Negotiation – Facts do the Heavy Lifting

Paul Godin points out how to avoid unproductive emotionally-damaging debates in negotiations. Use factual measures of legitimacy to create flexibility and rationally define parameters for resolution.

To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.

To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.

To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.

Negotiation – Facts do the Heavy LiftingBelow is the transcript of this video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whoOSukJZsY

{Transcript}

One thing that often helps in a negotiation is to let the facts do the heavy lifting for you. We talk about a concept called objective criteria, which is the use of external standards or fair standards that are factual and objective—in the sense they don’t come from either party to the negotiation. If we get into a negotiation and start debating, we can debate our subjective views all day long and may never convince the other side. But what may move them—and help protect you at the same time—is to search for these objective criteria that apply to the situation.

For example, one of the disputes that I mediated involved a disagreement between a national sports federation and a number of athletes. The essence of the dispute was about the wording of various policies and procedures. They could have debated endlessly about the wording of the existing policies—whether it was appropriate, inappropriate, or the best way to go. Instead, I asked them to look for and bring to the table external measures of what those policies and procedures should look like.

Each side went out and found examples from other federations, other athlete organizations, and online resources—both national and international. They brought samples and precedents for those kinds of policies. Some were in current use; others had been suggested by various organizations recognized as models. This gave both sides a starting point for their discussions—a baseline—and allowed them to begin identifying the parameters of what is an appropriate range for wording these kinds of policies, such as those dealing with marketing or disciplinary procedures.

This approach kept them from getting upset with one another and falling into an aggressive debate mode. Instead, they talked about the facts that apply, and those facts helped inform what an appropriate answer should be. It led to a rational, appropriate, and productive discussion.

In any negotiation, when you find yourself getting into a debate, always ask yourself: do we have to debate, or is there an answer we can find from an external, objective source that may help us resolve the dispute—or at least minimize the range of the dispute—so we don’t end up in a fight?