From listening to words to action: the importance of the art of negotiation

Defining a contract, managing an internal conflict, making strategic decisions with several actors at stake: the contexts of application may be very different from each other, but for managers, entrepreneurs and professionals one thing seems certain, namely the fact that negotiation is now an integral part of their daily lives. But if the awareness of having to exercise this practice is shared, less so are the methods through which it is brought into the company's processes and organisation. Method and skills, in fact, are not always present and sometimes leave room for improvisation dictated by intuition, overconfidence or (worse) rigidity.

At the last Negotiation Forum, an event dedicated to the topic of confrontation and mediation in business organised by the ROI Group last June in Milan, three experts participated. They told us, from their own perspective, about their vision of 'negotiation' and explained what are the most common tools and mistakes that characterise negotiation contexts today. We caught up with them and heard from them a few weeks after the event to gather their impressions.

Jack Cambria, former commander of the New York Police Department's Hostage Negotiation Unit, emphasised the element of empathy and emphasised the importance of being able to empathise with one's interlocutor, letting him or her speak and listening patiently without being in a hurry to respond. Are these the 'right' ingredients to use even for a manager grappling with more 'ordinary' conflicts? To the precise question, Cambria immediately clarified how from extreme cases such as those related to his professional experience one can certainly learn that 'one should never take anything for granted and therefore act accordingly. And this is also true in a business context, where managers are often faced with delicate situations with a customer or supplier: through the negotiation process, it is possible to defuse emotions, calm them down and then arrive at a positive resolution of the conflict'. One should not push too hard for a quick solution, this is Cambria's advice, because one runs the risk of a counterparty reaction of the same strength and in the opposite direction. Even the most uncertain situations, however, can be resolved and the primary factor for a successful negotiation is undoubtedly active listening. "It is the approach," concludes the former NYPD commander, "that every good negotiator uses to get people to express themselves, because anyone, even the most difficult counterpart, if actively listened to, is able to make us understand what problems they feel are fundamental and thus to help us devise a strategy that that individual can accept. Every negotiation must be tailored to the individual: no two negotiations are identical, because no two problems are ever the same'.

Stressing how language, even in business negotiations, is often the decisive element was instead Gianrico Carofiglio, a former magistrate, well-known writer and lecturer on argumentation and persuasion techniques. Central to his vision is the theme of ethical awareness, and thus the concept that dealing with someone means first of all recognising that someone as a person, always taking into account their dignity and state of mind. It thus starts from practising active listening and reducing the possible imbalance of authority that can be created in certain situations of conversation between two parties, and deals with negotiation as a journey of discovery towards which one tries to lead the interlocutor through effective dialogue and communication. Language, according to Carofiglio, is action and has a huge impact on the success (or failure) of a negotiation. 'Words,' he points out, 'do not just describe the world, they modify it. In a negotiation, every word is a gesture, a signal, a choice that can open possibilities or close them: a sensible proposal, if badly formulated, can be rejected because of its tone, not its content; conversely, a difficult position can be accepted if expressed with respect and clarity. Language is not a trappings of negotiation, it is its backbone'. The concept is clear and it is normal to wonder how, in an era of 'fast' and often aggressive communication, what is the way to negotiate incisively but not manipulatively. "Being incisive," Carofiglio confirms in this regard, "does not mean being aggressive, because true effectiveness lies in clarity and the ability to bring out common ground. Authentic persuasion does not use tricks, but is based on consistency and the active perception of the other, and for this reason negotiating without manipulating means recognising the other as an interlocutor, not as an obstacle. And this, today, is a countercultural act'.

If listening and words are the basis, a dynamic and conscious strategy is just as important, and it is on this latter factor that the operative thinking of Michael Tsur, one of the most authoritative negotiation experts globally with over 30 years of experience in this field and more than 7,000 negotiations managed, focuses. The ultimate goal, and this is one of the principles behind the method he has created (and widely used by governments and multinationals), is to achieve shared and lasting solutions. And to get there, it is necessary to follow a path made up of preparation, questions and attention towards the interlocutor, with whom to establish that relationship of trust and respect at the basis of any negotiation process that aims to satisfy the needs of both parties. But if these solutions and related alternatives seem to be lacking, how does one build a margin of manoeuvre that allows one to make up for such shortcomings? The method,' Tsur told Sole24Ore, 'focuses on the relationship, starting from the moment it is established, and then maintaining and monitoring it. This is because we need to establish constructive communication to create trust, and from there, motivation to move forward and become creative. Negotiation takes place in the mind of our interlocutor sitting at the negotiation table and we are curious to understand how and what he thinks, assuming that an alternative is always there, even if it is not necessarily valid".