Negotiation & Consensus: Getting to Yes

Common concerns

Negotiation principles are widely applied in many different contexts. What about consensus building appraoches to grooup decision-making? One frequent objection to consensus based decision-making is that it is a new fangled idea that has no track record of success. Some of the ways that this is expressed include:

• the whole idea is a wishy washy approach that doesn’t work in real life
• leads to lowest common denominator outcomes
• it’s all about making a compromise – lose / lose
• it lacks robust engagement
• no one uses consensus-building – because it doesn’t work

Negotiation as a conflict resolving tool

For centuries people, businesses and countries have negotiated their way through disagreements. They have used different techniques. Among them have been:

• threats – if you don’t do what I want then I will make you suffer
• power – if we don’t agree  then I will use my power to get what I want
• compromise – each party gives up something to get a bit of what they want
• interest based negotiation – each seeks to meet the goals of both sides

In the last 50 years or so the the most widely used and effective form of negotiation has been “interest based negotiation”. The classic book on this subject is Getting to Yes: negotiating an agreement without giving in by Roger Fisher and William Ury. It was first published in 1982 and has sold millions of copies through many reprints since then.

Interest based negotiation, sometimes called principled negotiation, is well summarised in the chapter headings of Getting to Yes.

Don’t bargain over positions

When people enter into a dispute they usually start by focusing on what they want out of the situation. That is a position. For example: A couple arguing that only $X is available for a new car. Or “We need to cut the church budget to cope with increasing costs.”

The reason there is a conflict is because the outomes – or positions as they are called – held by the parties are different. Both sides can’t get what they want if they focus on a position.

Instead the focus should be on the things that are most important to the parties – the true goal stripped of the particularity of a position. What is the true interest. For example: “We have only a limited family budget and I don’t want to upset my partner who has other priorities instead of a car.” Or “I’m concerned that the church reserves are going down under my watch as Treasurer.”

These are interests. The deeper need / agenda that is hidden behind the positions of the price to be paid for a car or a focus on budget cuts. By identifying interests and starting the conversation there it is possible to have a very different conversation about options that meet those needs.

Method in interest based negotiations

Separate the people from the problem. Don’t make the dispute personal. See the other party as someone who has legitimate interests and – like you – is trying to have them met. Do not treat them as an enemy. Work with them as a partner in finding a solution that works for both of you.

Foucs on interests not positions. As noted above there is usually more room for conversation around interests than there is about positions. If the argument is about the price of something then there are only so many points to make. However if the discussion also includes ongoing relationships, total family budget, and priorities in the budget then that can be a lot to talk about!

Invent options for mutual gain. The classic “rule” in negotiations is to give something to the other party that is of the highest value to them and the lowest cost to you. As interests are identified and owned it is possible to see what matters most to the parties. By taking a collaborative approach it is possible to create offers that are great gains for the other side but are not a great cost to you. For example: I may be very happy to give up my Friday  pizza and beer night for a year and put that towards the cost of car repayments. After all I was considering going on a diet anyway!

Insist on using objective criteria. Participants in disputes often become very emotive, or base decisions on their understanding of the data. By insisting on “checking the facts” through an objective mechanism some of this emotion can be moderated. When everyone can agree on the data it makes it much easier to find common ground. Negotiations have to be based on reality.

Negotiation and Consensus

If you are familiar with consensus building, as we have presented in our book (The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together) and blog posts, you will immediately see the similarities between negotiation and consensus based discernment. I will not highlight them again here.

The common ground between negotiation and consensus building is huge! In fact consensus building can be considered as interest based negotiation for groups.

If anyone tells you that consensus building discernment is just a fad that has no track record in real life – tell them they are wrong! Interest based negotiation is the standard for international diplomatic and trade negotiations. It is also the same approach that is used in interpersonal mediation. Consensus building discenment draws on the same principles and practices and locates them in the framework of Christian discipleship.

A consensus building approach to discernment is grounded in solid academic research and practical experience. If you want the best chance of creating lasting, owned and implemented decisions then you must use consensus building in your church.