“EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATION”

(SEEKING CONSENSUS)
HÉCTOR COLINDRES, MS H/LMS PROGRAM

NEGOTIATION: A PROCESS CONSTANTLY USED IN DAILY LIFE.

Although you may not be aware of it, we spend a lot of our time dealing with situations where we
turn, almost instinctively, to a negotiation and consensus-seeking process. For example, when you
want to pay less for a given product at a store, when you are looking for a promotion at work, when
you try to pay off your credit card debts, or when your spouse wants to spend the weekend with
her family and you want to spend it with yours, you negotiate. According to William Ury, co-founder
of Harvard University’s Program on Negotiation, people spend 50 to 70 percent of their time
negotiating and trying to reach an agreement. In today’s world, with so many changes, this
percentage is likely to increase.

The great majority of people tend to negotiate or reach some kind of an agreement, depending on
the possibilities. However, the key issue today is how do we do this? Do we reach agreements that
are truly beneficial to all those concerned? Many times we rely on our intuition. However, our
attitude is crucially important, and is directly linked to our values, principles and paradigms, all of
which determine our interests and behavior.

It is widely recognized that reaching consensus is not an easy task. Many professionals tend to
avoid discussions and are not particularly interested in listening to others, as this involves investing
time and effort to reach consensus. They generally adopt a position. But what does this mean?
From the particular point of view of the position taken, the goal of negotiation is “to win”. The game
involves taking a position, making a concession only in exceptional cases, distrusting the other
party, and trying to come out as the victor in any confrontation.

In today’s work environment, negotiation is becoming one of the most important skills for
managers. However, this approach and traditional way of doing things is shifting to consensus-
seeking. As organizations become less hierarchical, and move towards horizontalization, staff
capacities and competencies increase, and open, circular communication styles are adopted. Senior
managers are less likely to give orders, and instead are forced to agree on most of their decisions
with dozens of co-workers, users and other organizations over which they have very little or no
direct control. The health sector reform and modernization processes, together with globalization,
represent an even greater challenge. We must learn to communicate effectively, and negotiate and
reach agreements with people with different interests and professions, and from different
organizations, and even cultures.

Thus the need for a different approach: CONSENSUS-SEEKING, where parties respect each other as
colleagues and the goal is not “to win” but rather “to reach an agreement”. Decisions are made after
reviewing several “options or alternatives” in a spirit of mutual respect and trust, avoiding
confrontation.
In the modern organizational world, the responsibility for the work accomplished lies increasingly
with task force teams. Organizational actions are taken by associations and alliances, where
coverage and impact are frequently achieved by associations and alliances of all types formed with
target population groups, other social actors, public and private-sector service providers and NGOs,
and representatives from other key sectors involved in the social process of providing health care,
including reproductive health programs. Each of these groups and organizations requires a
continuous search for agreement. Therefore, the only alternative we have is to learn to make
decisions jointly, and this is not an easy task.

If addressing issues together with six or seven people is a difficult task, you can imagine what
happens when there are six hundred or six thousand people, as is the case of complex health reform
processes. How can we communicate effectively in order to reach an agreement and learn to work
together? This is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century.

NEGOTIATION PRINCIPLES AND PARADIGMS

In his book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen Covey argues that character ethic is
based on the fundamental idea that human behavior is governed by certain principles. These
principles are natural laws of the human dimension that are real, constant and always present, as
the law of universal gravitation in the physical dimension. Therefore, when we adopt an attitude,
we do so according to these laws, that is, according to these principles and paradigms with which
we relate to the world.

Principles are like beacons. They are truths, natural laws of universal application that cannot be
broken. They form part of the human condition, conscience and morality. They exist on their own,
and can be easily proven by anyone. Principles are not practices. The more our maps or paradigms
match these principles or natural laws, the more accurate and functional they will be.

Stephen Covey argues that it is not possible to establish an effective relationship or

interdependence with other people without the strength of character and maturity needed to
maintain such a relationship or interdependence. “You cannot be successful with other people if you
have not paid the price for success with yourself.” Self-control and self-discipline are the foundation
for an effective relationship with others. The most important ingredient of any relationship is not
what we say or do but rather what we are. There is no sense in trying to develop effective
negotiation skills if our words and actions do not come from our internal core, from our own
character.

