Comment by Enginerrrd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Enginerrrd | Hacker News Reader

Honestly, the biggest hack to negotiations I've ever found isn't "no" or "silence" or other such nonsense. It's: "Fair".

When I start a negotiation, I don't think about what's best for me, I think about what's fair. I think deeply about this and come at it from multiple different angles of where my personal jealousy-free line is were I on either side of the deal. And then... I just start there. I describe it in detail and elaborate on any nuance as needed.

And you know what, as a result people sure seem to like doing business with me. Negotiations aren't draining experiences, they get increasingly frictionless and the business relationships have tended to grow into rubber-stamp deals of my proposals. Also in my experience, increasing the velocity of transactions is far better for growth than trying to maximize selfish individual gain on any particular deal.

This also has worked for me in business, my personal life, and many other contexts. I've solved some really bitter, decades-long, emotionally charged disputes this way.

Your story reminds me that Rotary International promotes "The Four-Way Test," a simple guide to business and personal ethics. (There's even a copy of the test on a bronze plaque set into the corner of the Palace Hotel on Market Street in San Francisco: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SF_Four_Way_Corner...)

  The Four-Way Test of what we think, say or do

  1. Is it the TRUTH?
  2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?
  3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
  4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

When I hear someone using the word 'fair' in a negotiation, I immediately think that this person is trying to manipulate me because they have run out of better rational arguments and/or they're not transparent.

If they said that 'I think would get around X after more job search but I'll settle with 0.95X for a quick offer', I'd be thankful for the information and consider the deal. If they said that 'I want X because that's the amount I'd be free of jealousy/resent/etc.', I'd be glad they shared the not completely rational but honest emotional reason behind their preference and also consider the deal.

Using the 'fair' card means that 'if you don't agree you are unfair therefore you're a bad person'.

So I recommend everyone to unpack what 'fair' means to them and explain that thing instead of using the word 'fair'.

My strategy is generally quite extreme transparency, especially in cases when we're at the beginning of a long-term relationship.

If someone uses the F-Word on me I apologize, ask him to explain where my proposition is unfair and ask him for a fair deal

>So I recommend everyone to unpack what 'fair' means to them and explain that thing instead of using the word 'fair'

Yes, that's basically how I do it, although I don't have any reservations about using the word 'fair'. I don't think this is problematic unless you're attempting to unilaterally declare what "fair" is without offering up all of your assumptions in detail with the explicit declaration that they're up for debate. It's more like: "Hey so I've tried really hard to define what I think a fair deal would look like in this situation and here's the exact methodology, angles, and assumptions I came up with to do that. When I applied that methodology, here is the number I came up with. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that, or if you can think of any criticism or omissions in my assumptions or methods, or if you have any different methodology you'd like to consider, please let me know. Let's chat."

Usually when I go over all the different ways in which I have already considered their viewpoint, needs, benefits, and drawbacks, that's enough for a yes. Sometimes though, people will take issue with one of the assumptions or criteria and then we can debate about that, but the whole discussion at that point tends to already be framed on defining what fair is, rather that what they want, or what gripes they have with the opposing party.

Collaborative vs. Adversarial Negotiation essentially.

Putting yourself in the other person's shoes and knowing what they want, which is what we do all the time in trying to convince another person to do something for us, be it a child, friend, or coworker.

On a related note: It’s also a good idea to walk a mile in someone’s shoes before you criticize them. That way, when you criticize them, you’ll be a mile away from them - and you’ll have their shoes!

The "fair" argument sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

While the "no" argument sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiat...

The problem with "Fair" is people tend to disagree on what is fair.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com