The ‘view from the balcony’ was recently offered as a perspective that could assist with the resolution of conflicted positions during negotiations. Further reflections on this theme are offered here.

Types of Conflict

Illustrating the diversity of matters we may find ourselves conflicted about, the partial typology below offers just five conflict types for each of four main categories: intrapersonal, interpersonal, organisational, and societal.

Conflict Analysis (Diagnosis & Treatment)

Depending on the type of conflict you are dealing with, you will likely wish to employ different analysis and treatment methods. Regrettably, there are no magic wands, silver bullets, or a single solution that can remedy all types of conflicts. The selection of nine analysis methods (all involving just four steps) may include some approaches not yet in your leadership toolkit.

Flipping mindsets

Several of my mentees over the years have wanted to address interpersonal conflicts. We have generally found that the Karpman Drama Triangle has been a helpful catalyst for reflection on the dynamics at play. Those familiar with the victim, persecutor, and rescuer triad will most likely also be aware that the Empowerment Triangle offers the inverse characterisation of these roles. The victim becomes the creator, the persecutor is reframed as a mere challenger, and the rescuer is transformed into the coach – a sounding board who supports the creator (without undermining their autonomy).

Just as the Drama Triangle can become the Empowerment Triangle, so too a Win:Lose negotiating mindset may be transformed into a Win:Win mindset.

Treating for Peace

My July 2023 post regarding Diplomacy in the Boardroom borrowed Michael S Lund’s Conflict Curve, and suggested flipping and renaming it the Peace Curve. The intention had been to focus on the opportunity to intervene with peacemaking measures before conflict descended into violence or stalemate. On further reflection, the one-line curve still seemed to suggest that one had to follow it all the way down before an ascent to peace could commence.

My updated chart below suggests that moving down the conflict staircase takes you further away from a peaceful resolution of the conflict. However, on any ‘diagnostic step’ you can choose to cross the peace bridge for that level, and ascend to resolution from the adjacent treatment level. I trust the peacemakers amongst my readers find this a more helpful representation of the Conflict Curve as they reflect on how to better support those experiencing conflict.

The Negotiation Triangle

When reflecting on the negotiator’s ‘view from the balcony’ recently, I offered a chart that highlighted three main ways in which stakeholder interests might be expressed: their Position, Interests, and Needs (PINs).

Another negotiation triangle is sometimes used to describe the Interests, Options, and Criteria that inform a negotiator – who is sometimes called an actor i.e. one who takes action. The chart below describes the way each of these three elements might guide a negotiator through the negotiation process, while the header image above juxtaposes these three elements with the inverted PINs triangle. The Position band uses gradient colouring to imply that much of what is stated may be posturing or positioning, whereas some of the stated position will also accurately represent the underlying interests of that actor.

Negotiation Interests and Intentions

Various authors have offered a range of possible interests that inform a negotiator’s stance, using broad descriptive categories for modeling purposes. Lewiki, Saunders, and Minton (1999) offer a fourfold model comprising substantive, objective, procedural, and relationship interests. My version includes two additional categories: performative, and psychological.

It might be argued that performative interests are part of a psychological mind-game, but my experience of industrial negotiations suggests that there is often more to the use of a robust negotiating style than mere theatrics or intimidation. Sometimes a constituency needs to hear that their case was forcefully advocated before they will consider any concessions that the negotiator might wish to recommend to them. The psychological interests referred to here are related to the negotiator’s personal wish to be respected, trusted, and heard, and to have their experiences and feelings acknowledged.

Having mentioned mind-games and ‘negotiating gamesmanship’ we must recognise that not every negotiator will represent their cause in good faith. Many will act in good faith for most of the negotiations and slip into bad faith on one or more aspects of the matter under consideration. Regrettably, there are a few who act only in bad faith, never intending to reach a fair, legitimate, and objective outcome in an agreed settlement.

Your radar needs to remain tuned for the possibility that one or more aspects of the negotiation are being advocated in a bad faith manner. Compartmentalising this and containing any damage is the prudent course whenever such circumstances are detected.

Have the end in mind

As with any strategic or tactical goal, we need to start with the end in mind. What’s the outcome we need and want to achieve, and what steps must we take to ensure that outcome?

Having a clear view regarding the non-negotiables and the areas in which concessions could be made is essential before negotiations commence. If you haven’t had time to consider your stance before the other party launches into their case, make sure that you buy time for reflection before returning to the negotiating table. Rushed decisions may be regretted at leisure.

See also:
Elevating perspectives
Diplomacy in the Board Room – Part 2
Empathy and Mindfulness in Leadership (and Life)
Frames, Framing Effects, & Reframing