Biden bows out

The unwinding of Joe Biden’s re-election campaign came to its conclusion over the weekend, as the President withdrew his presumptive nomination as Democratic candidate in this November’s US election. This process brutally illustrates the win/lose nature of politics (which we saw on this side of the pond on the 4^th July) and gave me pause for thought. Politics at election time is inherently competitive – the objective is to win power, almost always at the expense of a rival. Negotiation offers us a different possibility, however – that counter-parties may have the ability to emerge from a conflict mutually satisfied, rather than as victor or defeated.

Of course, not everybody sees negotiation that way. Donald Trump, for example, sees negotiation very much as being all about “winning” and there’s little doubt that his ultra-competitive approach has seen him take advantage of some remarkable deals (the story about how he exploited a seller’s dire financial situation to obtain a $30m 727 airliner for a mere $8m being but one example). However, the drawback with such a competitive approach is the significant risk it brings when dealing with those we want to be negotiating with on a repeated basis over time. For the majority of us who negotiate commercially, most of the time we would probably see a collaborative approach as being more strategically sound and beneficial.

Being collaborative with those we negotiate is something that we explore in detail on our courses, but there are a number of ways that we can foster an atmosphere of co-operation in our negotiations, should it be in our interests to do so (on which, we also examine competitive behaviours so that negotiators can make their own choice, and execute skilfully, in either scenario). Some of these ideas can be usefully applied in situations where a relationship is currently adversarial but your preference would be to engender a collaborative approach. A tactic I used successfully involved looking at how I treated information in my negotiations. Firstly I’d compare a poor, competitive relationship and how I disclosed information with one where trust was implicit. Frequently I’d find that in the latter I was invariably open and transparent, and this was reciprocated in good faith – exactly what I wanted as it helped us work towards mutually beneficial deals. With the former on the other hand, I’d most often find that my information sharing was scant to non-existent – I feared (rightly or wrongly) that anything I shared, however basic, would somehow be used to undermine my position. To change this dynamic, I would consider what information I could share (that I previously did not) in a competitive relationship that would have no risk, and share that. Over a relatively short period of time it would become clear whether the other party was attempting to use this information for competitive advantage, or whether they were reciprocating by sharing non-contentious information they previously would have held back. If my information sharing was reciprocated, then I’d up the ante and start to share information that did expose me to risk, but in a limited way – again, to test the water. If that was used against me, simple enough to dial back down my sharing of information. If on the other hand my counter-party started to share information with me that exposed them to risk, then I knew that we were moving towards a relationship where collaboration was not only a possibility, but a probability. It hopefully goes without saying that where the other party did share contentious information with me, I would be sure to not use that in a competitive manner to gain advantage! As a process this may take time, but if your objective is to transform an adversarial relationship into one where you can collaborate, the investment is worthwhile.

In US politics the binary outcome on offer creates competition meaning a substantial minority will inevitably be disappointed come November, but an outcome that leaves both parties comfortable and – crucially – committed to the implementation of deals is one that is in the interests of many negotiators.