Page 184 - 4- Leading_from_Within

exhausted all means of persuasion, they sometimes agree to share the pain
and make equal concessions.

The strategy of compromise rests on the faulty premise that your needs

and mine are always in opposition. Therefore, it is never possible for
mutual satisfaction to be achieved. Acting on this assumption, each of us
starts out making an outlandish demand so that he can ultimately have
room to make concessions.

It should be obvious that a compromise, especially one that involves a

“down-the-middle” split, can produce odd results in public policymaking
situations. For example, the midpoint between twelve dollars an hour and
ten dollars in a collective bargaining dispute is clear, but there is no
midpoint between a hydroelectric plant and a nuclear power plant.

Compromise is not always a poor choice. However, it should be thought of
as a backup; in other words, a concluding strategy that may ultimately
have to be used to avoid the consequence of a deadlock.

Converting Adversaries to Partners

A major consequence of the “people problem” in negotiation is that the
parties’ relationship tends to become entangled with their discussion of
substance. On both the giving and receiving end, we are likely to treat
people and problem as one. Anger over a situation may lead you to
express anger toward some human being associated with that situation in

your mind.

When the other negotiating party is or becomes adversarial, it is important
to take the offensive rather than become defensive. The alternative is not to
turn and run, but to define the discussion or confrontation on your terms.
In a negotiating situation, this involves ignoring subtle attacks and keeping

your comments and attention focused on the issues. Where perceptions are
inaccurate, you can look for ways to educate. If emotions run high, you
can find ways for each person involved to let off steam. It might be

David Kolzow 184