Vox

Leitura de 11 min

Good Negotiation is About Collaborative Problem Solving

Summary

The episode challenges the common misconception that negotiation is primarily about haggling or convincing an opponent. Instead, it argues that we are all negotiators in daily life—whether discussing project timelines, salaries, or even bedtime with children—and that the core of effective negotiation lies in collaborative problem-solving.

The host introduces a key tool: finding the “zoom level” or vantage point where mutual alignment exists, even in apparent disagreements. For example, while an employer and candidate may disagree on salary specifics, they both want the candidate to succeed in the role. Similarly, a product manager and engineer might clash over immediate priorities, but both ultimately want the product to be technically sound and successful. The negotiation then shifts from “whether” to “when” or “how,” transforming the conversation.

This approach is rooted in the philosophical premise that most people genuinely want others to flourish. By starting from a place of assumed goodwill and seeking the first point of divergence, negotiators can move from adversarial positions to cooperative problem-solving. This rejects the zero-sum assumption that value is fixed and must be divided, opening the possibility for both parties to gain.

The episode concludes by emphasizing that good negotiation is not about one side winning, but about both sides bringing their problems to the table and solving them together. This mindset change makes negotiations more tenable and productive, whether in professional settings or personal interactions.

Topic Timeline

  • 00:00:00 — Introduction: You are a negotiator more often than you think — The host opens by asserting that listeners negotiate constantly without realizing it, in contexts like project time allocation, salary discussions, and task delegation with coworkers. Negotiation is reframed not as haggling, but as any scenario involving disagreement where different outcomes are desired. The episode aims to provide a tool for approaching these conversations more effectively.
  • 00:02:01 — The illusion of being on opposite sides and the tool of alignment — The host addresses the common feeling that negotiators are on opposing sides, using examples like salary negotiations or parenting disputes. He introduces the core tool: there is almost always a frame of reference, a “zoom level,” where mutual alignment can be found. For instance, an employer and candidate both want the candidate to succeed for mutual benefit.
  • 00:04:20 — Practical example: Aligning technical refactors with product roadmaps — A concrete scenario is explored: an engineer wanting to do a technical refactor clashes with a product manager focused on the immediate roadmap. The host explains that disagreement occurs at a specific zoom level (e.g., the three-month timeline). By zooming out (e.g., to a three-year horizon), both parties can agree they want a technically sound product. The negotiation thus shifts from ‘if’ to ‘when’ the refactor happens.
  • 00:07:10 — The philosophical base: Assuming goodwill and wanting others to flourish — The host grounds the technique in a philosophical principle: most people do not genuinely want bad outcomes for others. By starting from the assumption that both parties want each other to succeed, the tone of negotiation changes from adversarial to collaborative. The goal becomes finding the first point of divergence from a place of alignment, which leads to better understanding and problem-solving.
  • 00:08:34 — Negotiation as problem-solving, not convincing; rejecting zero-sum thinking — The host crystallizes the episode’s thesis: the best negotiations are about solving problems together, not convincing the other person. This requires rejecting the zero-sum assumption that value is fixed and must be divided. In a great negotiation, both sides can create and capture new value, coming out ahead rather than with one winner and one loser.

Episode Info

  • Podcast: Developer Tea
  • Author: Jonathan Cutrell
  • Category: Technology Business Careers Society & Culture
  • Published: 2023-06-12T07:00:00Z
  • Duration: 00:10:33

References

Podcast Info

Transcript

[00:00:00] You probably negotiate all the time without realizing it and in today’s

[00:00:18] episode, I want to give you a tool that I found incredibly useful in approaching

[00:00:26] a negotiation conversation. Now if you don’t think that you are a negotiator, I

[00:00:35] first need to convince you that you definitely are. You definitely are a

[00:00:41] negotiator. The things that you want in your life you have to work for and in

[00:00:52] that way you are always negotiating. You are negotiating that the time that you

[00:01:00] spent on a given project was sufficient or you’re negotiating your salary. Maybe

[00:01:06] you’re negotiating with a co-worker over who should do which part of the project.

[00:01:14] The reason that most people don’t think they are negotiators is because they

[00:01:18] don’t feel like they’re having to get something out of another person. Most of

[00:01:23] our negotiations, believe it or not, run pretty smoothly. The negotiation of

[00:01:30] buying an item at a store doesn’t necessarily change the price of the

[00:01:35] item. Negotiation doesn’t have to mean haggling. So you are negotiating things.

[00:01:42] If you are choosing the way you are spending your time on a day-to-day basis,

[00:01:47] you are a negotiator. But where the rubber meets the road on negotiation is

[00:01:54] when you have disagreement. When you have a disagreement with another person, you

[00:02:01] are likely in a good in a negotiation scenario. Think about it like this. You

[00:02:08] either agree to disagree and both sides walk away or you are disagreeing for a

[00:02:14] reason. You’re disagreeing because you want something different or at least you

[00:02:21] think you want something different and that’s what we’re talking about in

[00:02:25] today’s episode. This illusion, the illusion that you are not on the same

[00:02:32] side. In almost every single negotiation that you have, eventually you can get on

[00:02:41] the same side. Now how is this possible? You may say, well that’s not necessarily

[00:02:46] true. The company that I’m applying to work at, they want to give me less money

[00:02:52] and I want more money. Of course we aren’t on the same side. Or my child wants

[00:02:57] to stay up all hours of the night and I can’t convince them that sleep is better.

