How I Negotiate

I did a negotiation simulation in college and came in last place. We’d paired off to negotiate a transaction involving an imaginary bean company. I sat across from my negotiation partner and thought about the ass-kicking I was about to do. I did terribly.

The people who did well, it turns out, approached the simulation as a problem-solving exercise rather than a competition. They started by understanding their partner’s needs and priorities vis a vis their own. Then they made trades that were mutually beneficial. Among those who did well, their “opponents” did well too. High scorers skewed female.

My shellacking was one of those forehead-slap learning moments you never forget. Today people view negotiation as one of my strengths, but I don’t really believe in “negotiating”. I believe in solving problems. I like sitting on the same side of the table. If we can’t find a solution that benefits all parties — first and foremost for whomever I’m dealing with — then we don’t come to an agreement. And that’s okay. BATNA-land isn’t so bad.

My favorite thinker on negotiation is Kellogg professor Victoria Medvec. She says the biggest negotiating mistake people make is not understanding what the other person is trying to accomplish.

Medvec is a proponent of a tool called MESOs, or Multiple Simultaneous Equivalent Offers. This strategy involves identifying several proposals you value equally and presenting them simultaneously to the other party. By making multiple offers, you appear more flexible, collect information about the other side’s preferences, and increase the overall odds of reaching an agreement. MESO, in other words, is about giving options. Would you like the compensation package with the higher salary and lower equity, or the one with a below-market salary and more equity?

Despite the empirical evidence supporting it. I don’t always do the multiple-offer thing, though it can be useful when there are multiple variables. I’m quite wary of negotiating tips and tricks in general.

But I really like the steps involved in MESOs:

1. Identify and prioritize the issues. Estimate their relative importance for both parties.

2. Identify different likely outcomes for each issue. Assign point values to be able to compare them.

3. Create at least three equivalent solutions.

In other words, do diligence to understand what you value and — more importantly — what the other party values. Then go from there.

Sign up to receive these posts by email.