According to Covey, we use six different types of paradigms in our relationships with other people:

1. Win / Win:

This is a structure of the mind and heart that is constantly seeking mutual benefit in all human
interactions. It means that agreements or solutions are mutually beneficial and satisfactory. With a
“win-win” agreement, all parties involved are comfortable with whatever decision is made and are
committed to the actions to be followed. This is a cooperative rather than a competitive scenario.

The basic paradigm here is that there is a lot for everyone and that the success of one person is not
achieved at the expense of or excluding the success of others. It is based on the belief that there is a
“third alternative”. It is not about your success or mine but rather a higher success for both of us.
2. I win / You lose:

As a leadership style, “I win / you lose” is an authoritative approach. People who use this paradigm
tend to use their position, power, achievements, possessions or personality to achieve their goals.
This paradigm is instilled in the majority of people since birth. In a family context, when a child is
compared with another on this basis, love is either granted or withdrawn. The message is: “you are
not worthy of love”. What is worthy of love is not within him but rather outside, and is evident only
when he is compared with someone else or with an expectation.

Another powerful programming agent is the academic world, where the value of an individual is
determined by comparing him with others. Everything is determined extrinsically. Sports also
develop the basic paradigm that life is a big game, where some lose and others win. Winning is
imposing oneself in the sports arena.

However, life is not always a competition. There is no reason for you to live competing with your
spouse, your children, your colleagues, your neighbors or your friends. It would be ridiculous to
ask: Who is winning in your marriage? The most important part of life is an interdependent reality,
not an independent reality. Most results we aspire to obtain depend on our cooperating with
others, and the “I win / you lose” mentality does not lead to this cooperation.

3. I lose / You win:

Some people are programmed inversely: I lose / you win. From here on, you can impose whatever
you want on me. I am a loser; I always have been. I am a conciliator; I will do anything to maintain
peace. This paradigm is worse than the “I win / you lose” paradigm, because those who use it have
no norms, no expectation, no vision. They are generally only interested in pleasing or pacifying
others. They seek strength in acceptance or popularity. They do not have the courage to express
their feelings and convictions, and are easily intimidated by others.

In terms of negotiation, “I lose / you win” is considered a capitulation: to give in or surrender. “I win
/ you lose” people love “I lose / you win” people because they can take advantage of them. They
love their weaknesses, and exploit them. However, the problem is that “I lose / you win” people
bury their feelings. And feelings that are never expressed die, they are buried alive and emerge later
on in the worst possible way. These people end up realizing that this affects their self-esteem and
ultimately the quality of their relationships with others.

Both “I win / you lose” and “I lose / you win” are weak positions, based on personal insecurities. In
the short term, the “I win / you lose” position produces more results because it is frequently based
on the considerable strength and talent of people who have reached the summit. “I lose / you win”
is a weak, chaotic position from the start.

4. I lose / you lose

Some people are so focused on an enemy, so obsessed by the behavior of another person, that they
are blinded to everything except their desire to see that person lose, even if this means they both
lose. When two “I win / you lose” people come together, two determined, stubborn, egoistical
individuals, the result is “I lose / you lose”. They both lose. They become vindictive and want to win
at all costs or “make the other pay”.
“I lose / you lose” is the philosophy of conflict, the philosophy of war. It is also the philosophy of
highly dependent people who lack internal direction, who are unhappy and believe that everyone
else should be unhappy. “If nobody wins, then maybe being a loser is not so bad.”

5. I win

Another common alternative is simply to think “I win”. This does not necessarily mean that
someone else has to lose. “I win” people are only interested in achieving their goal. When there is no
confrontation or competition, the “I win” approach is probably the most common approach. An “I
win” mentality pursues personal goals and allows other to do the same.

Of the five interpersonal relationship paradigms, which one is the most appropriate for
negotiation processes?

6. Win / Win or there is no deal

This is another expression of the “win-win” paradigm where the parties to a negotiation find a
synergic solution with which they all agree.

