A good negotiation method must take into account three criteria: it must produce a sensible agreement, be efficient and improve the relationship between people. Fisher and Ury argue that one should not negotiate on the basis of positions because it produces foolish deals - people tend to get entangled in positions and interests are not met - it is also inefficient - since people stuck in positions people have difficulty moving forward In a negotiation - and threatens the relationship - because the interests of one of the parties are not met and that wears the relationship.
The authors argue that the alternative is an interest-based negotiation. In the method developed in the Harvard negotiation program, there are four important points: 1 - Separate people from the problem; 2 - Focus on interests, not positions; 3 - Invent multiple options for mutual gain before deciding; 4 - Insist that the result is based on some objective criterion.
The 4 Elements of the Harvard Negotiation Method
Separate people from the problem. When we have a problem our emotions lead us to see the other as part of the problem and not as a part of a negotiation in which we should seek collaboration. Therefore, the authors argue that it is important to focus on the issues that need to be addressed and not on the people involved. Acting in this way, we can see the other as a collaborator in the search for a solution. In a mediation the mediator should encourage the parties to address the problem and create an environment where people can express their feelings. It is recommended to be hard on the problem and affable with people so that it is clear that the problem is not the individuals nor the possible differences between them but rather the issue that must be resolved with the participation of both.
Focus on INTEREST, not positions. The parties must overcome the failure to focus on positions since the purpose of the negotiation is to satisfy the interests of those involved. The positions obscure the real interests of people and so they should be left aside during the negotiation. The conflict in a negotiation is not of positions, but of needs, desires, worries and fears. These are the ones that should be explored and explained in a mediation procedure. It will probably be discovered that there are many common and compatible interests. A good hint for discovering the interests behind the positions is to use the "Why?" Question. From the answer it is possible to discover the real reasons for the person to have adopted a certain position. Likewise, it is important to convey our concerns to others about the problem. Active listening plays an important role here.
Invent multiple OPTIONS, looking for mutual winnings, before you decide. In order to reach an agreement it is necessary to create different options and use our creativity to create them. The obstacles to doing this in an efficient way may be premature judgment, the search for a single answer, the assumption of a fixed cake, and thinking that the problems on the other side are their responsibility. Thus, to invent creative options, the authors recommend: separate the act of inventing options from judging them, we must first seek all possible options without initially evaluating them (using a brainstorm can help with this); To expand the number of possible options and for this you should not think that there is only one answer to the problem (consulting other people or experts can contribute to generate other options); Seek mutual gain by identifying shared interests and harmonizing disparate interests (at this point it can help to make a list of all the interests and needs presented by people to clarify which ones are compatible); And facilitate the decision of the other party by creating options that take into account their needs (an exercise in putting oneself in another's place can contribute to this).
Insist that the result is based on some objective criterion. Finally, it is necessary to seek objective criteria so that the solution can be considered fair by the parties. Using some acceptable standard for both parties makes it easier to choose the solution. You can use, for example, a price table, legislation, customs and customs, the evaluation of an expert, etc. What is important is that the criteria are always discussed, argued and counter-argued, and it is not necessary that only one be used, but they can contribute a lot in the moment of reaching an agreement.
The Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
The authors also argue that often it is not possible to negotiate and so it is always important to have an alternative to negotiation. This is what they call BATNA or MAPAN, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Thus, we must always know our BATNA, that is, what alternatives exist in case the negotiation fails, it is not possible that our interests are met or even the possibility of establishing a negotiation is not possible. Discovering our BATNA we can know to what extent we can go on a negotiation and what will happen if it does not reach a satisfactory result.
We should never enter into a negotiation without knowing our alternatives. The reason for the negotiation is to seek a better result than if it were not. In order to know and improve the alternatives, the authors recommend inventing a list of actions that can be adopted in the event of an agreement being reached, improving some of these ideas by converting them into practical alternatives and provisionally selecting the one that is best (for Withdrawal from trading).
It is also important to seek to know the BATNA of the other party because knowing what is the best alternative of them can efficiently predict what to expect from the negotiation. Similarly, in a negotiation we can help the other party better evaluate their alternatives, as they are often overestimated. In mediation it is up to the mediator to help people discover, perfect and evaluate their BATNA (It's like painting the lines on a football field to know where the game can be played).
The Phases of Negotiation
According to Fisher and Ury, in a negotiation there are three phases and these four elements must be used in all of them.
The analysis in which the situation is diagnosed, collects information, organizes it and reflects on it. In it you take into account the perceptions, feelings and emotions of the people involved, identify your interests and the other party, the failures in communication, take notice of the options already presented and seek the objective criteria that can help in the negotiation.
After the diagnosis is passed to the planning stage in which to decide what will be done in the negotiation. How will the negotiation be developed, taking into account the analysis that was made? Among the interests identified, which are the most important? What are the most realistic goals? Nestor point, it is also necessary to produce additional options and criteria to facilitate the decision-making process.
The next step is the stage of discussion in which the parties communicate directly. At this point, it is important that the environment is conducive to dialogue and that everyone has the opportunity to express their feelings and interests. Each side must seek to understand the interests and needs of the other. If this occurs, both can work together to generate mutual gain options, seeking to establish an agreement based on objective standards to reconcile interests.
This method of negotiation is one of the most used by professionals who work with negotiation, whether acting as part or as facilitator. For the mediator it is important to know him as he can greatly assist in the work of mediating conflicts and building an agreement.
Comentários
Postar um comentário