The Intelligent Negotiator by Charles Craver Page A

would merely like to have? Once you and your counterparts begin to disclose your respective values, you can evaluate the degree to which your own objectives conflict with the goals of the other side. In some instances, both of you may actually desire the identical distribution of the items in question, allowing you to enhance your respective interests simultaneously. Through an appropriate resolution of these “shared needs,” you can maximize the joint return.
    Table 1 J OINT N EEDS C OMPARISON

    In their book Interviewing, Counseling, and Negotiating, 5 Professors Robert Bastrass and Joseph Harbaugh created a table that graphically highlights the different levels of party needs (see table 1 ).
    You may discover that one side desires items that are of no particular interest to the other side. The participant who values the items should be given these terms. Why would the other side be so generous? Being accommodating with respect to items the other side values and you do not can increase the likelihood that you will get other terms that you value. By resolving these independent needs appropriately, each side enhances the likelihood that it will obtain the terms it prefers.
    Proficient negotiators should work to ascertain the areas of shared and independent needs to ensure the proper distribution of these non-conflicted items. When negotiators attempt to resolve disputes over their conflicted needs, they must try to remember the degree to which they actually want these items. If one side considers a disputed matter “essential” while the other views it as “important” or “desirable,” the term should be given to the side that values it more in exchange for something the other side considers more significant. For example, if a prospective employee considers three weeks of vacation critical but the hiring company does not, while the company is absolutely unwilling to provide employees with company cars, the employee would be better off trading her claim to a company vehicle for an extra week of vacation, enabling both parties to obtain the items they value more.
    When negotiating parties encounter direct conflicts involving items that both sides value equally, they must look for appropriate compromises. If there are several issues of this kind, the parties may agree to divide them up. Or one may concede one “essential” term for two or three “important” items. For example, a car dealer may agree to include a better audio system for a higher price. The buyer values the system at the $450 retail price, while the dealer values it at the $300 dealer cost. If one participant tries to claim all the conflicted items, an unproductive impasse is likely to result. It thus behooves both parties to look for ways in which the conflicted issues can be resolved amicably rather than place one side in a position that requires them to do all the yielding. An effort should always be made to generate compromises that provide each side with the sense that it got some of what it really wanted in exchange for concessions on other desired items.
    Competitive/adversarial negotiators, particularly those with a win-lose mentality, may be hesitant to accept a cooperative approach. They may think that their aggressive tactics will enable them to claim more “essential” and “important”items for themselves. While they may occasionally achieve such skewed results from less proficient or naive opponents, they can rarely hope to do so against skilled adversaries. Furthermore, when ongoing relationships are involved, those who regularly claim the lion’s share of items for themselves may find their personal and professional relationships deteriorating. Before they know it, they may find themselves divorced from their spouses or business partners.
    Competitive negotiators should appreciate the benefits that can be derived from win-win bargaining techniques. To the extent that you can satisfy opponent interests at minimal or no cost to