“There is no deal” means that if no mutually beneficial solution is found, the parties agree to
disagree. No expectation or contract is created. It is better to recognize that values and goals are
going in opposite directions from the start, rather than later on, when expectations can lead to the
frustration of the parties involved.

A person with a mentality of this nature can say, in all honesty: “I want to win, and I want you to
win. I do not intend to have it my way if that bothers you. On the other hand, I don’t think you will
feel satisfied if you have it your way and I give in. We should work toward a win-win agreement,
but if we are unsuccessful, let us agree that there will be no deal. That will be better than a decision
with which neither of us agrees. Maybe next time we can reach an agreement.” This attitude
provides an incredible amount of emotional freedom.

NEGOTIATION AND CONSENSUS SEEKING BASED ON PRINCIPLES

Whether the object of the negotiation is a law, a contract, a family dispute or working conditions,
people tend to negotiate by assuming positions. Each party to the negotiation adopts a position, and
defends it, making concessions to reach an agreement. A classic example is trying to beat down
prices at the market.

An effective negotiation approach must meet the following three criteria:

The negotiation must lead to an intelligent agreement, one that takes into account the
legitimate interests of the parties involved, and resolves conflicts of interest in a fair and
durable manner.
The negotiation must be efficient – it should reach a good agreement in a reasonable period
of time.
The negotiation must improve -or at least not damage- the relationship between the parties.
Whatever the negotiation approach, the lack of preparation is probably the biggest disadvantage.
This is true both in the case of an ongoing negotiation or one that is about to begin, and whatever
experience we may have is not important. Preparation is critical to effective negotiation; however,
negotiators tend to ignore this fact. Why do negotiators fail to prepare?

Many people assume that if they only talk, they risk less. As we know we cannot be forced to reach
an agreement, we see little danger in saying: “Let’s see what the other party has to say.” Others
believe that preparing to negotiate takes up too much time. Of course it does take time, but
preparing will probably save you a lot of time in the end. The main cause of failed negotiations is
frequently directly related to the lack of preparation. Many times, preparation is limited to
enumerating desires, demands and potential concessions. Assuming positions in preparation for
negotiation is preparing for a bad negotiation.

Discussing positions does not produce intelligent agreements. When parties negotiate positions,
they tend to shut themselves up. The more you defend a given position, the more you commit to it,
and the less likely you are to reach an agreement that will reconcile the original interests of all
parties. Focusing your attention on positions leaves little time to identify the underlying concerns of
the other parties.

Discussing positions is inefficient. When negotiating based on positions, the aim is to improve the
probability of finding a favorable solution by starting to negotiate with an extreme position, and
stubbornly defending it, while hiding the true position from the other party and making small
concessions just to continue the negotiation. When original positions are extreme and concessions
small, reaching an agreement will take more time and effort.

Discussing positions jeopardizes interpersonal relationships. Negotiating based on positions

becomes a confrontation, and the task of jointly implementing an acceptable solution becomes a
battle. Frequently, there is anger and resentment when one of the parties realizes that he or she is
giving in to the other. The negotiation becomes tense, and can seriously affect or break the
relationship between the parties.

Being “nice” is not the solution either. Many people try to avoid confrontation, treating the other
party as a friend rather than an adversary. In soft negotiations, the norm is to make concessions,
trust the other party, adopt a friendly attitude and give in to avoid negotiation. This kind of
negotiator is vulnerable to stronger negotiators who will more than likely dominate the situation.

Is there an alternative? The alternative is to use an approach specifically designed to produce

intelligent, effective agreements. This principle-based negotiation technique can be reduced to four
basic factors, and is known as the PICO technique:

People: Separate the people from the problem.

Interests: Look for the interests hidden behind the positions.
Criteria: Agree on objective criteria to test if an agreement has been reached.
Options: Look for alternative solutions.

People: Separate the people from the problem

When actors perceive themselves as adversaries in a face-to-face confrontation, it is difficult to

separate their personal relationship from the substantial part of the problem. In this context,
anything a person says about the problem will appear to be directed toward the other person in a
personal manner, and that is how that person will perceive it. Each of the parties tends to adopt a
defensive position, react and overlook the legitimate interests of the other party.

