Hello again. We continue our focus on conflict and negotiation in our group work, learning how we can communicate more effectively in those difficult situations that are bound to come up. After all, groups are made of imperfect people, including you and me. So we have to develop the capacity to address our conflicts productively, so we can move forward and accomplish the important work our groups were created for in the first place. With that in mind, we've learned how groups can have a good fight, communicating in ways that keep the conflict constructive and focused on the issues, rather than devolving into dysfunctional interpersonal conflict. We also learned how we can choose the right words in an argument. Not just coming up with a list of do's and don'ts, but rather asking a series of questions that can lead us to better words and help us manage and resolve our group conflicts. Now we want to consider those situations where you and your group members have to reach consensus on a single decision or a single course of action, if there are many different ideas and interests among the group. And not everyone can everything that they want. You know there's something you want in and from your group, but you also know it's at odds with what other people want. You can't simply impose your will. You have to negotiate. Like when there are competing notions of what initiative to pursue with your remaining budget. Or you realize that in order to accomplish something you want, it will depend on assistance or support from some other group member, and it's not something they want to do. Or you realize you have the opportunity to gain something you want, because someone else is trying to achieve something that will depend on your support. Whatever the case, these situations call for negotiation, getting things done with and through the consent of other people because you don't have the capacity to do it on your own. But if we don't recognize the need or the opportunity to negotiate we'll likely default to positional bargaining, where it just becomes a contest of wills, where everyone is more concerned about saving face and protecting their reputation rather than creating value for all parties involved. And negotiation is especially relevant for groups that aren't necessarily teams. Where members of the group don't always share common goals or objectives and may even be in the group because of their opposition to each other. Yet they still need to reach consensus on some sort of an agreement to solve an important problem, like the context of civic groups we discussed in module one, which are often composed of community members representing different interests and approaches towards various social issues. Or a professional committee, where you're working as a group, but people are there representing different organizational units or departments. Or even different organizations and agencies all together. These are key sites of negotiation for groups. Of course, there are some times in life where you do have the ability to impose your will and people will do what you ask. Though sometimes a bit begrudgingly. But this is rarely the case in groups. In fact, many groups form precisely because this isn't the case. There's a general recognition that we can't accomplish whatever it is we're working on unless we reach agreement among several people or representatives with different perspectives. So you should probably assume that negotiation is going to be a normal part of your group deliberations and a skill you need to develop if you're going to be a competent group member, and have successful group experiences. The good news is that negotiation is a skill that can be learned, practiced, and improved. And there's a wealth of research and writing on effective negotiation skills. One of my favorite resources is Fisher and Ury's classic book called Getting To Yes. I'm going to weave together the key insights from their book, as well as my own experiences to help enhance our understanding of effective negotiation for our group work. Let's start with four key concepts we need to consider in any negotiation situation. Problems, interests, options and standards. These are the basic components of principled negotiation developed by Fisher and Ury. First, as best as we can, we need to separate the problem from the people. The difficulty with so many negotiations is that the issues are entangled with the people involved, and it's very difficult to keep them separate. When my new idea or suggested alternative is criticized by my other group members, just the kind of dissent and debate that we need to make good group decisions, it's really hard not to take it personally. But that's exactly what we must do if we want to have a successful negotiation. And we have to keep working at it. You have to develop the maturity to say to yourself, okay, it might seem like I'm being attacked personally, but this issue really is about some other problem beyond me. I'm going to stay focused on that. You might have to take the initiative in your group to explicitly say, hey, let's keep our conversation focused on the problem we're trying to solve, not the people involved. Second, we need to focus on interests, not positions. Usually what we want in a situation is just a particular manifestation of a deeper interest. Why we want it in the first place. And we fail to realize that there may be multiple positions that would enable us to achieve that interest. More than one what can address the underlying why. The classic example is two chefs fighting over the last orange in the kitchen. Each chef believes their only viable position is to get the orange. And it's a zero sum game. Either someone gets the full orange and someone gets nothing, or they compromise and cut it in half. So each chef ends up with an inferior outcome. But if we dig deeper and look at their underlying interests, we realize that one chef wants the orange for the juice to make his renowned sauce, and the other chef wants the peel to complete the batter for her famous cake. So they agree that one chef gets the full peel and the other chef gets all the orange juice. Turns out there are alternative positions that allow each chef to realize their interests in this situation. That's what we have to do in our group negotiations. Focus more on underlying interests so we can discover more positions that will