Agile negotiations

In a word
We are all sick of handball
We are all sick of handball
And we will die for handball ...

Spleen.

Agile methodologies (for convenience, I will call it flexible) are gaining momentum, winning over large areas from Waterfall. Flexibility, as the basis of everything, penetrates into all new areas: project management (leading standards gradually insert relevant principles into their management approaches — PRINCE2 Agile, for example) and industries (state, for example).

All of this (and maybe not this, but simply the “spirit of the times”) creates fertile ground for penetrating the central idea of ​​“test and adapt” to such atypical areas where victory is usually ensured at the cost of careful preparation, like negotiations. And one gets the impression that, in general, luck more and more begins to be favored more quickly than more precise (“as long as you measure seven times, all that can be cut off already”).
')


What new principles brought “flexibility” to the negotiations, or did it wipe off the old ones and give them the same shine?

1. Approach is more important than result

Neither that one would need to think about the result or to want to achieve it (of course, it’s also important to separate “want something” from “need something”). Rather, it’s about the fact that we can not always influence the result of actions or the outcome of negotiations. And in general, all our influence is mediated: the paradox is that if we want to influence others passionately, we can only do this by affecting ourselves (our attitude, our actions, our focus, concentration, responses, and so on).

The results obtained are of course important and are used, including for the calibration of their approach. Well, for example, if you have a natural inclination to focus on relationships and often catch yourself thinking that you want to like your interlocutor, it makes sense to lower the bar a little and take the “appearance of the desire to continue communication” as the minimum goal. What can be achieved not only by a strong emotional disposition of the interlocutor to you - but by demonstration of professionalism, for example.

You need to learn how to do the right things and save the resource (in the sense of your energy), without falling into a negative state when you feel that someone is claiming your benefits. And many negotiations without special work on them are perceived as negotiations “on one pie” (a zero-sum game).

Such an approach, when the very fact that you are fighting with an opponent by some coordinates and you do not give in to the feeling of indignation, expanding the area of ​​struggle to adjacent “peaceful territories”, but rather narrowing it in front of you, has more chances to generate an emotional connection with a partner, allowing to understand the needs and desires of another. And then it needs to be maintained in the same format, regardless of one’s own emotions: the desire to attack or flee. Actually, this more qualitatively allows “to look behind the position deep into the real interests of the opponent”.

2. Actions are more important than planning.

The action is the best antidote against analytic paralysis and in negotiations too (than to hang in the topic “what will they think?”, You can say to yourself “well, I don’t know” and just ask).

Well, that is, it does not negate that, of course, it would be necessary to think in advance of what you really want and try to find a place for this “what” in the zone of potential agreements. Well, that is, if someone sells a car, and you would like to get it for free, this is most likely a problem, but if you don’t mind paying, then the upper and lower bounds of this very zone in our Internet age are easy to determine.

Quite a controversial thing, in my opinion, scenario planning (“he is like that to me - then I’ll give him that”) is ready to admit that there are deals in which it is not a sin to write the entire sequence of actions, words, moving from one role to another. However, does this make sense, I'm not sure? Often this leads to the fact that you "start to drag the script." The reality is that it is a reality that would deviate strongly from the plan, but when you had such a cool combination of techniques “in the sleeve” was prepared, this often leads to the fact that it is inserted at random.

Here, of course, it is not bad to accept the fact that you need to be consistent, and not perfect (script blanks are more about impeccability, the ability to keep the focus on the current real interaction is about consistency). Good enough, better than perfect: the concept of MVP (minimal valuable product) is quite suitable for negotiations (constructing a deal), where you can establish the concept of an agreement, which you will later develop if necessary. The main thing is that the zone of potential agreements would be understandable and the approximate positioning of the benefits of each of the parties in it (“meat”, in the sense of technical details, can be increased).

Often, the desire to thoroughly design and think over each step in advance is connected with the fear of defeat more than with abstract perfectionism in itself. But in fact, if you think about it, there are quite a few things in the world that could not be remedied (“after every last drop, there is usually one more”). It is sketched to outline the "platform" in the future, and to plan in detail by way of "action" - the results of actions will format the thinking in the right directions, if necessary, you can change the course.

3. Real interests are more important than papers.

I increasingly began to notice the topic of realpolitic in negotiations, by this term I understand the prevalence of practical considerations (content) over form. Thus, if you have agreed with the party about a contract that she deems after some time is not profitable, she will ask you for a revision. In fact, this is a departure from the principles that the whole "head" towards the real "balance of power", which dictates the revision of the principles, if they ceased to be beneficial to one of the parties. For me, this is not very good, and the “merchant word” and “contract are more valuable than money” are all things that caress my ear. But again, there is the impression that the world is losing sentimentality.

As part of my own projects, one of the main skills that I try to develop among managers is getting an insider (if I may say so) whether the project is still viable (originally seen in Prince 2 and sounds like “the project is worth doing - project is desirable, viable and achievable). If suddenly there is a threat of loss of viability (the business has changed, the customer, who the world “sees great” without our tool), then despite the obligations (contract), this is an excuse for action.

Creating mutual values ​​in the process of interaction, prior to the implementation of the letter of agreement. A fairly common and problematic history in our time is the rise in prices for its products (in the IT industry: the cost of man-hours, the cost of licenses), including in the framework of a long-term partnership (when with a partner in a sense they have grown into each other).

Dialogue here, in line with this principle, is approximately as follows: “Listen, we signed an agreement - we can no longer fulfill ... What and in what proportions has grown lately, in general, and in the IT industry in particular, I can tell you if you need ... I think I can handle if the price rises by X%, naturally, I’m not suggesting all of the inflation, and I’m not obliged to agree, but honestly speaking, the alternative for me is a vicious circle of cost and quality reduction, neither I nor you need it, I still want to work with you. “Usually if you talk without a hitch, it is quite possible to agree, provided that we do not mean the option when a large corporation “merchandises” a small supplier beyond profit margins (“sell for cheap, but become famous”) so that after it “exhausts »Change it to a new one.

4. The result is more important than action.

The result is more important than action (first the question “why?”, Then “what?” And only at the end “how?”), A clear understanding of the desired results allows you to remain flexible in the way you achieve them. This is in many ways similar to the hybrid approach that arose against the background of agile criticism, with its well-known problems in requirements management and budgeting, sometimes referred to as water-scrum-fall.

The initial design of the transaction occurs, this stage is not quite flexible and you should understand quite clearly:

What kind of questions will be discussed? What problems are they fraught with? What opportunities are there to solve them? What tasks need to be solved in order to translate these opportunities into practice? A compromise zone and several options of a deal in it (cheaper, but payment immediately, more expensive, but payment by installments, very cheap, but with removing the “functions” from the package and so on)?

The discussion process itself goes without scenario planning, and the ways to achieve the targets are chosen for the campaign depending on the context.

The “fall” stage is integration testing and rolling out, which is again not flexible, drawing an analogy in the area of ​​negotiations, we are talking about “designing the progress of a deal”. In some more or less complex topics (including IT), the issue is often not solved in one meeting and it is important to think not only within the boundaries of the “current sprint”, but to think about what next steps we will take (and ask our partner to make) in a case of a positive outcome (“when there is agreement in friends”) and in case of a negative outcome (“when there is no agreement in friend”) of the current negotiations. And how will we keep a “hand on the pulse” of the implementation of the agreements (roll out).