Negotiations accompany us every day, whether in a professional context or in our private lives. But what makes a negotiation successful? How can we reach a long-term, sustainable agreement that leaves neither party a loser, and at the same time fulfils as many of our negotiation goals as possible? 

Our negotiation workshops are dedicated to precisely these questions. The shortest training sessions last an hour, the longer ones several days. But we always try to convey the "essentials" of good negotiation, regardless of the duration. We have written down what these are here. 

Basics of negotiation theory

The first essential is understanding what makes negotiations so special: both sides have different goals and interests, and at the same time they need each other and have an interest in reaching an agreement. Without this mutual dependency, they could assert their interests unilaterally. And this leads to the so-called negotiator’s dilemma: negotiators have to be willing to compromise in order to reach an agreement. And they must remain firm in what they want and need to achieve. 

Incidentally, this is the reason for some negotiation situations that appear unsolvable. They are not negotiations in the sense described above: either there is a lack of mutual dependency or at least one side lacks the will to endeavour to reach an agreement at all. 

Positions and interests: The key to finding solutions

The second "essential" is the fundamental distinction between positions and interests. Negotiators often become entangled in a dispute about positions - i.e. about what they are demanding. An example: Two people are arguing over an orange. One says: "I want the orange", the other also demands the whole fruit. After some back and forth, they agree to cut the orange in half. Not a bad result, a good compromise, certainly better than leaving without an agreement.  

But now one person starts squeezing half of the orange to drink the juice. The other person scrapes off the peel of the orange and adds it to the batter of the cake they are about to bake. So, both sides could have got 100% instead of just half if they had talked about why they wanted the orange. And asking "why" brings out the interests that lie behind the positions. 

Only when negotiators shift the focus from the positions to the interests are so-called win-win solutions possible, in which both sides can get the maximum out of the negotiation without the other side ending up as the loser.

Two negotiation strategies: victory or win-win?

Related to this is the third basic principle, namely the distinction between two fundamentally different negotiation strategies. One strategy is to defeat the other party and get as big a slice of the cake as possible for yourself - using all the appropriate tactics, including threats, manipulation and other tricks. This more confrontational strategy can lead to success in the short term, but harbours the risk of straining the relationship of trust with the other side and making future negotiations more difficult.

However, if I expect to see the other side again in future negotiations – and this is a much more common situation in a professional context – this strategy produces poorer and less sustainable results or even jeopardises the working relationship. 

If I am looking for solutions that are sustainable in the long term, interest-based or cooperative negotiation is the better strategy. Instead of working against the other party, we work together against the problem. The problem is that we want different things, and we can work together to find mutually beneficial solutions, so-called win-win solutions. To do this, however, I not only need to know what I want, but I also need to understand what the other side wants and needs. 

Nothing is possible without good preparation

The fourth "essential" is the realisation that you can only negotiate successfully if you are well prepared. In addition to the relevant facts and data, it is essential to know your own interests as well as those of the other side and, based on this, my negotiating positions and their relative importance. Only if I prioritise can I, for example, exchange concessions on points that are less important to me for concessions from the other side on points that are particularly important to me. 

Experienced negotiators would add that it is important to think from the end: What could be the results at the end of the negotiations? What are desirable and realistic outcomes? And: What alternatives and options are there to resolve the problem and the conflict of interest? This is where you need to get creative. The more options I work out in preparation, the more likely I am to find a way out of supposed negotiation blockades.

BATNA: Plan B for negotiations

Another key learning objective in our training courses is to understand the fundamental importance of the concept of "BATNA": the "Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement", or put more simply: plan B. What do I do if the negotiations fail? The better your alternative to a failed negotiation, the stronger your negotiating position. An example: A purchase negotiation is much more relaxed for me if I have informed myself in advance about other suppliers of similar products and ideally even obtained other offers. 

Practical application in negotiations

However, knowing these basic principles is one thing - applying them in practice is another. That's why we emphasise practical experimentation in our training courses. In our exercises, role plays and simulation games, participants apply the strategies and concepts presented directly, give and receive feedback and share their own experiences. If this is of interest to your group: Please get in touch with us!