What Are We Talking About?

After some opening activities and the aforementioned identification of what each person wanted to gain from the two days, there was a brief discussion of the agenda for their time together. With that completed, Dr. Pat rapidly moved into the content of the workshop.

He pointed out that if the participants were going to effectively advance their negotiation process and skills, it would be essential to engage in a discussion of his description of the subject matter. His definition was already written on a flipchart:

A negotiation is the ongoing process through which two or more parties, whose positions are not necessarily consistent, work in an effort to reach an agreement.

He called attention to the critical parts of this sentence. First was the word process. Dr. Pat stressed that most people think of a negotiation as an event that takes place only after the parties put their requests or positions on the table. In reality, negotiations are frequently an ongoing process, and those who focus strictly on the decision phase greatly reduce their effectiveness.

Dr. Pat clarified that the need identification and the postdecision implementation phases are often the most critical parts of the negotiation process. Then he asked what participants thought was the next significant component. Monte Beal from New York City brought up the multiple parties segment. Dr. Pat explained, “In a negotiation, there are both the people present and the people behind the scenes. Individuals behind the scenes are called constituents, and they often have more impact on what is said and done than the parties at the table.”

The next components Dr. Pat discussed were the issues of inconsistent initial positions and working in an effort to reach an agreement. He said that as long as an agreement has not been reached, there is no guarantee there will ever be one. “I have watched what seemed to be very minor issues and small differences that were inappropriately handled kill a large deal. On the positive side, recognize that as long as the parties are talking to each other, there is still a chance for success. Even if they’re yelling at you, at least they’re still talking to you. The negotiation process is only dead when one or both sides permanently cease communications.”

Dr. Pat further explained, “Differing initial positions are an often-misunderstood aspect of negotiations. If I am selling a car and you drive it and ask me how much I want for it, and I say $6,500, and you agree, that sounds like perfection, doesn’t it?” He clarified that this means of reaching a deal is not actually a negotiation but rather an up-front agreement. While this sounds like perfection, ultimately it is likely that neither party would end up happy. “On the way home, you would probably begin to think that you paid too much and might have been able to buy the car for less. On the other side of the deal, when I go to the bank to deposit your check, I might start thinking that I could’ve gotten as much as $8,000 for the car; thus sensing that I left a lot of money on the table.”

He paused for a moment to allow the participants to reflect on that logic, and then continued. “So you see, while an up-front agreement sounds like total bliss, it is in reality only through the time and effort we invest in a negotiation that we can reach an agreement both sides feel is in their best interests.

“By the way, almost all people overemphasize price in negotiations, just as in the car example I used. A savvy negotiator will tell you that if they let you set the price, and you let them set the terms, conditions, and deliverables, they will beat you every time. For example, the guy who agreed to buy the car might say, ‘I’ll pay that price, but only under the condition that it be repainted, with a new set of tires, a tune-up, and the payments spread out over two years.’” He explained that this could end up being a much better deal for the buyer than trying to get a somewhat lower cash price and then paying to have all of this work done.