enable those interests to be satisfied. Third, we need to create multiple options for mutual gains before making a final decision. We already know from module two that a key practice for making good group decisions is considering multiple alternatives. And the same is true for effective negotiation. Too often we get locked into the initial framing of a dispute. This versus that, which doesn't give us much room to maneuver and increases the likelihood that we'll get into a contest of wills, positional bargaining instead of practicing principle negotiation. So when you realize you're in a negotiation situation, take the initiative to say, let's put a few more options on the table just so we can see how everything compares. We need to see how different ideas, and positions, and interests relate to each other. And often, this leads to a break through, as we see things from a fresh perspective that we didn't consider initially. We need to expand the pie before we divide it. And fourth, we need to insist that the results of your negotiation be based on some objective standard. Before you get too involved in a negotiation, clarify exactly what a successful outcome would look like or needs to accomplish. This gives you a point of reference to guide that negotiation. An outside standard you can refer back to when things get complicated. So when you recognize that your group discussion is turning towards a negotiation over different alternatives, make sure you speak up and say something like, hey, before we get started, let's see if we can agree on some objective criteria to guide our negotiations. Or ask, what are some standards we can use to assess the various alternatives we're considering? This will be different for every group and every situation, but some common criteria are things like professional standards, historical precedent, tradition, scientific judgement, efficiency, equality, reciprocity, market value, and cost. Without some objective standard, you're negotiation can quickly turn into a contest of wills with each side simply trying to impose their will rather than pursuing mutual gain for all parties involved. So those are four key concepts of principle negotiation we need to stay focused on. Problems, interests, options and standards. Furthermore, effective negotiation requires that we always keep in mind our BATNA, our best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Of course, you're hoping to reach a negotiated agreement, but do you know what's at stake if you don't? One of the biggest negotiation mistakes people make is not thinking about their alternatives. This increases the chance that we might accept an inferior alternative that we didn't have to, or that we reject an alternative we really should've accepted. If you don't have a good alternative apart from negotiating, you need to reach an agreement, and probably have to be willing to accept some concessions. It's not ideal, but it's better than you would've gotten if you didn't negotiate. On the other hand, if your current situation is pretty good, you can try to get more from the negotiation. Or you don't have to give in to extra demands because there's not much at stake if the negotiation doesn't work out. To use a poker analogy, knowing you are BATNA is like knowing what's in your hand compared to what's showing on the table. If you have good sense of what's at stake if you don't reach a negotiated agreement, you'll make better decisions regarding where to make concessions and where to hold your ground, resulting in a better overall outcome for everyone involved. Finally, what should we do if people don't play fair in a negotiation? Let's be honest, many negotiations can get intense and the stakes can be high for the people involved. So it's tempting to do whatever it takes to win, and that can involve some dirty tricks or questionable practices, like dishonesty, misinformation, or personal attacks. In these situations, Fisher and Ury say in their book that the best things we can do are recognize the tactic, raise the issue explicitly, and question whether or not the tactic is legitimate or desirable for what we're trying to accomplish. The truth is that most people are willing to engage in principle negotiation, even if it doesn't appear so at first. Some people simply are not aware of the principal negotiation practices we've discussed. Others feel threatened by the thought of negotiation and the potential of not getting what they want, unless they resort to dubious tactics. But don't engage at this level. Raise the issue, offer an alternative course of action and give people the space to realize the value of principle negotiation without hurting their reputation. You have to have the courage to say something like, okay, I understand this is a sensitive issue but that approach isn''t going to get us anywhere. Let's stay focused on the main issue here, and see if we can reach a decision that's good for all of us. Fisher and Ary called this "Negotiation Jiu Jitsu". Because we don't counter this sort of attack with a direct rebuke, but instead we redirect the momentum of the dispute onto a more productive trajectory. And this is where we can go back to the four components of principle negotiation, encouraging people to focus on the problem, to discuss their underlying interests, to create more options, and to revisit the standards guiding our negotiations. None of this is a guarantee against dirty tricks. There may be times we simply have to walk away. But it will increase the likelihood of better outcomes more often. So those are the key aspects of effective negotiation for our groups. For those times where we need to reach consensus on a single decision or a single course of action, yet there are many different ideas and interests among the group, and not everyone can get everything that they want. But we don't have the ability to simply impose our wills to get what we want. We have to negotiate. In these situations, we need to focus on the four components of principle negotiation. We have to consider our BATNA, our best alternative to a negotiated agreement and we have to know how to respond to dirty tricks and questionable practices. Next, we'll transition to the topics of difference and diversity, exploring why they matter for group communication and what issues of difference and diversity we should attend to. I'll see you in our next video.
