When individuals and groups enter into negotiations, many people often have a mindset of “mine,” which is a “position-based” approach. It’s a “zero sum” framework, meaning the pizza pie is only so big. Let’s say you have 2 slices and I have 6; if I give you one more, I’ll only have 5. If you gain something, I lose something. It is a “win-lose” module.
There is another mindset in negotiations, a “win-win,” which is based on an “interest-based” approach and considered “positive sum.” The pizza pie can be cut differently, toppings and spices can be added, and the pie actually got “larger. Best of all, nobody lost.
The giants of the interest-based negotiation theory are Roger Fisher and William Ury, who wrote the famous book, “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.” They consider this approach to negotiation the best because it focuses on the needs and interests of the parties, rather than their positions. It asks the “why” rather that the “what.” The goal is for both sides to win – to have mutual gains – because they focus on their interests rather than their positions.
My favorite example of this is the parent who has one orange and two children and both children say “I want the whole orange.” This is a statement of the kids’ positions. Wanting to be fair, the parent cuts the orange into two halves and gives each child a half. Both begin wailing. The parent then asked, “what’s wrong?” One child says, “I wanted to make a smoothie with the pulp.” The other says “I wanted to make orange frosting with the rind.” Had the parent asked about their interests rather than their positions, both children would have won and been happy. Had the kids originally wanted the whole orange so that their creations would have been even better (more orangey tasting), neither would have been thrilled with only getting the inside or the outside of the orange, but they would have considered this a compromise and basically a “win” because they got the main thing that they wanted.
When people enter a negotiation, they will never get 100% of what they want. There will have to be compromise for any number of reasons. They need to prioritize their positions and think clearly about their interests before beginning the work of negotiation. For instance, let’s say housemates are trying to decorate their new house. One wants the living room to be painted light blue and the front porch bathed in light. The other wants wallpaper in the living room and the front porch shuttered. They argue about this for a solid week. Finally, they remember Ury and Fisher and talk about WHY they want those things. One wanted to re-create college colors in the living room and the other was going for a sentimental feel. For the porch, one wanted it to feel welcoming and the other liked a more private space. They ended up ranking their interests in order and found that their priorities allowed them to compromise: They ended up with light blue wallpaper in the living room and large, moveable shutters on a nicely lit porch. Both were very satisfied.
These are simple examples, but they illustrate the power of looking behind your “positions” and “what” you want in order to uncover your true interests and the “why” of wanting a certain outcome. The other good consequence of spending time going over why you want to get or give things is that you are TALKING and having a face to face conversation! It is both productive and meaningful.
