Many people categorize negotiation as a battle between two competing wills, each driven by naked self interest. We do not find that to be the case. Yes, negotiation is a sort of battle of wills, but not in the sense that statement implies.
The famous German philosopher, Jurgen Habermas, the father of the philosophical concept and practice known as discourse ethics has a famous line from one of his books.
“In discourse, the unforced force of the better argument alone determines the yes or no responses of the participants.”
That concept is somewhat hotly debated by other philosophers, but not for its practical merits. The ivory-tower philosophical debate hinges on problematizing what is ‘good,’ or ‘moral,’ or ‘ethical’ in any kind of universal sense, and questioning whether or not any of those things even exist, at all.
It’s interesting to note that Habermas himself considers those debates to be more or less pointless, and instead focuses on what should be essential to every philosophical debate: what is useful, and practical in everyday life. And in everyday life we find that in negotiation proceedings, most people can find enough common ground, and common interest, most of the time, to reach an agreeable solution.
If negotiation is a battle of wills, the superior will is not the one with the most potent emotions. The superior will, is the one who troubles him or herself to seek negotiations training, then use it to formulate that unforced force of a superior argument.
At SNI we have designed a simple, practical method for doing that very thing. It’s a simple, three-step process we call Three D’s that helps anyone deliver a more compelling argument. The following infographic breaks the process down in some detail.