[00:03:02] We are not on the same side of this negotiation. Here is the tool that I want

[00:03:08] to give you today because there is a frame. There is a zoom level. There is a

[00:03:15] perspective at which almost every negotiation has alignment. The employer

[00:03:27] that you are applying to, they probably want you to succeed so that they can

[00:03:33] succeed. There is some mutual benefit to be found. They don’t want to pay you so

[00:03:41] little that you decide not to have the job. There is some mutual agreed-upon

[00:03:48] benefit for both of you. The same is true if you’re trying to get your child to go

[00:03:55] to sleep. At some frame they don’t want to feel bad and you don’t want them to

[00:04:02] feel bad the next day either. And so while you may disagree in a zoomed in

[00:04:08] perspective, that is about this specific subject, you do have alignment at some

[00:04:15] frame of reference. This comes into play when we start talking about timelines

[00:04:20] for projects at large companies for example. You may have a highly technical

[00:04:27] refactor that you’re hoping to push through the the prioritization schemes

[00:04:32] of your company and you may be fighting the difficulty of a product roadmap

[00:04:38] that’s coming in front of your technical project. This is probably very familiar

[00:04:43] to a lot of you. So how do you find alignment on this? Well at some level if

[00:04:51] you were to zoom out and ask your product partners, do you want this

[00:04:56] product to be technically sound? They would say, of course, of course we do.

[00:05:04] That kind of alignment is easy to find. But at some zoom level, at some vantage

[00:05:12] point, things break down. And so it’s important to figure out where are things

[00:05:19] breaking down? Because the argument may be happening from two different vantage

[00:05:26] points. Think about this for a second. In a situation where you have a product

[00:05:32] partner who doesn’t want you to do your technical refactor, it’s not because they

[00:05:36] don’t want the technical refactor to happen. It’s because at that zoom level,

[00:05:43] at that particular vantage point, at the three-week or the three-month mark, they

[00:05:49] are more concerned with something else. And so what may be important to you at

[00:05:58] the three-month mark is different for them at the three-month mark. But zooming

[00:06:04] out to the three-year mark, you find alignment. Again, think about this from

[00:06:10] the perspective of where is it along that kind of vantage point path or that

[00:06:16] zoom level. You can agree. The negotiation then is not necessarily we should or

[00:06:23] should not do the refactor, but when. How do we align on getting the same things

[00:06:31] that we both want? You as an engineer, you don’t want the product to fail

[00:06:37] either. And so when you use this tactic, it changes the conversation. It changes

[00:06:44] it from I think product roadmap is more important than technical refactor to when

[00:06:50] can we make the technical refactor a priority? And this conversation is much

[00:06:57] more tenable and it starts from a place of alignment rather than a place of

[00:07:04] disagreement. The base philosophy here is that there are very few people who

[00:07:10] genuinely want bad things for other people. We generally want good things for

[00:07:18] other people. Sometimes we disagree on what is good. Sometimes we disagree on

[00:07:25] how to get there. But for the most part, humans want other humans to succeed. We

[00:07:32] want other humans to flourish. And so when we zoom out from our specifics of

[00:07:39] the problem and find that alignment and try to drive down to the first point

[00:07:45] where we diverge, then we start to understand each other better. Rather than

[00:07:51] starting from the base assumption that you want something to be different for

[00:07:56] me than I want, or you want something that’s going to be detrimental to me as

[00:08:01] a human, we should instead start from the base assumption that we want each

[00:08:07] other to flourish. We want each other to succeed. Now this may seem philosophical

[00:08:14] and not practical, but it changes the tenor and the tone of your negotiations.

[00:08:21] When you truly believe that the other person has an overall best interest in

[00:08:27] mind for you, then you can find the problems and solve them rather than

[00:08:34] fighting the person. Negotiation, in the best case, is about solving problems, not

[00:08:43] convincing people. When you can solve problems in negotiation, then both sides

[00:08:51] can come out on top rather than one side winning. When you look at a negotiation

[00:08:57] as a person versus a person, then one person inevitably ends up failing or

[00:09:04] losing in the negotiation over the other. But a great negotiation occurs when both

[00:09:10] people bring their problems to the table and then they solve them together. This

[00:09:15] perspective requires that you reject the zero-sum kind of base assumption that

[00:09:22] every negotiation is zero-sum. In other words, we have

[00:09:27] X number of points of value that we’re trying to negotiate between the two of

[00:09:32] us, and I’m trying to get the most X points and you’re also trying

[00:09:37] to get the most X points, and we walk away with a net total that was the same

[00:09:42] that we walked in with. There is no conservation of value in a good

[00:09:47] negotiation. Both sides can come out on top. Thanks so much for listening to

[00:09:54] today’s episode of Developer Tea. I hope you enjoyed this discussion and

[00:09:58] hopefully this got your wheels turning a little bit about one, the fact that you

[00:10:02] probably are negotiating way more often than you think you are, and two, the idea

[00:10:08] that most of the time you can find alignment at some vantage point, and the

[00:10:14] the exercise to do in good negotiation is to find that vantage point and then

[00:10:21] solve problems. Thanks so much for listening and until next time, enjoy your

[00:10:27] tea.

Visão de gráfico