Articles > Positional and Mutual Gains Negotiating (Part 3)
Positional and Mutual Gains Negotiating (Part 3)
by David Bryson
Norton Media
Follow through
- Agree on monitoring arrangements
- Make it easy to live up to commitments
- Align organizational incentives and controls
- Keep working to improve relationships
- Agree to use neutrals to resolve disagreements
All very sensible, whichever code we are following.
“The very best possible deal for our own team”
On a number of occasions in this article I refer to “the very best possible deal for our own team”, or similar. I think it is worth clarifying what I mean by this because it will throw up an issue which is at the heart of the “positional” vs. “mutual gains” debate.
What the expression is not intended to mean is the outcome which squeezes every last drop out of “the opposition”, using every ploy we can think of, on this one deal, thereby maximizing short-term profit for ourselves but leaving a legacy of resentment that will come back to haunt us. (Although if it’s a one-off negotiation, this might be the appropriate strategy!) No, in commercial negotiation, it is likely that we have to consider the long-term profitability of our relationships. The negotiator’s task therefore is to understand how much value we can take from a particular deal, without jeopardising the future relationship.
The fundamental, and complex, issue that this highlights is “short-termism” versus “long-termism”, and, in my view, much of the debate between proponents of the two codes boils down to this. Which way one votes on this should depend on several aspects of the particular case under consideration i.e. there is no one answer.
Conclusion
In conclusion, for me, most of the differences between the two approaches are simply matters of emphasis and “positionals” have a lot to learn from “mutual gainers” and vice-versa. The essential difference though relates to how we divide the “pie”. I believe that, in most instances, the positional approach wins, but it must be applied with skill and with an eye to the long-term relationship, where this is relevant. Here again, the development of “mutual gains” has been hugely beneficial by making us all think more carefully about the effect that negotiation can have on relationships.
Implications for negotiators
There is absolutely no question in my mind that negotiators, particularly those negotiating higher-value contracts, need to be trained in both “positional” and “mutual gains” techniques. As previously stated, proponents of both codes have a lot to learn from each other i.e. we would all be more successful commercial negotiators by having a deep understanding of both approaches.
Furthermore, by being skilled practitioners of both codes, we are then in a position to choose the approach, or “mix”, that is appropriate for specific negotiations. Contrary to the views of many writers and trainers in the field of negotiation, when it comes to the appropriate style of negotiation, one size does not fit all.
Despite my clear view about bargaining expressed above, I do recognize that there are times when it is appropriate to employ the “mutual gains” approach to this phase. Incidentally, in some instances, this might be because of company policy or simply the boss’ orders. By all means try to change the policy if you disagree with it, but until then, you’ll need to have the appropriate skills…or you’ll need to get another job!
Post-script
Discussion of “positional” vs. “mutual gains” often includes the issues of morality and business ethics, even political correctness - more in some countries than others! This is a complex area and, of course, there is no right or wrong, just opinions. Such debate can get quite academic and so I have not really alluded to it in this article that I hope concentrates on the practical. However, I know from many of my students that it is an area of relevance and sometimes of great concern. Therefore I will be coming back to it with a future article.