Articles > Positional and Mutual Gains Negotiating (Part 3)
Positional and Mutual Gains Negotiating (Part 3)
by David Bryson
Norton Media
Introduction
This is the third in a series of articles that seek to answer the question: which is the better approach to commercial negotiation - “positional bargaining” or “win-win/mutual gains”? In this article, I will compare the defining characteristics of each code and give you my view as to which is best.
Skill required!
When you listen to most commentators on the issue, you would think that the two approaches have nothing whatsoever in common. Proponents of “mutual gains” are particularly derisory about negotiators who employ “positional” methods, often painting them as myopic, anachronistic and unintelligent. In fact, there is a great deal of overlap between the two codes - a great deal of similar methodology when the codes are practiced with skill. Here’s the rub. So often we see the results of negotiators acting incompetently being quoted as evidence that the approach is at fault.
To state the obvious, neither approach is going to work when applied without skill. I have heard many negotiators use “win-win” as a rationale for a poor outcome. In fact, it was incompetence and a lack of courage that led to the result rather than a considered decision to close at a point that would ensure both sides left happy! And I have lost count of the number of times that I have come up against negotiators for whom the only mode is overtly aggressive, offensive and a ridiculous opening position. (When these people come up against skilled negotiators, they tend to lose their shirts and never know it.)
Successful negotiation is a subtle art that requires intelligence, perception, patience, courage, a cool head and quiet determination… whichever approach is being adopted.
Let’s now examine the methodology overlap between the two codes and focus on the main differences. To do so, firstly I will refer to the headings and sub-headings used by the Consensus Building Institute to describe the “mutual gains” approach.
Prepare
(As a general point, both codes emphasize the critical importance of preparation.)
- Clarify your mandate and define your team.
Both codes would recommend this.
- Estimate your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) and theirs.
- Improve your BATNA if possible
BATNA is a term that was probably created by “mutual gains” proponents, and I think the focus on the concept is very helpful. However, the concept itself is one that all successful negotiators would be familiar with anyway. Going in to a negotiation with the best alternatives lined up gives us great power. And understanding theirs allows us to know what we have to compete with.
BATNA’s also define our walk-away points/reserve prices. It is critical to know where our walk-away point lies and to estimate theirs (this is more of a “positional” emphasis) and so the BATNA concept is helpful in this respect also.
And of course, by “improving your BATNA”, we are discovering where the best deal lies – always to be recommended!
- Know your interests
- Think about their interests
“Mutual gains” emphasizes the need to look behind our own and other people’s positions to understand what our/their interests really are so that (1) we can then work to satisfy these interests (2) we can apply solutions that might not be obvious if we just consider positions. This emphasis is good negotiation methodology and the practice should be alive and well within any approach.
- Prepare to suggest mutually beneficial options
This brings us to an important difference relating to the definition of “negotiation” covered in the next section “Create Value”.