot up. A strike is threatened. Both sides gear up for a bitter struggle. Eventually, a Compromise is usually worked out. But the fact is that both sides harbour rankling grievances.

But everybody heaves a sigh of relief that the crippling strike has been called off. What has been described represents a conventional, "inside the box" solution (?).

Let us now examine a possible WIN/WIN (Square D) approach.

Management and Labour both agree that a wage increase is essential. Management states that an increase is impossible right now out of bottom-line considerations but the need is acknowledged in principle.

The proposal is then made that both sides make every effort to increase the size of the pie available by, say, increasing productivity.

Wage increase

They agree to develop-through joint action - a scheme with targets, policies, plans, deadlines and horizons.

Agreement is reached on how a bigger pie would be shared, i.e. in what proportions. The operation is launched and monitored.

To act as an incentive and to re-assure everybody concerned, interim gains may be shared. Result, everybody benefits - the company, staff, shareholders, more than anyone expected.

Thus, a creative solution has been found which has generated a whole basket of benefits for everyone, and far beyond the outcomes of a Compromise solution.

But this approach is even more tough to adopt for a Negotiator accustomed to wrenching Win/Lose or Lose/Lose negotiations.

It requires a drastic re-framing of the philosophy of the Negotiation as well as of the issues. And a genuine commitment to find mutually acceptable solutions, which will result in both sides winning, not one side losing and the other side winning. Even if it is on an issue-by-issue basis, authenticity and integrity are the keys to Success here.

Compromise often leads to festering grievances which for the moment may be swept under the carpet, giving the illusion of a satisfactory outcome, only to surface explosively over time. It is clearly not a wholly satisfactory or satisfying process.

Reciprocal good will

There is some evidence that both parties involved in the Peace Process are exhibiting reciprocal goodwill, and a commitment to find solutions to the problems of the various constituencies for the larger good of the country.

They do not seem to be acting like hate-filled adversaries trying to extract concessions from each other, using every tactic, ethical or otherwise, in the book.

Goodwill has characterized the psychological climate. Only events will tell whether they are, in fact, adopting the WIN/WIN approach which is the major focus of this piece.

If, in fact, they are, then an interesting question is whether it is by design or happenstance! But what is happening is a welcome and positive development and should be encouraged by widespread support. At the very least, WIN/WIN generates happier "vibes" than WIN/LOSE or LOSE/LOSE!

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager