After gathering information and doing research, Newell said to decide on what he referred to as the “circuit breaker” and the BATNA (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement). The circuit breaker is the number that the decision-maker is comfortable walking away from, and the BATNA is the middle ground or ZOPA (zone of possible agreement) that the decision-maker is willing to accept.
“Don't agree just to agree,” advised Newell. “Look at the long-term picture; look past next month’s bills.”
What Type of Negotiation is Best
Newell talked about two types of negotiations: positional and principled.
Positional negotiations involve arguing based on an extreme position regarding wants, needs and limitations. The positions are almost always on the opposite side of the spectrum; therefore, it becomes necessary to make concessions to reach an agreement, according to Newell. These negotiations tend to last longer and can often end in a stalemate.
A principled negotiation, also known as an integrative negotiation, is where both parties work together to achieve a value-created agreement. In theory, this leaves them satisfied with the outcome and status of the relationship. Rather than having different positions, Newell explained that the parties think in terms of their similar interests. He stressed the importance of building a relationship during the negotiation process and how valuable that can be.
“This is where the magic happens,” he said.
He shared a statistic from the Carnegie Institute of Technology in regard to the benefits of having excellent negotiation skills.
"Eighty-five percent of your financial success is due to your personality and ability to communicate, negotiate and lead. Shockingly, only 15 percent is due to technical knowledge," he said.
Newell also discussed different negotiation styles, which include competition, accommodation, collaboration, avoidance and compromise.
A competition style of negotiation is more than likely to be adversarial. Negotiations are seen as a competition with a winner and a loser. Newell said it can be used in fast-paced circumstances.
“When two of these same styles come together, there is a greater risk for a stalemate,” observed Newell.