How to invent options for mutual gain? - Chapter 4

Why is inventing options an important skill for a good negotiator?

Negotiations often happen along a single dimension, such as the price of a car, the length of a contract, or an amount of territory. All the available options appear to lay along a straight line between the options of the participants. The quarrel is usually about where to split the difference and the participants fail to reach an agreement that satisfies them all. Even if they reach an agreement, it is often not the agreement that would have been best for both sides. In these cases a skill at inventing options is very important. It can be illustrated by the expression of 'expanding the pie before dividing it'.

What are the four major obstacles that inhibit the inventing of options?

• Premature (self) criticism. Judgement hinders imagination. Especially under the pressure of a negotiation, it is difficult not to be too critical of yourself and the options that are coming to mind. Also, there is a fear that by inventing options and telling them to the other side, you may disclose information that could jeopardize your bargaining position.
• Premature closure. By looking for the single best answer, you may skip past a wiser decision-making process in which you select from a large number of possible options.
• Seeing a situation as an either/or situation.
• Thinking that 'solving their problem is their problem'. People have a psychological reluctance to accord legitimacy to the views of the other side. Shortsighted self-concern leads to partisan positions and arguments, and one-sided solutions.

How to invent creative options in a negotiation?

Four actions are described that help with inventing creative options in a negotiation. First, separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them. Second, broaden the options on the table instead of looking for a single answer. Third, search for mutual gains. Fourth, invent ways of making their decisions easy.

How to separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them?

To begin you need to separate the process of inventing options from the process of selecting between them. It can be helpful to brainstorm. Brainstorming is designed to produce as many ideas as possible and postpone all criticism and evaluation of ideas. It concerns inventing ideas without considering whether they are good or bad, or realistic or unrealistic. It is recommended to brainstorm without the other side present, so as not to worry about disclosing confidential information.

Which guidelines are offered for running a brainstorming session?

The brainstorming session can be organized in three phases: before, during, and after brainstorming.

• Before brainstorming it is recommended to define your purpose, choose a few participants, change the environment, design an informal atmosphere, and choose a facilitator.
• During the brainstorming it is recommended to seat the participants side by side (physically sitting side by side can reinforce the mental attitude of tackling a common problem together), clarify the ground rules (including the no-criticism rule), brainstorm, and record the ideas.
• After brainstorming it is recommended to start choosing the most promising ideas, invent improvements for those ideas, and to set up a time to evaluate the ideas and decide which ideas can be used in the negotiation.

What are the pros and cons of brainstorming with the other side?

The risk of brainstorming with the other side is that you may disclose confidential information inadvertently, or that the other side may mistake one of your given options as an offer. The pros are that ideas may be produced that take into account the interests of all those involved. It also creates a climate of cooperative problem-solving, and of informing each side about the concerns of the other.

How to broaden the options instead of looking for one single answer?

Brainstorming generates space within which later can be negotiated. By having a substantial number of different ideas, the negotiation can start and the sides can together choose what is the best way to go. One way of using one good idea to generate others is by using 'The Circle Chart'. It can also be helpful to examine the problem from the perspective of different professions and disciplines (how would each expert diagnose the situation, what kind of approaches would they suggest, and what practical suggestions would follow). It may be necessary to change the scope of the proposed agreement, for example by coming to a partial agreement, involving less parties, or only addressing a limited period of time.

What is 'The Circle Chart'?

'The Circle Chart' illustrates the four different types of thinking that are involved in the task of inventing options. The four different types of thinking are:

• Identify the problem: what is wrong and what are the current symptoms?
• Descriptive analysis: diagnose the problem by sorting the symptoms into categories, suggest causes, observe what is lacking, and identify existing barriers for resolving the problem.
• Create different approaches and generate broad ideas of what might be done.
• Come up with specific and feasible suggestions for action.

How to look for mutual gain?

Besides a shared interest in averting losses on both sides, there is almost always the possibility of mutual gain. One way of finding mutual gain is by identifying shared interests. Shared interests may not be immediately obvious, but they are normally always there. They have to be viewed as opportunities, be made explicit, and be formulated as a shared goal. Putting emphasis on the shared interests can make the negotiations smoother and more amicable. Mutual gain can also be found by matching the differing interests (what is of low cost to you and of high benefit to the other).

Which kind of differences lend themselves best to dovetailing?

Some agreements are made on the basis of the two sides actually wanting different things. The kinds of differences that best lend themselves to dovetailing are:

• Differences in interest (form or substance, economic or political, immediate or later, prestige or results, etc.).
• Differences in beliefs. If both parties believe they are in the right, they can choose to let an impartial third party settle the case (as they are both convinced they are right, neither of them should worry about that course of action).
• Differences in the value placed on time. Some may care more about the present while another cares more about the future. Installment plans may work well in these cases.
• Differences in forecasts. Some may expect a bigger result than another, in which case the payout could be relative to the result and neither have to worry.
• Differences in aversion to risk. Risk can be traded for revenue.

Why (and how to) make the decision of the other side easy?

If you want to be successful in a negotiation, you need the other side to make a decision that you want. You can assist that by making their decision as easy as possible. It is important to be aware of who you are trying to convince. If you can understand well their problem, you may also understand the options that could solve it and would be easily acceptable to them. Another way to make the decision easier for the other side is to legitimize the option. The other side is more likely to accept a solution if it seems like the right thing to do, perhaps because it is fair, honorable, legal, or there is precedent.