A. Capital planning and priority-setting all tend to require that people reach agreement from different points of view. Interest-based negotiation techniques can help us focus our energy on the process, and guide that process toward a satisfactory result. By following these common-sense rules, we can turn conflict into cooperation, and reach solutions that work for everyone.

B. If we view the problem as that which needs to be resolved rather than viewing someone holding a contrary viewpoint as a person to be defeated, the odds of a successful collaboration increase. Try changing the shape of the table rather than sitting opposite your ‘opponents’. Arrange the seating so that all the parties are sitting together facing a flip chart or blackboard where the problem is presented. That makes it clear that all the participants are facing the problem together - that instead of it being ‘us’ against ‘them’, it is a case of ‘all of us’ against ‘it’.

C. Two sisters are fighting over the only orange in the family larder. Each sister must have the entire orange for herself; any less is impossible. A wise parent asks each of the girls (in private) why she wants the orange. One explains she wants to drink the juice; the other wants to use the rind to cook a pudding. What each sister wants is her position; why she wants it is her interest. In this case, the simple solution is to give the rind to the cook after the juice has been squeezed for the thirsty sister, thus meeting the interests of both. When preparing for a negotiation, or after it has begun, don’t just ask, ‘What do they want?’ It is also important to ask, ‘Why do they want it?’ It is equally important - but often more difficult - to ask the same questions about your own views. Many successful negotiators find they’re more successful if they focus on understanding their interests as they enter discussions. If they haven’t started out with a perfect package, the ideas of others may actually improve their final result. Negotiators who arrive with a complete package can create real problems. They may take personally and stubbornly resist any modifications to their ideas, making it more difficult to reach a satisfactory resolution.

D. If you do not reach an agreement with the other party, does that really make things worse for you? When you’re selling an antique Rolls Royce and have received an offer of $43,250, you know what another potential buyer has to do to get you interested. Of course, the first offerer may plan to use the car for chauffeuring wedding parties, while a second offerer collects and restores antique cars and preserves them indoors. Is more cash all you care about, or is it important to you that your cherished Rolls is properly cared for? Or do you want to turn down both offers and keep the car for now? In determining your BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), a straightforward review of your interest will give you the clearest picture. If you accept your BATNA, you know when you can simply turn your back on the negotiations. But it is important not to ignore the other party’s BATNA. The relative strength of each party’s BATNA will determine the balance of power each can exercise.

E. If the other party is highly opinionated or emotional, if their approach is threatening or extremely demanding, keeping quiet after they finish speaking can be quite unsettling to them. Most people are troubled by silence in the midst of heated discussion. Sometimes silence is viewed as disapproval. But since no specific disapproval has been voiced, it cannot be treated as an attack. It has happened on many occasions that, when met with silence, people have modified their previous statements to make them more palatable.

F. If all the participants view the process as fair, they are more likely to take it seriously and ‘buy into’ its result. Moreover, the focus on fairness can have an important impact on the substantive result. If the parties to a negotiation can agree on standards against which elements of the agreement can be measured, it can give each a face saving reason for agreeing .... Parties who walk away from the table grumbling may regret their commitment and only honor it grudgingly. If they end up looking for excuses to get out from under an unwanted result, the gains achieved by the other side may prove to be short-term indeed.

G. Keep a cool head and pay attention to the process and the strategy, as well as the substance of the negotiation. If it’s not your ‘turn’ to be angry, the exercise of restraint can be turned into a positive opportunity to observe what is going on with a clear eye. No less important, yelling at each other is not negotiation; it is confrontation. In those situations there may possibly be a ‘winner’; but it is even more likely there will be a ‘loser’.