One of the traditional topics in the study of administration is that of negotiation. Negotiating is the process that we follow to satisfy our needs when another person controls what we want.
To better understand this definition, we must know that not only a price is negotiated, but also the after-sales maintenance of an electronic product, work benefits, the attention you receive during your purchase or the place where you will spend your next vacation.
The psychotechnical approach integrates aspects of the preceding models, for example part of principles that it calls universal, of the interlocutor's needs to argue and try to convince; but unlike the psychological model, it tries to develop techniques to directly approach negotiation. We are facing a more complete negotiation model.
Beginning. Do not negotiate from a position, since we usually associate our personal worth with the acceptance of our position, which considerably reduces the margin of maneuver that can occur in the negotiation; In addition, if we start from a position we could use the time spent defending it and the resources used for this purpose in seeking consensus that benefits both parties.
Finally, by persisting in one position we clearly inform our counterpart that our interest is in the position, and that the other person and his interests are secondary. Under these considerations, the authors develop a methodology to negotiate.
Step One: Separate people from the problem. Negotiators first are the people, not machines or abstract representatives of the counterparty; hence, we have to treat them as people, with human reactions, to the extent that their fantasies or fears are not secondary aspects in the negotiation but elements that can facilitate or cancel it definitively.
Step Two: Focus on interests, not positions. The basic problem in a negotiation is not the conflicting positions but the conflict between the needs of each party, hence, to reach an intelligent solution it is necessary to reconcile interests, not positions. One can even find that opposing positions reflect similar interests.
In this situation, the most powerful interests must be answered are basic human needs: security, economic well-being, belonging, recognition and control of one's life.
Third step: generate alternatives for common benefit. In most negotiations, there are four obstacles that prevent generating alternatives of common benefit:
a) Make premature judgments. Nothing hurts new ideas more than criticism. Judgment hinders imagination.
b) The hypothesis of a unique answer. When looking for it from the beginning, the possibility of choosing between different possible options is ruled out.
c) The hypothesis of a fixed concept. Conceptualizing negotiation as how you win / I lose, or I win / you lose, is difficult to avoid, both because of our culture and because “when a problem consumes us, human beings, we focus on ourselves and what what are we going to do".
d) Thinking that solving a problem is their business. When we proceed in this way we forget that the only agreement that those involved will validate is the one that benefits all parties, and that this is achieved with the participation of all.
Step Four: Insist on using objective criteria. Deciding on the will can be costly, so much so that it can affect the conduct of the negotiation. The ideal would be to apply criteria independent of the will of each participant, but which are respected by the parties in conflict. Criteria such as standards of justice, scientific principles or common practices; in this way we do not yield to pressure but to principle.
