Negotiation
The dictionary defines ‘need’ as something required because it is essential, a basic necessity such as food, or anything else necessary to live a healthy life. In the best of worlds a person should not have to bargain for needs. In comparison, for the discussion below, something we ‘want’ out of pleasure or desire is not a life sustaining necessity. As the old song puts it, “the object of my affection” may be emotionally sustaining and thus life enhancing, but by definition the certainty and timing of its arrival and the level of achievement can be variable, maybe even a far-fetched dream.
Most of us enjoy getting what we want. But sometimes what we want is not the same as what other people want. When desires are at odds we may think that in all fairness we have to compromise. We each give up something in order to create a middle ground where at least some part of the wish list is realized. Sometimes compromises work because we realize that at least we are getting some approximation, but many times they just end up with no one feeling fully satisfied. Negotiation, on the other hand, is a dialog that considers all sides and keeps going until everyone feels satisfied. As you can probably guess, this is not necessarily a fast process. When quick decisions need to be made, such as in emergencies or by deadline, negotiation just won’t work as well as unilateral decision-making. Someone has to take control and literally steer in one direction or another. But some people get hooked on this kind of decision-making and don’t want to give it up when the emergency has passed. When others seem reluctant to fall into line, people who like to control often retaliate with statements such as, “You have a problem,” or “My way or the highway,” in order to win the round. Negotiators, on the other hand, look at the situation from everyone’s angle. In other words, “We have an issue at hand; let’s look at all the possibilities.”
Imagine that you are trying to make an important decision with a friend or immediate family about something that concerns each person. In a negotiation, everyone involved first analyzes the situation according to his or her own perception. Advantages and disadvantages, and costs and conveniences are considered, including finances and such intangibles as time, emotions, or privacy, for example. Each person makes a clear, direct statement about what he or she wants and how to go about getting it. But unlike a demand, everyone is offering information for discussion, seeking a better understanding. Ultimately, you still may not get your exact wish, but you will at least know that your ideas were clearly heard and considered.
So far in this negotiation scenario everyone is polite and cooperative. What is missing, of course, are the scenes of frustration, feelings of deprivation and betrayal, even distain and loneliness over the gaps between various desires. In order to end up in a true negotiation, hidden yet active attitudes and emotions must be addressed openly, and that takes time and patience. Some negotiations eventually account for each person’s desire, while others operate on the understanding that one person’s wishes will be met this time and the other person’s next time. In other words, the spirit of negotiation is that each person comes away satisfied at some point now or in the near future.
Imagine finding a way to meet halfway. This is not the same as the meeting halfway that means compromise. You each still have your own ideas, which still may be at odds. However, now, instead of declaring what you each want, you are asking each other to help in getting needs met. Nothing has changed, really. You still each want what you want. But now you are engaged in a spirit of helping each other accomplish those wants. Most people want to be helpful and find it much easier to support your point of view from this mutually beneficial position. If nothing else, at least your attitudes are softer and aligned. Often from this position, one or the other may conclude that he or she can step back this time, seeing how important this issue is to the other person. You both have the satisfaction of knowing that one of you has what he or she really wants, and that the other’s wishes will be equally considered on other occasions.
Imagine that you are no longer taking opposite stances at all. This is yet another version of negotiation, this time facing issues as a team rather than as individuals or opponents. Language changes from “I” and “you” to “we,” as in, “How shall we handle this situation?” Perhaps this sounds deceptively the same as the previous style of meeting halfway. However there is an important difference. The crucial point here is that no one claims ownership of any of the ideas, wants, or needs. Rather than “I want…” the team approaches each issue and claims it together. Of course, there will always be times when you independently want something and this style of negotiation would only sound like false pretense. In those cases, you can return to assertive or mutually helping styles. But, in cooperative relationships there will also be times when sharing in partnership becomes more important than holding on to one’s personal wants. This kind of sharing greatly enhances intimacy.