As two shipwrecked people in the same lifeboat fighting over limited provisions, the actors may
initially see themselves as adversaries. Maybe each of them sees the other as an obstacle. However,
in order to survive, they both must separate the problems from the people. It is critical that they
identify their common needs, for example, water and food. They will want to go further and address
those needs together. If they are able to share their efforts to solve a common problem, the
castaways will reconcile conflictive interests and progress together toward achieving their goals.

The same thing happens with two negotiators. As difficult as your personal relationship can be, you
can reach a friendly understanding that articulates your interests if you accept the task as a shared
problem and address it together.

To help the other party modify his or her orientation from a “face-to-face” attitude to a “side-by-
side” attitude, it is important to discuss the issue explicitly. “Look, we are both doctors, public
servants...” Or you can start acting as if the negotiation were a joint process, and try to determine if
the other party intends to do the same by observing his or her reaction.

It is useful to sit down at the same side of the table and look at the contract, the map, the pieces of
paper or anything else that explains the problem. Even if the relationship between the parties is
shaky, they can try to structure the negotiation as if it were a shared activity with different interests
and concerns, and with an emotional commitment.

Remember you are dealing with human beings rather than an abstract representative of the other
party. Humans have feelings, values, principles, different backgrounds, paradigms and points of
view. Failing to treat others as human beings can produce disastrous results when trying to reach
an agreement. At all points of the process you must ask yourselves are we focusing on the human
problem?

Each negotiator has two interests: the problem itself, and the interpersonal relationship. Each
negotiator is looking for an agreement to resolve the problem and maintain his or her image and
the future relationship.

It is important to deal directly with human problems rather than trying to solve them by making
concessions to negotiation issues. If feelings are exalted, try to find ways for each person to let go of
the tension. When there are misunderstandings, communication must be improved.

There are three main communication issues you must deal with. The first one is the lack of
connection between the parties; they are not actually addressing each other, or at least not in a
comprehensible manner. The parties have given up on each other and are talking only to impress
their audience. The second issue is not listening. Frequently, one of the parties is so concerned
about what he will say next, that he forgets to listen to the other party. The third communication
issues are misunderstandings. You must, in all cases, be sure to speak clearly in order to be
understood; talk about yourself and not about the other party. Talk with a well-defined purpose in
mind, and use psychological techniques to separate facts from reactions and interpretations.
Interests: Focus on interests rather than positions.

What do people really want? All parties have interests. The main problem in any negotiation lies
with the conflicts of interests, the conflicts between the needs, desires, concerns and fears of the
parties. Interests motivate people, they are the engine behind all the commotion created by the
parties’ positions. You decide to assume a given position, based on your interests. A position is
simply a way of satisfying your needs. It is a means to an end.

For a negotiation to be successful, it is not enough to discuss or fight over a position. An agreement
should satisfy the interests of both parties. Many people prepare for a negotiation by focusing on
positions rather than interests. They imagine their first demand, what they should ask for, and,
sometimes, the minimum that is acceptable. This kind of approach leaves no room for creativity as
it fails to explore the real interests underlying the positions. It focuses on a single option, and fails
to develop other mutually-beneficial options that could lead to both parties ending the negotiation
with better results.

Behind all opposing positions there are shared, compatible interests, as well as conflicting interests.
To identify the interests, you should ask yourself: Why? What for? Why do I want the report by the
fifteenth? Why do I want to be paid in cash? These questions will make you think about the needs
that concern you most; they reveal the interests that underlie your demands or requests.

To distinguish between a position and an interest, you should determine if there is more than one
way to satisfy the request. If there is only one way (e.g. when you say: “I want the RH Program to
provide me with a vehicle.”), it is a position. If, on the contrary, there are several ways to respond to
the request (e.g. “I would like some kind of transportation to conduct supervisory visits, or I would
like to be promoted at work.”), it is an interest. There can be more than one interest, so it is always
useful to continue asking Why? and What for?

