Extreme Negotiations

HBR recapitulates five strategies learned by U.S. Military commanders on extreme negotiations. It is not very surprising that these strategies contain elements of systemic thinking.

In the November 2010 issue of HBR on "Leadership Lessons from The Military" the feature article on "Extreme Negotiations" provides for five strategies in negotiation situations. These strategies surely are applicable for any negotiation situation, not only for point-blank fighting and war theatre negotiations.

So far, the usual white-knuckle tactics were very much along the lines of the hardball negotiation tips of e.g. Gartner Group (link_1, link_2) which, at the end, made one party (in Gartner's setting the vendor) go into his knees and the other party walk away as 'the winner'. But a winner for how long and what a price?

Attached, I have prepared an extract on these five strategies and on the specific examples of "old" and "new" approaches to negotiation. The summary can be downloaded here: Summary of HBR negotiation strategies.

What makes the HBR approach so remarkable are the following implicit factors which, in their own way, are deeply systemic thinking approaches:

• It implies that one party is not per se superior in setting of the negotiation situation, i.e. that just walking away is not always a feasible solution;
• that selective perception and psychological pressure even exists on "our side" of the negotiation table (if there is any, at all, somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan);
• that artefacts of the trade (in the case of the Military their weapon, their protective gear etc.) can negatively impair negotiation situations, that small things matter;
• circular thinking ("how can we explain this deal to our colleagues") help to open up avenues for new thinking;
• threatening situations make people want to look far more strong and more in control than they probably are, on both sides.

Obvious, but still remarkably simple for an academic journal, is the learning that there is something like a "principle of fairness" which needs to be maintained in order to provide for a lasting solution to an issue, and that certain short-term solutions (e.g. trading resources for help) breeds disrespect or even contempt have a direct application in business, as well.

Systemic constructivist thinking is part of the HBR negotiation concept, not explicitly, though. Each negotiation party has their own set of what "reality" is and a real solution to a negotiation situation is not necessarly a linear result of what one side thinks is within the interests of the other party. I surely prefer the HBR way of handling critical negotiations than the somewhat point-blank Gartner thinking.