There are two basic ways in which to view and approach any
negotiation. We can see it as either distributive or integrative; or a combination
of the two. Leaders have the ability to see negotiations in both lights, but
based on the literature it appears that managers are biased in seeing negotiations
as inherently distributive in nature.
Here is why I would make such a claim.
First, let’s break down some key features of the approaches to a
negotiation and then look at why managers are predisposed to focus on
distribution and not integrative approaches.
Distributive
Negotiations are generally seen as:
· Having an outcome
that is win or lose,
· Zero-sum in
nature or a fixed pie,
· Actively seeking
to assert one’s position only,
· Focused on limiting
information sharing as much as possible,
· Having the mantra
that anything not acquired is lost.
Integrative
Negotiations are generally seen as:
· Having an outcome
that is focused on mutual gains for both parties,
· Focused on
creating value and enlarging the pie before dividing it,
· Seeking to
actively understand the other side’s perspective,
· Understanding the
importance of reciprocally sharing information,
· Having the mantra
that mutual giving can result in mutual gaining.
Now that we have clarified that, it is critical that we draw a clear
distinction between leadership and management.
John Kotter, Professor at Harvard Business School, explains that the classic
business school definition of management revolves around1:
1) Planning
2) Organizing
3) Directing
4) Controlling
Contrast that with McFarland, Senn, and Childress, who collaborated to
write Twenty-First Century Leadership:
Dialogues with 100 Top Leaders. They defined the 21st century
leader as someone who:
1) Facilitates
excellence in others
2) Has interpersonal
sensitivity
3) Exhibits a mastery
over change
4) Takes a holistic
approach -- embracing a wide variety of qualities, skills, and capabilities.
Based on the following descriptions we can see that a manager's inherent
training and focus on ‘directing’ and ‘controlling’ aren’t conducive with most
element of the integrative approach to negotiations.
Someone who believes they need to direct the discussion won’t actively
seek to understand the other side and someone who is trained to control a
situation won’t likely be willing to share information in a reciprocal manner. Further,
neither directing nor controlling are natural segues into the concept of mutual
gain.
Juxtapose this with the 21st Leader as described by McFarland,
Senn, and Childress. Every aspect of a leadership approach lines up with the
integrative negotiator:
The concept of mutual gain and that value can be explored and found align
with a leader's desire to take a more holistic approach and facilitate excellence
in others.
Actively seeking to understand the other side directly connects with a
leader's tendency for interpersonal sensitivity. And finally, we find that this
leader who has mastery of change understands that giving can result in mutual gaining.
Anyone who is comfortable and capable of changing and embracing change will be
open to creative and collaborative solutions.
This isn’t to say that the manager bias in negotiation is always bad.
Certain negations are best viewed through the lens of distribution. Simple,
transactional negotiations are perfectly tailored for the manager. In fact,
they are likely to be the most effective and efficient at this type of
negotiation.
However, the information presented would seem to indicate that for
more complex, multi-variable negotiations you will want to have a leader,
rather than a manager, involved.
With thanks to Chayse Myers for his input.
