When conflict or confrontations occur in the workplace the solution is often sought through negotiation. Negotiation, it is thought, is a simple way to diffuse such difficulties and is easy to engage in. Unfortunately, because many people do not understand the underlying principles of negotiation, what actually happens is that the conflicting parities end up in ever increasing acrimonious arguments, rather than productive outcomes.
To constructively engage in negotiation means that both parties are willing to explore the issues and, by working together, come to a mutual agreement which is acceptable to both. But to do this requires that both sides understand the options and the consequences of the various choices.
If it appears that negotiation is going nowhere, the question that should be asked by both parties is "Are we engaged in negotiation, or merely argument?"
The difference between argument and negotiation is the willingness to resolve the issue. Arguments are putting our own opinion and there is often no willingness to listen to another point of view or even concede the value in their opinions. There is no willingness to concede on anything.
On the other hand, to negotiate means to listen to the other side of the conflict, to understand the basis from which they operate and to be willing to take action that will lead to resolving the issue.
When was the last time that you were involved in an argument? What was the outcome? Did you continue to forcefully put your point of view without any wish to listen to the other side? You may have the authority or power to force your point of view, and if so, you may have walked away with a win/lose result. But I bet the atmosphere was icy for some time. And if you were engaged in an argument where the other person forced this outcome, then remember how you felt, it is not pleasant to recall.
The problem with this outcome is that no-one likes to be a loser, and if you force your own preferred outcome so that you get everything you want, you will force the other party to be a loser. They are unlikely to forget the humiliation; and will inevitably carry resentment long term. Should they then get the upper hand, and then watch out. This is not a long term solution and has no place in negotiations.
Unfortunately, another outcome of a bitter dispute is where neither party wins, when neither of them will shift their position nor be willing to look at other solutions that may help resolve the point at issue. If this continues then it's almost all out war and no one wins anything, in fact it is the classic lose/lose situation and no-one is happy. Again, the willingness to work to resolve the issue is missing and the outcome can be devastating and have much wider implications.
So what about the 'workable compromise’? Here, surely everyone wins? The trouble is that compromise is built on loss, both side of the problem have to loose something to achieve a compromise. And, no matter how the situation is resolved there may be a sense that they were forced into giving up something they did not want to. Compromise looks good on the surface, but resentment can be simmering underneath and when it breaks out it the person will be even more determined to force a win/lose result in their favor.
For instance the original point of contention may be that the employees want a $10 per day rise in wages. The employer offers $2 and they compromise on $6 per day. In this case although a compromise has been reached neither side is really happy. The employees feel that they were forced to accept less than they wanted, while the employer feels forced to give more than they think they can afford. Compromise? Yes, but at what cost.
The above results are often the outcome where argument is used rather than negotiation. Argument attacks the person, the individuals, or the organization. Those who are acclaimed as "strong negotiators" are more often than not, determined arguers.
The real win/win result comes from a willingness to attack the problem rather than the opposition, and this requires collaboration to reach a consensus. Negotiation means a working together to create an outcome which is acceptable to all and sometimes this means looking at other options to resolve the dispute.
In the example above, if the parties worked together to achieve a collaborated outcome, the negotiated outcome could be that there would be no pay rise, but maybe a radical change of hours, increased bonuses and superannuation entitlements.
A successful negotiation is where both sides accept the result as a good deal for their party. An unwillingness to develop other solutions is not part of negotiations. And that of course is where arguments fail. Arguments mean that I have only one preferred solution: you accept my point of view and concede to my requests; and if you don't there will be unpleasant consequences.
The skill in negotiation comes from positive communication that focuses on the problem, which is an outcome of cooperation; while argument opens up both parties to confrontation and unresolved conflict. While we will probably never be able to avoid conflicts or confrontation, if we learn the principles of negotiation we have a much better chance of reaching a cooperative outcome and positive results for both sides.