resolving_issues_with_your_boss

04/13/2025:

Resolving Issues with Your Boss (Part 16A):

Principled Negotiations

Summary of Part 15B

Part 15B was the second part of a two-part examination of applying Neil Rackham's SPIN Selling model as a preemptive workplace strategy, which helps organizations and employees address potential conflicts before they escalate. By structuring discussions around Situation, Problem, Implication, and Need-Payoff questions, both parties can proactively identify concerns, align expectations, and develop solutions that balance productivity, fairness, and engagement. This structured dialogue fosters collaboration and minimizes workplace tensions.

Introduction

Negotiating for desired outcomes is an inherent aspect of personal and professional life. Until the mid-1960s, the predominant approach to negotiation was largely position-based. This approach heavily leverages resource disparities, social privileges, and legal advantages. This 'distributive bargaining' focused on claiming value rather than creating it.

The practice of distributive bargaining persists in the workplace due to several factors. Maintaining a hierarchical structure preserves lines of authority throughout the organization. From an operational viewpoint, this makes sense: all organizations have limited resources and time to accomplish their goals and associated tasks. When unplanned events occur or tasks take longer to complete satisfactorily, it is viewed as detracting from the whole. There is a tendency to view authority and time from a zero-sum perspective, leading to a competitive internal environment that tends to be cautious and conservative regarding any change from the ordinary.

Standardization of processes aims to control both efficiency and effectiveness. This approach maintains the perception of fairness and uniformity and offers predictable, seemingly equitable outcomes. The reality of limited resources and competitive environments reinforces this approach. Standardized procedures and historical precedent streamline allocation while preventing accusations of bias.

Formal negotiations—when they occur—are most often handled at the executive level or through Human Resources. Informal negotiations occur daily at every level of the organization. When negotiations of all types break down, it's rarely due to a complete absence of common ground. Rather, it stems from an inability to identify shared interests beneath opposing positions or from allowing emotional barriers to obscure potential solutions.

The Idea of a “Yesable Proposition”

During the academic year 1964-1965, Roger Fisher, a Professor at Harvard Law School, worked with a Freshman Seminar at Harvard College on the problem of controlling the

magnitude of issues in international conflict (Fisher, 1969, p. ix). The following year, he began writing the draft of “International Conflict for Beginners.” The book was a brief primer to the International Affairs community on how negotiations should be conducted. It was the first time the phrase “yesable proposition” (Fisher, 1971, p. 14) came to my attention.

Even as an undergraduate student at the University of Pittsburgh’s Conflict Studies and Dispute Resolution program, I understood it was an important idea. I understood its intent. But for the life of me, I could not figure out how to move from the goal of a “yesable proposition” to its actual implementation.

I missed Fisher’s founding of the Harvard Negotiation Project in 1979, but he reemerged with the publication of “Getting to Yes” (Fisher & Ury, 1981).

The Impact of “Getting to Yes”

"Getting to Yes" presents a transformative approach to negotiation, shifting the focus from adversarial bargaining to collaborative problem-solving. This method prioritizes achieving wise, efficient agreements that strengthen relationships, starkly contrasting traditional positional bargaining, often leading to unsatisfactory outcomes and damaged connections.

The core of this approach lies in four fundamental principles:

It advocates for separating the people from the problem. This principle acknowledges the emotional complexities inherent in negotiation, recognizing that individuals can become deeply invested in their positions, leading to personalizing disagreements. By disentangling the individuals from the issues, parties can engage in more objective discussions, fostering a more constructive atmosphere.

The book emphasizes interests rather than positions. Understanding the underlying motivations behind stated positions is crucial for finding mutually beneficial solutions. Positions are merely surface-level manifestations of deeper needs and desires. By exploring these interests, parties can uncover shared goals and develop creative options that address the concerns of all involved.

It stresses the importance of generating a variety of options before making a decision is highlighted. This principle encourages brainstorming and open-mindedness, fostering an environment where diverse solutions can be explored. It cautions against premature judgment and the assumption of the mythical “fixed pie” mindset that triggers prisoners' dilemma zero-sum approaches. Negotiators are urged to think creatively and collaboratively.

