How to move from disagreement to problem solving, using NLP art of negotiation

Would that it were as easy to do as it is to describe. There is a balance and a dance between your integrity, values and outcomes, and those of the your partner. The dance of communication goes back and forth, some interests and values will be shared, some opposed. In this sense, negotiation permeates everything we do. We are dealing here with the process of negotiation, rather than what you are actually negotiating over.

Negotiation often takes place about scarce resources. The key skill in negotiation is to dovetail outcomes: to fit them together so that everyone involved gets what they want (although that may not be the same as their demand at the beginning of the negotiation). The presupposition is that the best way to achieve your outcome is to make sure that everyone involved achieves theirs too.

The opposite of dovetailing outcomes is manipulation, where your partner's wants are disregarded. There are four dragons that lie in wait for those that practise manipulation: remorse, resentment, recrimination, and revenge. When you negotiate by seeking to dovetail outcomes your partner becomes your ally, not
your opponent. If a negotiation can be framed as allies solving a common problem, the problem is already partially solved. Dovetailing is finding that area of overlap.

Separate the people from the problem. It is worth remembering that most negotiations involve people with whom you have, or want, an ongoing relationship. Whether you are negotiating over a child issues or a holiday, if you get what you want at the other person's expense, or they think you have pulled a fast one, you will lose goodwill that may be worth much more in the long run than success in that one
argument.

You will be negotiating because you have different outcomes. You need to explore these differences, because they will point to areas where you can make trade-offs to mutual advantage. Interests that conflict at one level may be resolved if you can find ways of each party getting their outcome on a higher level. This is where stepping up
enables you to find and make use of alternative higher level outcomes. The initial outcome is only one way of achieving a higher level outcome.

For example, in a negotiation over private time spent together as couple (initial outcome), your partner coming home early from work everyday is only one way of obtaining increased satisfaction and intimacy in your relationship (higher level outcome). There may be other ways of achieving increased intimacy if your partner was involved in a demanding project - vacation when project is finished, a date-night, hiring house cleaning help to free up time to spend with your partner as much as possible, for example. Stepping up finds bridges across pointsof difference.

People may want the same thing for different reasons. For example, imagine two people quarrelling over a pumpkin. They both want it. However, when they explain exactly why they want it, you find that one wants the fruit to make a pie, and the other wants the rind to make a Halloween mask. Really they are not fighting over the same thing at all. Many conflicts disappear when analyzed this way. This is a small example, but imagine all the different possibilities there are in any apparent disagreement.

If there is a stalemate, and a person refuses to consider a particular step, you can ask the question,'What would have to happen for this not to be a problem?' or,'Under what circumstances would you be prepared to give way on this?' This is a creative application of the As If frame and the answer can often break through the impasse. You are asking the person who made the block to think of a way round it.

Set your limits before you start. It is confusing and self-defeating to negotiate with yourself when you need to be negotiating with someone else. You need what Roger Fisher and William Ury in their marvelous book on negotiation. Getting to Yes, call a BATNA, or Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement. What will you do if despite all
the efforts of both parties you cannot agree? Having a reasonable BATNA gives you more leverage in the negotiation, and a greater sense of security.

Focus on interests and intentions rather than behavior. It is easy to get drawn into winning points and condemning behavior, but really nobody wins in these sorts of situations. Separate your partner's intentions from his behavior - for every behavior has a positive intention behind it, that is serving the person. If your partner does not help with the housework, the positive intention may be to relax after a day's work. You may ask questions such as "What is your highest intention for ____?"

A mutually-satisfying solution will be based on a dovetailing of interests, a win/win, not a win/lose model. In a win/lose model, everyone loses in the long term. So what is important is the problem and not the people, the intentions not the behavior, the interests of the parties not their positions.

It is also essential to have an evidence procedure that is independent of the parties involved. If the negotiation is framed as a joint search for a solution, it will be governed by principles and not pressure. Yield only to principle, not pressure.

There are some specific ideas to keep in mind while negotiating. Do not make an immediate counter-proposal immediately after the other side has made a proposal. This is precisely the time when they are least interested in your offering. Discuss their proposal first. If you disagree, give the reasons first. Saying you disagree immediately is a good way to make the other person deaf to your next few sentences.

All good negotiators use a lot of questions. In fact two good negotiators will often start negotiating over the number of questions. 'I've answered three of your questions, now you answer some of mine. . .' Questions give you time to think, and they are an alternative to disagreement. It is far better to get the other person to see the weakness in his position by asking him questions about it, rather than by telling him the weaknesses you perceive.

Good negotiators also explicitly signal their questions. They will say something like, 'May I ask you a question about that?' By doing so they focus the attention of the meeting on the answer and make it difficult for the person questioned to evade the point if he has agreed to answer the question.

It would seem that the more reasons you give for your point of view the better. Phrases like 'the weight of the argument' seem to suggest it is good to pile arguments on the scales until it comes down on your side. In fact the opposite is true. The fewer reasons you give, the better, because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. A weak argument dilutes a strong one, and if you are drawn into defending it, you are on poor ground. Beware of a person who says, 'Is that your only argument?' If you have a good one, say, 'Yes'. Do not get drawn into giving another, necessarily weaker one. The follow up may be, 'Is that all? If you take this bait you will just give him ammunition. Hopefully, if the negotiation is framed as a joint search for a solution, this sort of trick will not occur.