After the interview, I saw John as a businessman who
thoroughly enjoys the challenge industry offers, but who is
foremost an adventurer at heart. His answers demonstrated a
keen understanding of the bargaining process that only a
seasoned pro would possess-- one whose surprisingly high
level of enthusiasm makes me believe negotiating will
continue to be enjoyable for him.
He defines his approach as a systems process with the
key factor being planning and preparation. John calls this
pre-negotiation; assessing positions, strength, deadlines and
most importantly, information about the other side. He
states that being a system it is imperative to discover the
common grounds and minimize the negatives. The text, as well
as class discussions, stressed the importance of this
preparation and planning. John appears to concur with this,
but once the planning is complete it becomes a challenge and
a game-- a game to win. Although he discussed the
integrative approach and defined an effective negotiation as
one where "both sides obtain what they sought", John also
stated that he carries the prime rule of the military,
"control the battlefield", into a negotiation. It is
comments like this one which make me feel that John is an
adventurer and second a negotiator and his approach in most
cases is distributive, in military terms; "search and destroy."
In pursuing the desired outcome, John defends the use of
virtually any tactic. Throughout the interview he addresses
them all, and is apparently quite aware of their affects and
implications on the process and the individuals involved.
His answer "yes" to; "do the ends justify the means"
legitimizes the use of power, threats and force when
considered necessary and appropriate. This he calls
"parading the troops". He firmly believes that threatens or
intimidation are ok to use, but using them if they produce
the desired results.
John is articulate, competitive, precise and extremely
thorough in his approach. His pre-negotiation stage allows
him to identify and clarify the issue and positions available
to both sides. The approach he takes into the process
depends on these perceived strengths and weaknesses-- for
example; "I can be most cooperative when not in a position to
bargain". It is èé
situation which determines the posture
he will take, not the other side's position.
It is unfair, however to dissect and attempt to analyze
each and every one of John's responses to my questions. It
is obvious that he has mastered the tools of the trade. He
is keenly aware of the factors, variables and underlying
psychological issues implicit in the human side of the
process. But his approach remains consistent and quite
clear, at least in my observation. John prefers the
distributive approach. He localizes the situation,
identifies his strengths and uses them to reach his
objectives. Although he works towards a win/win solution
when possible, I expect it is usually on his terms.
The text notes that in its more competitive forms,
concealment between parties can cause misunderstandings and
the feeling that the other side is dishonest or deceptive.
Sometimes this results in the inability to come to a workable
agreement. This can be reduced when negotiators start off
careful but reveal more and more of their true needs as they
come to trust the other side. John takes this approach but
admitted that he still would never reveal his whole position.
I believe that the ability to uncover solutions to
complex issues requires first; honest and open communication,
and second, a cooperative environment where the negotiators
feel unthreatened. Creativity and innovation will not be
effective if one side feels too threatened and intimidated by
the other. When this happens, the break off of negotiations
becomes a strong possibility because of one side's
frustration and anger over the other's behavior. The
attitudes and perceptions we have of the other side are not
always reality-based. While they may behave consistent with
our image of them, the perception may create far more
conflict than actually exists. Emotion, like perception, can
also negatively impact the ability of the parties to reach an
agreement. Both sides must be sensitive to this and not let
misconceptions rule the process.
John takes a very controlled and clinical approach to
negotiating. He can separate emotion from enthusiasm,
maintaining a highly focused perspective throughout the
process. I have difficulty staying focused if I allow
emotion to take over, which sometimes occurs. \it is
extremely difficult for me to effectively represent a
position I do not believe fair. Most importantly, in my mind
the ends very often do not justify the mean. there is a
moral and ethical boundary one must consider, whether or not
commonly shared among people.
The text states that one of the cardinal rules of
successful negotiation is "settlements that address the needs
of both parties are the most durable and satisfying ones".
This is more likely achieved through cooperation, not
intimidation. My approach to negotiation may be simplistic
and possibly naive, but I almost exclusively attempt to
follow the integrative approach. In a true integrative
process all information is shared openly. The process is
based on trust and honesty requiring a demonstration of good
faith from both sides from the start. The best solutions I
feel are founded on valid and truthful information sharing.
In presenting the facts and listening carefully to the other
side's points of view and concerns, mutually agreeable
solutions to problems can be identified. My weakness is
being too direct and too impatient, sometimes allowing my
emotions to cloud my understanding of the bargaining climate
at specific points in time.
No matter what method or strategy taken, conflict will
be resolved only when the desire of the two sides to reach an
agreement is greater than their need or willingness to break
off the relationship. Conflict or the use of force more
frequently leads to retaliation and escalation than
conflict reduction. Cooperation, I feel, is the better road
to follow.