The strategy stresses the significance of using objective criteria to resolve disputes. Relying on fair standards, such as market values, expert opinions, or legal precedents, provides a foundation for impartial decision-making. This approach promotes fairness and reduces the likelihood of perceived bias, fostering trust and facilitating agreement.

Additionally, “Getting to Yes” addresses the challenges of negotiating with parties who possess greater power or refuse to engage in principled negotiation. It stresses the importance of developing the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) to empower the weaker party and establish a clear benchmark for acceptable outcomes (Fisher & Ury, ch. 6). When faced with positional bargaining tactics, the concept of "negotiation jujitsu" (Fisher & Ury, ch. 7) is introduced, which involves redirecting positional attacks towards a focus on the problem. In situations where positional bargaining persists, the one-text procedure involving a neutral third party is proposed to facilitate agreement.

The work also addresses the issue of dealing with unethical or manipulative tactics. It recommends explicitly addressing these tactics and engaging in principled negotiation to establish fair ground rules. Strategies for addressing specific tactics, such as deception, psychological warfare, and positional pressure, are also provided, empowering negotiators to maintain the integrity of the process.

This Principled Negotiations strategy emphasizes collaboration, understanding, and objectivity. It provides a framework for transforming adversarial interactions into cooperative problem-solving, fostering agreements that are not only mutually beneficial but also contribute to stronger relationships. It guides moving beyond fixed positions to the deeper interests that create the foundation for lasting agreements.

As of this writing, six decades have passed since Fisher’s undergraduate seminar met. The idea of Principled Negotiations is taught extensively around the world, and the Harvard Negotiation Project, now the Harvard Program on Negotiation, is an unqualified success in teaching negotiation skills to diplomats, executives and senior business managers, agency executives, interested students, and private individuals.

Its usefulness as a negotiation strategy is well established.

Conclusion

While extensive at executive and diplomatic levels, the successful dissemination of principled negotiation over the past five decades exhibits a marked deficit in the consistent application within broader workplace contexts.

Several factors contribute to this disparity. The time-intensive nature of principled negotiation, encompassing thorough preparation, deliberate discussion, and comprehensive option generation, poses a significant challenge within time-constrained work environments. The pressure to achieve rapid resolutions often supersedes pursuing mutually beneficial, interest-based agreements.

Time constraints directly impact workplace productivity. Time pressures induce stress, hindering effective communication and collaborative problem-solving, impeding the processes essential for successful negotiation. Furthermore, the lack of formalized training in principled negotiation at the general employee level creates uneven application of these strategies.

While mediation and performance management contain elements of principled negotiation, widespread implementation remains elusive. The prevailing organizational cultures often prioritize expediency over comprehensive conflict resolution.

Therefore, it is argued that a strategic investment in comprehensive training initiatives and cultivating organizational cultures that value efficiency and constructive dialogue is imperative. Only through such measures can the principles of effective negotiation be fully integrated into the workplace, fostering environments conducive to both.

* Note: A pdf copy of this article can be found at:

https://www.mcl-associates.com/downloads/resolving_issues_with_your_boss_part16A.pdf

References

Ade, T., Volz, G., & Zerres, C. (2018). Mind-set-oriented negotiation training: Fostering integrative agreements through collaboration, curiosity, and creativity. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 11(4), 287–309.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation and problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 889–905.

Fisher, R. (1971). Basic Negotiating Strategy: International Conflict for Beginners. London: Allen Lane the Penguin Press.

Fischer, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Company.

Oh, A., & Chung, C. (2020). The effects of power and perspective-taking on negotiation outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(7), 654–669.

Rubin, J. Z., & Brown, B. R. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. Academic Press.

Yang, H., & Song, R. (2018). The impact of emotional intelligence on negotiation effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(6), 720–741.

