Negotiators, even professional ones, make surprisingly many wrong decisions that doom negotiations that should have succeeded.
Many of these mistakes relate to overestimating how well they can “read” the feelings and thoughts of other parties in the negotiation.
The same goes to the extent to which the other party believes they can understand their feelings and thoughts.
For instance, research shows that negotiators who sought to conceal their desires did a better job than they thought they did.
In turn, those who tried to convey information to those they negotiated with overestimated their abilities to communicate such knowledge.
Other scholarly research shows that negotiators with less power are more prone to such mistakes than those with more power.
This mental blindspot is one of many dangerous judgment errors.
Scholars in cognitive neuroscience and behavioral economics call these blindspots cognitive biases – which we make due to how our brains get wired.
We make these mistakes not only in work but also in other life areas.
Fortunately, recent research in these fields shows how you can use pragmatic strategies to address these dangerous judgment errors.
You need to evaluate where cognitive biases are hurting you and others in your team and organization.
Besides, you can develop mental habits and skills to notice cognitive biases and prevent yourself from slipping into them.
I observed a precise instance of the illusion of transparency when an electric company brought me in as a consultant to mediate in failing contract negotiations between the management and the union.
Both sides believed the other party to be unwilling to negotiate in good faith, asking too much and giving too little.
The union demanded substantial wage hikes, strong job protections, and better retirement benefits, and the management pushed back firmly on each request.
Quickly, I noticed that the illusion of transparency gravely inhibited progress.
My private conversations with representatives from both sides showed that all felt they communicated their positions effectively.
They believed they expressed both the areas where they wanted to stand firm and where they felt willing to compromise successfully.
Yet these same conversations showed many areas of agreement and flexibility that neither side recognized.
Why didn’t both sides explicitly outline their positions thoroughly and clearly, so that the other side understood where they stood?
Because they were afraid the other party would take advantage of them if they explicitly stated their true positions, including the minimum they’d accept.
So both sides tried to convey what was most important to them by arguing more strongly for specific points and less strongly for others.
They believed that the other side would “get the hint.” Unfortunately, neither side “got the hint” of the real priorities of the other side.
What I asked each side to do was use the decision-making strategy of weighing their priorities.
After deploying this strategy, the union negotiators assigned first priority to increased job protection, second to better retirement benefits, and third to a substantial wage increase.
The management negotiators used the same strategy and assigned first priority to no wage increase, second to decreased retirement benefits, and last to weaker job protection.
By clarifying these priorities, the parties were able to find room for negotiation.
The final contract included much-strengthened job protection, a moderate boost to retirement, and a small wage hike at just below inflation.
The management appreciated the outcome since it didn’t have to spend as much money on labor.
The union membership liked the peace of mind that came with job protection, even if they didn’t get the wage hike they would have wanted.
The key takeaway is that in any negotiation situation, you’re very likely to be overestimating the extent to which you explained your position to the other party.
You’re also probably too confident about how well you understand the other party’s perspective.
The other party is most likely making the same mistakes regarding you.
An easy way to address these problems is to use the decision-making strategy of weighing your priorities and having the other party do the same.
Then, trade off your lowest priorities against their highest ones and vice versa.
You can come to a win-win agreement where both parties realized the most significant gains and experience the least losses.
Organisations and individuals across the world will join together to celebrate National Mentoring Day on…
Professor Ervin László has achieved many things, from being one of the greatest philosophers of…
Most employees work hard and show up every day with good intent and admirable integrity.…
Stephen Kelly has enjoyed a 35-year entrepreneurial career in high growth businesses and government, always…
Anita Ramachandran is the Executive Director of MicroMentor, a social innovation of Mercy Corps, and…
Steve Cooper, CEO at Exelaration, a software company based out of the VT Corporate Research…