Principle 3 of Principled Negotiation: Invent Options for Mutual Gain
Introduction:
One of the principles or strategies of principled negotiation is inventing options for mutual gain. This note will discuss what it means to invent options for mutual gain, the essence of creating options for mutual gain in negotiation, and factors that inhibit the creation of options for mutual gain.
Meaning of Inventing Options for Mutual Gain:
This involves brainstorming and developing creative solutions that satisfy the interests of all parties involved. Thus, the negotiators spend time brainstorming a wide range of options before settling on one that maximises mutual gains.
During negotiations, parties may believe the only outcome is a win-lose or a major concession. However, this is often not the case; if the parties brainstorm and think through their interests, it is possible to invent options that will ensure a win-win situation or guarantee their mutual gain.
Essence of Inventing Options for Mutual Gain in Negotiation:
When options are invented for mutual gain, the parties are likely to adopt those options and reach an agreement.
The following illustration by Fisher and Ury [1] reveals how an invention of options can help the parties reach an agreement:
The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty blocked out at Camp David in 1978 demonstrates the usefulness of looking behind positions. Israel had occupied the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula since the Six Day War of 1967. When Egypt and Israel sat down together in 1978 to negotiate a peace, their positions were incompatible. Israel insisted on keeping some of the Sinai. Egypt, on the other hand, insisted that every inch of the Sinai be returned to Egyptian sovereignty. Time and again, people drew maps showing possible boundary lines that would divide the Sinai between Egypt and Israel. Compromising in this way was wholly unacceptable to Egypt. To go back to the situation as it was in 1967 was equally unacceptable to Israel.
Looking to their interests instead of their positions made it possible to develop a solution. Israel’s interest lay in security; they did not want Egyptian tanks poised on their border ready to roll across at any time. Egypt’s interest lay in sovereignty; the Sinai had been part of Egypt since the time of the Pharaohs . After centuries of domination by Greeks, Romans, Turks, French, and British, Egypt had only recently regained full sovereignty and was not about to cede territory to another foreign conqueror.
At Camp David, President Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Begin of Israel agreed to a plan that would return the Sinai to complete Egyptian sovereignty and, by demilitarizing large areas, would still assure Israeli security. The Egyptian flag would fly everywhere, but Egyptian tanks would be nowhere near Israel.
The option of keeping the Sinai as a demilitarised zone allowed Egypt to satisfy its interest of having ownership of the Sinai and for Israel to fulfil its security interests.
Factors that Inhibit the Invention of Options for Mutual Gain
While it is good to invent options for mutual benefit, parties are often less likely to do so due to the following four factors.
1. Premature Judgement:
During negotiation, a party may present an option aimed at ensuring mutual gain. This option may be quickly shot down by the other party without much thought. When such shooting down is done in a criticising manner, a party is not incentivised to suggest more options for mutual gain. According to Fisher and Ury [1], “nothing is so harmful to inventing as a critical sense waiting to pounce on the drawbacks of any new idea. Judgment hinders imagination.”
To deal with this problem, consider setting aside a time during negotiation where options are only presented without any assessment. During this time, and no matter how ridiculous an option may sound, the parties simply present their options and avoid assessing or critiquing those options. This essentially entails separating the invention of options from the assessment of options.
2. Searching for a Single Answer:
It is easy for negotiating parties to think that the more options they have, the harder it is to reach an agreement, because each option would have to be critiqued before deciding whether to adopt it or discard it. This thinking causes them to want to narrow rather than expand their options; they look for the single best answer or option. According to Fisher and Ury [1], in negotiations, people often think, “We’re having a hard enough time agreeing as it is. The last thing we need is a bunch of different ideas.”
This problem can be solved if the parties appreciate that their interests are better served if they have multiple options from which they can make a choice. It can also be solved if the parties strive to examine the problem from multiple viewpoints.
3. The Assumption of a Fixed Pie:
The assumption is that every other party win is our loss. When there is an assumption of a fixed pie, the parties believe that the resources or benefits at stake are limited and must be divided between them. This mindset leads to a win-lose approach, where one party's gain is seen as the other's loss, rather than exploring opportunities for mutual gain. Summarily, negotiators with this assumption see the negotiation as a zero-sum game.
With this assumption, the negotiators often fail to see the need for inventing options for mutual gain. This is especially true when the existing option benefits one party, making him unwilling to invent or encourage the invention of options for mutual gain.
To resolve this problem, parties should strive to find shared interests. Once there are shared interests, the parties begin to realize that benefits for others do not necessarily mean losses for them.
4. Thinking that “Solving their Problem is their Problem”:
Another factor that inhibits the development of options for mutual gain is the thinking that it is the other party’s problem to solve his problems, rather than a collective problem to solve all the problems facing the parties. Thus, in a negotiation between X and Y, X may think that it is Y’s problem to solve the problems facing Y, and X is only responsible for solving his own problems. This thinking leaves each party with the responsibility of inventing options instead of such a process being a collective undertaking. Each party then develops self-centered options that may not appeal to other parties.
To resolve this problem, think of options that satisfy your options as well as the options of the other party.
Conclusion:
In this note, we discussed one of the core principles of principled negotiation: inventing options for mutual gain. This principle involves brainstorming creative solutions that address the interests of all parties in the negotiation. However, this process is often inhibited by four key factors:
By addressing these barriers, negotiators can better collaborate to find mutually beneficial outcomes.