People frequently expect everyone to see the world in the same way. However, if you intend to
propose an acceptable option, you need to understand the other party’s interests. Once the
negotiation is underway, you can find out what the other party’s interests are by asking the same
questions you asked yourself, that is, Why? What for? A complementary technique is to examine
each position adopted by the other party and ask: Why did he take that position? What is his
concern? What is he thinking?

Before starting a consensus-seeking process, you may want to consider holding a meeting to
discuss interests. You can also seek the advice of people of the same profession or industry as the
other party, or consult with people in your own organization who do similar work. Reading any
information available on the other party can also be useful.

You must understand that each party will have multiple interests. You will perceive different
interests and common interests at the same time. A common mistake is to assume that both parties
have the same interests. It will be hard for you to exercise some degree of influence if you fail to
recognize the different interests involved. Remember that the most powerful interests are the
human needs for economic well-being, security, sense of belonging, recognition and control over
one’s own life.

Distinguishing between positions and interests is critical to creating consensus and reaching
agreements that benefit all parties.
Criteria: Agree on objective criteria.

Regardless of how well you understand the other party’s interests, you will almost always have to
face the reality of conflicting interests. When this happens, and before you discuss the options, you
should agree on the criteria these options must meet.

There is generally more than one objective criterion on which to base an agreement. If before you
start generating options, you reach an agreement as to the requirements these options should meet,
the discussion will have a common objective basis. As a minimum, the criteria should be legitimate,
practical and applicable to both parties. Some examples of criteria include: scientific judgment,
professional standards, market value, etc.

Suppose you are discussing with a group of doctors what antiretroviral drugs to use. Before
deciding on the specific brand or formula of the drugs, you should agree on the requirements they
should meet. For example, that they be produced by a recognized laboratory, that their cost is
within the limits of your budget, etc.

In the case of requesting transportation to carry out supervisory visits, as mentioned above,
requirements could include that the vehicle be comfortable, safe, and affordable.

After identifying the objective criteria, do not give in to pressure, only to the principle, that is, does
this alternative meet the criteria established? Does it satisfy both parties’ needs?

Options: Look for alternative solutions.

Negotiation is not about hiding differences or persuading others that they want the same thing you
do. It has to do with recognizing the way in which these differences can help you arrive at a
situation that is better than the one you would have without a deal.

The interests of the parties seeking consensus are the cornerstone of a potential agreement. The
options are possible solutions, the ways in which the building blocks fit together so that negotiators
are satisfied.

The most successful negotiation processes are those that explore a number of options. Remember a
single problem is likely to have many positive solutions. This is why the process should focus on
creativity and reaching agreements that are beneficial for all parties. The first concrete solution
proposed by one of the parties, and the first both parties are willing to accept, is not necessarily the
best solution. The more options you generate, the more likely you are to find one that will
effectively reconcile diverging interests. The ability to generate creative options is one of the most
important skills of an effective negotiator.

Four obstacles can stop you from generating an abundance of options:

Issuing a premature judgment: Nothing is more damaging than a judgment that is thrown at a
new idea. A premature judgment limits the imagination.

Seeking a single response: Negotiations based on positions consider a single option and the
negotiating process becomes a tug-of-war based on this option.
Assuming the cake has a predetermined number of pieces: When negotiating, parties focus only
on what is on the table and think in terms of “either for you or for me”.

Thinking that resolving the other party’s problem is his/her business: A selfish concern with
little vision will lead the negotiator to develop unilateral solutions that are not conducive to an
effective negotiation. To generate creative options you need to:

1) Separate the act of generating options from the act of judging them;
2) Expand the options on the table;
3) Seek mutual gains; and
4) Participate in resolving the other party’s problems.
The time has now come to develop/strengthen and practice our effective negotiating skills. To do so, we
invite you to review and use the following tools available from our Managers who Lead Toolkit:

1. Preparing for a successful negotiation (page 256).

2. Selecting a strategy to reach a negotiated agreement (page 258).

3. Negotiating to achieve intended results (page 259).

REFERENCES:

1. The 7 Habits of Highly-Effective People, Stephen R. Covey.

2. Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Roger Fisher & William Ury.

3. Getting ready to Negotiate, Roger Fisher & Danny Ertel.

4. Managers who Lead, MSH Publication.