You will be able to keep a negotiation on the terms and on fair standards while protecting the relationship.
Every negotiation has two problems running at the same time: the substance, meaning the terms you are negotiating, such as the rent, the salary, the deadline or the price, and the relationship, meaning how the two of you feel about each other, whether you trust each other, and whether you will want to deal with each other again. Fisher and Ury, in Getting to Yes, advise dealing with each problem on its own terms. Be firm on the substance and careful with the person.
Farah, from lesson 1.1, is facing a S$300 rent increase from her landlord (an invented example). She rehearses what she wants to say to him, and the rehearsal turns into a speech about how unfair he is, how she has always paid on time, and how other landlords would never do this. Even if every word is true, saying it will make him defend himself, and a landlord who is defending himself is not thinking about her lease.
Problems start when the substance and the relationship get tangled, and there are two common ways this happens. If Farah gives way on the rent to keep things friendly, she is paying for the relationship with substance. If she attacks his character to win on the rent, she is spending the relationship to buy substance.
This matters more in Singapore than it might elsewhere, because most of your negotiations are with people you will see again: the same landlord at renewal, the same supplier next quarter, the same manager in the office after they have turned down your raise. If you have taken the Communicate at work course, lesson 5.3, "Disagree without making it personal", covers the same idea. Here it is applied to a negotiation.
The most practical habit is to make the terms the subject of every sentence you say. "You're being unreasonable" is about the landlord. Farah's reworded version is about the number: S$300 is more than she expected, and she would like to understand how he arrived at it.
The same applies with a supplier. "You always wait until the last minute" is about their character. Pointing out that the last two deliveries arrived a day late (another invented example) and asking how you can both prevent that at launch makes it a shared problem you are working on together.
Before you say something, test it: could the other person agree with this sentence without admitting they are a bad person? If they couldn't, rewrite it. People can concede on terms fairly easily. Conceding that they are unfair, greedy or disorganised is much harder, so they won't do it, and the conversation stalls. You can disagree completely with a number and still treat the person who proposed it with respect.
Negotiations involve money, security and pride, so emotions come with them. Pretending the emotions aren't there doesn't make them go away. They usually come out sideways, as sarcasm or a sudden hard line.
Naming the emotion you see, calmly, helps. You might say, "I know this renewal has been stressful for you too," or "Last year's late payments clearly annoyed you." Saying this shows the other person you've noticed, and it often calms things more than any argument would.
If the other side has an outburst, don't answer with one of your own. Let them finish, and don't interrupt to correct facts while it is going on. When they have finished, respond to the substance in a level voice, or suggest a short break. An outburst met with calm usually burns out, while an outburst met with another outburst becomes the main event of the meeting.
Your own feelings need the same care. If you notice you are getting angry, slow down, ask a question, or say you would like to think about it overnight, because very few good agreements are made by someone who is upset.
Of all these habits, using an outside standard does the most for the substance. When each side argues from its own preference, the only way to agree is for someone to give in. When both sides look at a standard outside the negotiation, agreeing stops being a defeat for either of them. Fisher and Ury call these standards objective criteria: measures that sit outside the negotiation and that both sides can accept as fair. They usually fall into four types:
Market data, such as current asking rents for similar units in the same estate on property portals. Published rates, such as a professional body's fee guide or a supplier's public price list. Past practice, such as what you paid last year, or what the company did for a colleague in the same role. Expert opinion, such as a valuation, an inspection report, or a quote from an independent contractor.
Farah proposes one to her landlord: look at what similar three-room flats in the block are currently listed for, and start from there. If the listings support his S$300, she has learned something important before arguing. If they don't, the gap between his number and the market becomes a fact on the table instead of her opinion against his.
Criteria work both ways. Be ready to accept a standard even when it favours the other side, since that fairness is what makes a standard persuasive when it favours you. Choose criteria that are hard to dispute, note where each one came from, and be ready to show them.
For your own negotiation, think about which outside standards the other side would find hard to wave away. The activity below asks you to name three of them, so you have something firmer than your own opinion to point to when the numbers come up.
List three objective standards you could use in your next negotiation, such as published market rates or past agreements.
Junxiong-WFG Organisation is an authorised representative of AIA Financial Advisers Private Limited (Reg. No. 201715016G).