While listening to an audiobook on the Medici by Paul Strathern, I was presented with a historical citation that I knew to be incredibly inaccurate. In a chapter entitled, "Godfathers of the Scientific Renaissance". discussing the apocryphal tale of Galileo's experiment conducted from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the author cites Neil Armstrong in the Apollo 11 flight to the Moon with its memorable modern recreation, using a hammer and a feather.

Attributing this famous experiment to Armstrong on Apollo 11 is incorrect. It occurred on August 2, 1971, at the end of the last EVA of Apollo 15, presented by Astronaut Dave Scott. To press the point further, Scott used a feather from a very specific species: a falcon's feather. This small piece of trivia is memorable since Scott accompanied by crew member Al Worden arrived on the Lunar surface using the Lunar Module christened, "Falcon".

In an instant, the author's faux pas – for me -- undercut the book's entire validity. In an instant, it soured my listening enjoyment.

Mr. Strathern is approximately a decade my senior. As a well-published writer and historian, it is presumed that he subscribes to the professional standards of careful research and accuracy. Given this well-documented piece of historical modern trivia, I cannot fathom how he got it so wrong. Moreover, I cannot figure out how such an egregious error managed to go unscathed through what I assumed was a standard professional proofreading and editing process.

If the author and the publisher’s many editorial staff had got this single incontrovertible event from recent history wrong, what other counterfactual information did the book contain?

What is interesting to me, is my own reaction or -- judging from this narrative – some might say, my over-reaction to a fairly common occurrence. Why was I so angry? Why could I not just shake it off with a philosophical, ironic shake of the head?

And that is the point: accidental misinformation, spin and out-and-out propaganda -- and the never-ending stream of lies, damned lies, and unconfirmed statistics whose actual methodology is either shrouded or not even attempted -- are our daily fare. At some point, it is just too much to suffer in silence.

I have had enough of it.

God knows I do not claim to be a paragon of virtue. I told lies as a child, to gloss over personal embarrassments, though I quickly learned that I am not particularly good at deception. I do not like it when others try to deceive me. I take personal and professional pride in being honest about myself and my actions.

Do I make mistakes and misjudgments personally and professionally? Of course, I do. We all do. Have I done things for which I am ashamed? Absolutely. Where I have made missteps in my life, I have taken responsibility for my actions, and have apologized for my actions, or tried to explain them if I have the opportunity to do so.

For all of these thoughtless self-centered acts, I can only move forward. There is nothing I can do about now except to try to do grow and be a better human being in all aspects of my life. That's all any of us can do. I try to treat others as I wish to be treated: with honesty and openness about my personal and private needs, and when I am able to accommodate the wants and needs of those who have entered the orbit of my life.

We all have a point of view. Given the realities of human psychology and peer pressures to conform, it is not surprising that I or anyone else would surrender something heartfelt without some sort of struggle. However, we have a responsibility to others -- and to ourselves -- to not fabricate a narrative designed to misinform, or manipulate others.

Lying is a crime of greed, only occasionally punished when uncovered in a court of law
I am sick to death with liars, “alternative facts” in all their varied plumages and their all too convenient camouflage of excuses and rationales. While I am nowhere close to removing this class of humans from impacting my life, I think it is well past the time to start speaking out loud about our out-of-control culture of pathological untruthfulness openly.

Lying about things that matter -- in all its many forms, both overt and covert -- is unacceptable. When does lying matter? When you are choosing to put your self-interest above someone else’s through deceit.

Some might call me a "sucker" or "hopelessly naive". I believe that I am neither. Our species - as with all living things -- is caught in a cycle of both competition and cooperation
We both compete and cooperate to survive.

There is a sardonic observation, “It’s all about mind over matter. If I no longer mind, it no longer matters”. This precisely captures the issue that we all must face: the people who disdainfully lie to us – and there are many – no longer mind. We – the collective society of humanity no longer matter, if for them we ever did.

We are long past the time when we all must demand a new birth of social norms. We all have the responsibility to maintain them and enforce them in our own day-to-day lives. Without maintaining the basic social norms of honesty and treating others as you wish to be treated in return, how can any form of human trust take place?