We have all seen those books on negotiation. One such book, for example, is "Getting to Yes", others have titles such as, "Bargaining for Advantage", "Getting Past No", etc.
On inspection of most all of these books one will usually find some text along the following lines indicating that if you and the other party can just talk and air things out that you can reach a good result.
"Joint problem solving revolves around interests and positions,. You begin by identifying each side's interests - the concerns, needs, fears and desires that underlie and motivate your opposing positions., You then explore different options for meeting those interests, You goal is to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement in and efficient and amicable fashion." ~ From "Getting Past No"
What constitutes a good result? Well, most books will tell you that a good result, indeed the best result, is what is called a Win-Win. This is where both parties walk away with something that they think is good for them. The case where one party says "Wow, I can't believe I got this cool talking frog ..and for so cheap [from that other guy]."; while at the same time the other party is saying "Wow, I am sure glad I have the money now .... and I can't believe I got somebody to buy that thing [at such a high price] that was taking up space in my garage."
This then brings up an interesting philosophical point about a free economy. That point is this - In the ideal free-will transaction, each side is getting more from the other side than he feels that he is giving up to get what he got. Another way to state this is that the thing that Party A gets from Party B is felt by Party A to be more valuable that what he had to give Party B to get what he got. Likewise, the thing that Party B gets from Party A is felt by Party B to be of more value than what they had to give to Party A to get what he got. This, indeed is the basis for all free-will/free-economy exchange and an important outcome of it (a free-will/free-economy exchange) is that it results in a net increase in value. There is no winner for every loser. EACH party GAINS.
Here is an example. Party A and Party B are neighbors and live in a cold yet fertile climate. Party A has land on which grow a lot of trees. Indeed, he has so many trees and his land is so fertile that within 2 years of cutting one tree down, another is ready for harvest. Party B has NO trees but he has open land on which grows a lot of food. It is winter and Party A, while having all the trees in the wold, is starving, while Party B, having all the food in the world, is freezing. At this point trees are not really "worth much "to Party A. I mean, he has trees coming out the ears - but his belly is empty. Conversely, food is not really "worth much" to Party B. I mean, he has food coming out his ears - but his ass is freezing off.
So here we have 2 people having something that is not "worth much" to them, yet at the same time having something that is worth a hell of a lot to the other party. Thus it is that as rational people, Party A trades what to him are "worthless" trees (firewood) for "more valuable" food, while Party B trades what to him is "worthless" food, for "more valuable" firewood.
It is important here to understand that neither party is trying to "help the other guy out" and to understand that each party, from the perspective of standing in his own shoes thinks that he is getting the "better" end of the deal. Indeed, they both are getting the better end of the deal because EACH is trading something they hold at one level of value and getting, in exchange, something that they hold in higher value. THIS perceived gain at both ends (the pain of starvation on the one hand and pain of freezing on the other) is what motivates the transaction and is what motivates all free-will/free-economy transactions. Essentially, these are transactions where both people walk away thinking "Man , I sure got the better end of that deal because what I gave up less that what I got", and indeed BOTH are right.
Another way to think of this is to consider that Party A has 5 one dollar bills, while Party has 5 one dollar bills. One guy says to the other - "Hey, I'll give you my five bills for your five bills."
Why in the world would they make any exchange of something that they considered equal in value? The fact of the matter is that they don't. Unless both, of course, just like joking around with each other. Indeed, if they made a transaction for this purpose it would prove up the point that they are doing it because they are BOTH getting something out of the transaction - a feeling of joking around.
In summary then, the ONLY thing that makes the exchange happen in a free-will/free-economy transaction is if the parties viewed from their standpoint make a "profit". Now, the bleeding hearts would say that somebody got something at somebody else's "expense" and try to make out as if somebody took advantage of somebody else, when the fact of the matter is that both take advantage of each other. This is called win-win.
Having outlined the ideal case and the general principle, we now can turn to corruptions of the fabric and discuss two other kinds of exchange. One is the I Win- You Lose exchange. This is the kind of exchange that the bleeding hearts love to tout, for to them every exchange, even the win-win exchanges that make up the bulk of exchange, have to be painted with this brush because it advances their agenda of collectivism; i.e., collectivism needs a victim.
In an "I Win-You Lose" exchange, the point of the negotiation from the standpoint of the "Winner" is that not only that he truly gets something that is of greater value than what he gives up (just like in a win-win ) but also that he gets the feeling that "I really screwed that guy". Indeed, in many cases, the deal will not be done if this psychological superiority cannot be felt by the "Winner". To these kinds of people, it is NOT so much about getting the physical object what they are bargaining for, but more about getting the mind-game payoff that they are superior and better that the other guy. This kind of psychological world view can be seen in certain poker players and other gamblers (or businessmen), where the object of the game is not to make money or to have a fun time with the other guy, but by winning, validating that they are "better than the other person."
Indeed, going into the game, the desired outcome is the "I Win By You Losing" outcome.Another way to state this is "I win by me knowing that I am better that you, and this is how I prove it (by taking your money off the table)" In couples counseling they call this the One-Up, One-Down communication style.
Thus it is that for some, THAT (the need to feel superior) is the entire point of the transaction. For these type, the ideal transaction is the "I Win- You Lose", and a Win-Win transaction will be avoided.
This then, brings us to the third type of negotiation outcome that is desired. I call this the "Bully End Game", or by the more lengthy but more descriptive term of:
"I Win-You Not Only Lose, But I Know That You Know That You Lost to Me"
This is the most corrosive kind of negotiation style as it leaves one party nursing his wounds and, with good cause, looking for revenge even if it is of the smallest import. A good example of this can be seen in some of the romantic tragedies where the yeoman and the peasant girl fall in love and are to be married, but the prince of the manor, on seeing this love between two of such pure heart, arranges, through the power of the king, for the peasant girl to be married to him instead and then abandons her to his knights. In such a case the entire point is not the girl - but to take the girl from the yeoman, and for the prince to know that the yeoman knows that he (the yeoman) is powerless to do anything about it.
A point here - The phrasing - "I Win-You Not Only Lose, But I Know That You Know That You Lost to Me", is deliberately crafted as it is, as it is different than what some would perhaps restate as the "I Win-You Not Only Lose, But You Have to Know (Admit) That You Lost to Me". Essentially, the crafting is as it is because the latter does not capture the full aggressive nature of the former.
In business, you will occasionally come across The Bully, and when you do, if you have not read this first, you will be caught unawares and your mind will be reeling with trying to understand what is happening during the negotiation. In your mind, you are just trying to do a business deal, while in the other party's mind the entire point of the "negotiation" is for them to come away with the belief that "I Won-You Not Only Lost, But I Know That You Know That You Lost to Me. "
This "lesson" was taught to me, during one on my attempted negotiations with a colleague of mine, and it took me a while to understand that to him the end game was not both of us winning (both of us coming away with a good economic result), but for me to lose ... and for him to know that I knew that I lost to him.
No comments:
Post a Comment