The “Myth” of Tough Negotiators

Whenever I offer workshops about how to resolve conflict more consciously, constructively and creatively, I talk about John Paul Lederach’s peacemaking principles – namely:

• The capacity to imagine a web of relationships that includes our enemies,
• The discipline to sustain curiosity,
• The eternal belief in the creative act and  
• The willingness to take a risk. 

 And inevitably I receive concerns to the following effect:

“What you say about being curious and open to other viewpoints sounds intriguing, BUT if I’m the only one doing this, won’t I get hammered? Won’t I end up losing? How can this work when I’m the only person being “reasonable”? Don’t I need to be an equally ‘tough negotiator?”

Good questions. Valid questions. We all need and want emotional, physical, and financial safety and security.

So do we need to be ‘tough’ in order to get our needs met when ‘tough’ is the stance of our opponent?

First, what does it mean to be ‘tough’? Does it mean being adversarial? Positional? A “hard ass”? And if so, is that really an effective way to get what we want?

Being adversarial is usually about being demanding, unyielding, blaming, shaming, fault-finding. It’s about either-or. Either you do X, or the game’s over and you lose.

That’s the stance.  Is it effective?

No. Experience and research suggest otherwise. Indeed, negotiations are not a shoot-out with only one party standing at the end. In actuality, business, governmental and inter-personal negotiations usually necessitate an agreement that both parties can live with.

Otherwise negotiations won’t be successful and an arbitrator or judge will end up making what is often a lose-lose decision for the parties.

So what’s required to get to an agreement that both parties can live with?

Well, it is about being ‘tough’. BUT it’s about being tough by staying focused on and true to our values, interests, and relationships. AND by exploring the values, interests, and relationship concerns of our “opponent”. If we really want to win, we need an agreement that works for both us AND for the other party. Otherwise implementation of the agreement will be tenuous at the best.

So while toughness in the sense of holding onto a position and being adversarial about it might seem like strength, reaching a mutually acceptable agreement is usually more powerful and usually contains more value. And doing this requires listening. Hard and sincere listening. And understanding. And curiosity. None of this means letting go of your values, interests or relationship concerns. To the contrary, it’s the path to getting what you really want by exploring what’s possible, including what you might discover in the process.