A while back I wrote about the (then still potential) U-Turn being contemplated by the Labour Government around the winter fuel allowance. The sense was that any flexibility that might lead to a policy change would be punished in the media and political circles as representing weakness, and for negotiators, flexibility is a crucial ally in managing the process of achieving agreements – so punishing flexibility is overwhelmingly self-defeating.
This week we’ve seen more flexibility on offer from the Labour Government, this time revolving around welfare payments. At Scotwork we’re all for flexibility, because in its absence the vast majority of negotiators are facing into a range of generally unattractive scenarios: deadlock, long-term argument/arm-wrestling, or worst of all, giving in.
However, understanding where you may have flexibility is only the start. The crucial underpin is to follow up by spending time on a thorough and comprehensive analysis of what you might be able to trade in exchange for that flexibility. If you don’t do that, you’re likely to simply cede ground for nothing – which in itself is highly likely to encourage more pressure from your counterparty. After all, most people will respond to getting what they want by simply moving onto whatever is next on their list of demands, rather than voluntarily offering something you want in return. It was noticeable that a sizeable number of the rebel Labour MPs who prompted the late change, rather than expressing their appreciation for the flexibility shown, voiced disappointment that it didn’t go far enough. I’m not privy to any trading that might have gone on behind the scenes at Westminster, but that sends a potential signal that the concessions made by Government whips were unconditional – demands for more are invariably what follows such generosity in any negotiation.
One question we ask participants on our programmes when they flex on an area of importance is: what did you get in return? It’s a good question to ask yourself if you’re facing into a negotiation – what will I get in return? The answer should never be “nothing”, needless to say. And if the response to that question is “I will get closer to agreement” then while I wouldn’t dispute that assertion, I would strongly suggest that the resulting agreement will be substantially better for your counterparty, who are very likely to gobble up unconditional concessions with gusto and respond with demands for more of the same.
The best practise for negotiators is to prepare a comprehensive range of variables that would add value into the deal for them, and trade those in exchange for any movement or concession they are prepared to make on a matter of importance. For example, if you have the flexibility to move on price, rather than doing so simply because you can (and it’ll get you “closer to the deal”), trade that movement for something you value, be it preferential supplier status, more favourable payment terms, improved delivery schedules, a dedicated account resource at your counterparty – anything that you value and establishes the principle of value exchange (rather than slow surrender!).
From the outside, it’s hard to come to the conclusion that there was a great deal of trading done by the Government with their recalcitrant MPs in the days and weeks running up to this week’s late changes – if so, that may set a precedent that will lead to some turbulent times for a Party with a colossal majority that should ostensibly be able to pass whatever legislation it wishes to with ease.
