Very often divergent views are a result of the part you have been given to play in the negotiation drama. The role or job you have affects how you perceive the situation and colors your view of what might constitute an equitable settlement. All things being equal, a prosecutor and a defense attorney can honestly advocate very different positions.
No matter whom you represent, there is a tendency for you to be morally directed—to believe, “The angels are on my side, for I represent the forces of good, against the forces of evil.” Such a pose is, of course, ridiculous. It’s also self-defeating. If a negotiation is to be successful some of this emotional content must be drained. Both sides must learn to say, “If I were in their place, representing that constituency, maybe I would take a similar position.”
Believe me, this attitude will not cause you to defect to the opposition. Somehow, no matter how empathetic you act, you will never forget who signs your paycheck. But thinking this way will help you to recognize the other party’s constraints, problems, and real needs. Having this outlook is the key to creative problem solving.
Before going any further, let’s summarize the negotiation approach being outlined in this chapter.
The emphasis is not upon slick maneuvers that finesse or manipulate the other side; rather, it’s on the development of genuine relationships based upon trust, where both sides win.
We have been saying that all people are unique but not that complex—they merely wish to satisfy their needs. If my needs are different from yours, we are not really adversaries. Therefore, if I can use the right method and manner in approaching you, and we can transform the shape of things to meet mutual needs, both of us can emerge victorious.
Successful collaborative negotiation lies in finding out what the other side really wants and showing them a way to get it, while you get what you want.