Interests vs. Positions, A Discussion on Negotiation (and Blog Update)

Interests vs. Positions, A Discussion on Negotiation (and Blog Update)

Negotiation: A discussion aimed at reaching an agreement

One thing I’ve covered lightly in other blog posts before is the idea of interests and positions. I was asked if I could elaborate on the concepts. For full transparency, these are concepts I picked up from Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury. It’s a great book, and a pretty quick read so I highly recommend it.

We Do Negotiation Wrong

Whether it is scoring points in a debate club, pundits talking about which candidate won off of having the best talking points, or trying to prove ourselves right/the other person wrong, we don’t negotiate in a way that’s effective most of the time. There are no “points” in real life, debates are only one piece of the puzzle for successful campaigns, and most of the time life isn’t so neat and orderly as to give us one winner/correct person and one loser/incorrect person.

The underlying problem is that we treat negotiations as a contest, but if we look at the definition above, a contest is not the best means to accomplish the goal of reaching an agreement. This holds true in the short term in that if all sides of the negotiation are focused on winning, we commonly end up in a situation where no one is willing to lose and nothing is accomplished. This also holds true in the long term in that tallying up who’s won more or not over time creates an expectation of adversity.

How to Find the Interests

It boils down to “WHY”.

WHY does it matter who does a certain chore? Is it a matter of everyone doing their part, or a matter of who does it better, or a matter of some sort of change like a person being busier/stressed/needing some support?

WHY does it matter what color the furniture will be? It is purely what will look better, a question of who is in charge to make decision, concerns about cost?

WHY are we upset by what the other person said? Did we take it personally? Was it something we discussed before? Was it more in how the words were said instead of the actual words?

It is about turning the conversation from who is doing the chores into if we are all contributing, or doing things correctly, or recognizing a life change. With who is doing the chore, there are limited options, a few fixed positions, either Person A or Person B will do it, occasionally both may, or even Person C if they exist. With the three potential interests, there is more flexibility to find common ground, to be creative. If it’s about contributing, maybe someone can help with an alternate chore, or step it up in some other way. If it’s about doing things correctly, maybe the less-talented person can learn and improve. If it’s about a life change, it may just boil down to talking it out and giving emotional support.

Different Interests

What often happens is that we go into a negotiation with very different interests. It’s what can lead to such heated arguments in the first place. One person is talking about principles, while another is trying to talk about tangible effects. Both may very well be right, or at least have good points, but can’t understand each other because they’re fixated on their own interests.

Have both conversations. Talk about the principles AND talk about the tangible effects. Talk about the first as much as needed, then the second, then re-address the first if need be, so on and so forth.

Of course, the differences in interests may be incompatible. Interests give a greater chance to reach an agreement than positions, but it is by no means guaranteed. Even then, talking about interests tends to be less contentious, as it gives us the chance to express ourselves better, helps us understand the other side even if we don’t agree, and there are often some ways to reach a partial agreement if not a full one.

***

Blog Updates and Changes

There’s been a couple life changes since my last blog update.

The first is that I am now an official member of ICMA (International City Manager’s Association). It’s a professional association with its own code of ethics, one of them regarding staying out of politics that undermine public confidence in administrators. As such, so long as I’m a member and following those rules I will refrain from digging into or mentioning partisan politics whether a political party or individual candidate. Anything I’ve posted before will stay up, written when I had no such professional boundary and there’s no need to retroactively go back. After all, anyone who looks at my resume will see I worked for the Obama Campaign in 2008, and just as I won’t cross that off, no need to go back on anything else written before.

Secondly, I’ve started to write blogs for a group called ELGL (Engaging Local Government Leaders), which can be found here: https://elgl.org/. I’ve already contributed a few posts this year, with plans to do my own “series” once I start the next graduate degree come 2020. As such, I’ll probably post less often as I have a new avenue to post my ideas. This blog will still be used for more personal ideas and experiences. Also, one thing I’ve picked up is that blog posts traditionally are 500-1,000 words, which I’ve gone way, way over before. No promises, but will probably practice making future blog posts shorter to keep in line with this.