18 Dec ’09
In the beginning there was only darkness…
OK, maybe not exactly darkness, but people basically argued over positions, and disputes were resolved through either the exercise of power, or by compromising on their positions. The art and science of negotiation can be divided into three historical phases, beginning with the Classical phase during which positional bargaining was refined.
I would venture that the first great Classical writer on negotiation was the Chinese general, Sun Tzu – author of the still popular (and well worth reading) treatise, “The Art of War“. Sun Tzu applies tactical and strategic thinking to the practice of warfare. His ideas are still worthwhile today, and are still used by military and business leaders today. Unfortunately, Classical negotiation tends to result in win/lose or lose/lose solutions. While the defeat of an enemy and successful subjugation of conquered foes may have some value, on some occasions, in some shooting wars; there are clearly shortcomings to this kind of approach to problem-solving.
The second phase of Negotiation Theory could be termed the “Modern” phase. Modern negotiation theory begins with the Enlightenment and reached its peak in the mid-twentieth century with the publication of “Getting to Yes” by William Ury and Roger Fisher. The modern negotiator understood that positional bargaining tended to result at best in only one party being satisfied with the outcome – and more often than not – nobody being satisfied with the outcome. Even military strategists understood that military victories were brief and transient if the vanquished were left too miserable. Think “Paris 1917″ vs. “The Marshall Plan”. The allied victory in WW I was a key factor leading to the tragedy of WW II, while the Marshall Plan resulted in the miracle of modern Europe. Win/Win negotiating, in which all parties gain something and satisfy their key interests, leads to agreements that last because everyone one has a stake in the outcome.
One of the historical features of the late twentieth century was the dawn of postmodernism in art, architecture, and philosophy. Postmodernism is characterized by eclecticism and relativism. Detractors of postmodernism often point to the idea of “moral relativism” in which there is no longer a fundamental grounding of what constitutes moral and ethical behaviour since everything is determined by context. I’m not going to concern this brief Blog posting with an issue as big, broad, and divisive as moral relativism… But, postmodernism offers important advantages to contemporary negotiators.
Most professional negotiators and mediators have experienced situations where the Classical model works best, even though they usually prefer the Modern model. They have also experienced situations where the parties need to be steered away from positional bargaining, and directed towards a more collaborative mode of communication. And, of course, everyone has at some point or another experienced that “worst case” scenario where nothing works. The Goal Focused Way offers a model that builds upon, takes from, and integrates ideas of, the Classical Model, the Modern Model, AND ideas from fields not generally associated with the field of negotiation. This postmodern approach allows people from all walks of life and from all different backgrounds to use basic knowledge and simple tools to build their own micro-models for each situation. The Goal Focused Way provides the essential foundations and the critical framework to consistently achieve the best possible outcome for every situation. Using the Goal Focused Way will not necessarily result in “winning” every dispute or in reaching every goal – but using it will ensure that achievable goals can be determined and that what is achievable is in fact achieved.
The Postmodern Negotiator
18 Dec ’09
In the beginning there was only darkness…
OK, maybe not exactly darkness, but people basically argued over positions, and disputes were resolved through either the exercise of power, or by compromising on their positions. The art and science of negotiation can be divided into three historical phases, beginning with the Classical phase during which positional bargaining was refined.
I would venture that the first great Classical writer on negotiation was the Chinese general, Sun Tzu – author of the still popular (and well worth reading) treatise, “The Art of War“. Sun Tzu applies tactical and strategic thinking to the practice of warfare. His ideas are still worthwhile today, and are still used by military and business leaders today. Unfortunately, Classical negotiation tends to result in win/lose or lose/lose solutions. While the defeat of an enemy and successful subjugation of conquered foes may have some value, on some occasions, in some shooting wars; there are clearly shortcomings to this kind of approach to problem-solving.
The second phase of Negotiation Theory could be termed the “Modern” phase. Modern negotiation theory begins with the Enlightenment and reached its peak in the mid-twentieth century with the publication of “Getting to Yes” by William Ury and Roger Fisher. The modern negotiator understood that positional bargaining tended to result at best in only one party being satisfied with the outcome – and more often than not – nobody being satisfied with the outcome. Even military strategists understood that military victories were brief and transient if the vanquished were left too miserable. Think “Paris 1917″ vs. “The Marshall Plan”. The allied victory in WW I was a key factor leading to the tragedy of WW II, while the Marshall Plan resulted in the miracle of modern Europe. Win/Win negotiating, in which all parties gain something and satisfy their key interests, leads to agreements that last because everyone one has a stake in the outcome.
One of the historical features of the late twentieth century was the dawn of postmodernism in art, architecture, and philosophy. Postmodernism is characterized by eclecticism and relativism. Detractors of postmodernism often point to the idea of “moral relativism” in which there is no longer a fundamental grounding of what constitutes moral and ethical behaviour since everything is determined by context. I’m not going to concern this brief Blog posting with an issue as big, broad, and divisive as moral relativism… But, postmodernism offers important advantages to contemporary negotiators.
Most professional negotiators and mediators have experienced situations where the Classical model works best, even though they usually prefer the Modern model. They have also experienced situations where the parties need to be steered away from positional bargaining, and directed towards a more collaborative mode of communication. And, of course, everyone has at some point or another experienced that “worst case” scenario where nothing works. The Goal Focused Way offers a model that builds upon, takes from, and integrates ideas of, the Classical Model, the Modern Model, AND ideas from fields not generally associated with the field of negotiation. This postmodern approach allows people from all walks of life and from all different backgrounds to use basic knowledge and simple tools to build their own micro-models for each situation. The Goal Focused Way provides the essential foundations and the critical framework to consistently achieve the best possible outcome for every situation. Using the Goal Focused Way will not necessarily result in “winning” every dispute or in reaching every goal – but using it will ensure that achievable goals can be determined and that what is achievable is in fact achieved.