Logical Fallacies: Avoiding Common Negotiation Pitfalls

November 3, 2013 1 Comment

This is my full article contribution as published in TheSource e-news earlier this week.

Fail to prepare and prepare to fail! Negotiation is often 90% preparation and 10% execution and so we have enlisted senior procurement professional George Vrakas to give us his top tips on avoiding common negotiation pitfalls.

When you use logic as your approach to conduct a negotiation, the human element of the process still needs to be considered, and thus you need to be able to identify and avoid common errors in reasoning (the so-called logical fallacies) to ensure a successful outcome.
Here are George’s top 6 tips on dealing with the most common logical fallacies:

medium_8437944449

1) AD HOMINEM (go against the person not the argument)

Definition: This is encountered when someone tries to counter a claim or a position by attacking the person rather than addressing the argument.

Example: “The current system is ineffective; the vendor who implemented it was only bothered about saving costs.”

Attacking the vendor because of their alleged motives does not address the issue. What is meant by “ineffective”? What were the specifications we gave the vendor? What can be done about it? Is the system used properly? What you need to remember is that character flaws are not evidence of the validity of an argument.

2) FALSE DICHOTOMY (either/or)

Definition: This is encountered when someone reduces the possibilities in a negotiation to a simplistic dilemma i.e. it is “either black or white.”

Example: “Japanese car makers must implement green production practices, or Japan‘s carbon footprint will hit crisis proportions by 2020.”

This is a logical fallacy because it assumes there are only two options: either Japan implements green production practices or Japan will have a disastrous carbon footprint. This logic fails to consider that there may be other reasons that contribute to the carbon footprint. It also limits our thinking e.g. focusing solely on green production we may miss out on another solution such as the increase of use of public transport.

3) SPECIAL PLEADING or ADHOC REASONING (the rules don’t apply as I am special)

Definition: This is encountered when someone suggests that he/she has special privileges that do not or could not apply to others.

Example: In 1996, Steve Jobs exercised a special pleading when he, misquoting Picasso, stated that “good artists copy, great artists steal,” and continued, “we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”

Subsequently, Apple went on with a lawsuit against HTC for allegedly infringing on 20 of Apple’s patents. Thus, this is a logical fallacy because what Steve Jobs implied is that Apple can “copy” or “steal” ideas as good artists do, but HTC cannot.

4) APPEAL TO AUTHORITY (It is correct because he/she said so)

Definition: This is encountered when someone appeals to an “authoritative” person or agency to support one’s claims. i.e. “Manager X believes Y, Manager X speaks from a position of authority, therefore Y is true.”

Example: The Swissair airline was once so financially solvent it was called the “Flying Bank.” However, they began to believe they were invulnerable and as a result of failing to question poor decisions and gross mismanagement, and the airline eventually went bankrupt.

This case strongly implies a case of “groupthink.” Instead of looking at the data and the shifting conditions, Swissair executives seem to have been persuaded that top management knows best, and so, did not challenge this notion until it was too late.

5) NON SEQUITUR (It doesn’t follow)

Definition: This is encountered when someone reaches a conclusion which does not necessarily follow the premise of the argument.

Example: “This is new, therefore it is better.”

The fact that something is new and shiny does not mean that it will be better. New processes are generally an enhanced version of older ones, but before you make a decision, you will still need to investigate on whether: a) there is value in changing; b) the process is suitable for your specific needs; c) there are no inherent flaws etc.

6) APPEAL TO TRADITION (If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it)

Definition: This is encountered when someone claims that because something has been done in a particular way for a long time, this is the correct way of doing it.

Example: “We do not need a new ERP system. We have been doing alright using excel spreadsheets for years!”

Quite simply, there is definite value in looking to change the ways we go about things – new technologies (e.g. ERP systems), new processes (Six Sigma, Lean, TQM), the list goes on. Appealing to tradition is particularly prevalent during change management processes when people who are resistant to change raise this argument again and again.

The above six logical fallacies are just a small sample of the wide variety of bad reasoning out there. However, these are a good start on the journey to establishing integrity in logical arguments during a negotiation.

Now, put them to the test in your next negotiation!

[Image courtesy of Les Haines / http://www.flickr.com/]

Filed under Effective Negotiation Tools series, General, Procurement Tagged with , , , ,

It takes two to tango…

October 26, 2013

Recently, I was reading the excellent book from Clive Rich titled “The Yes Book” and was reminded of a simple truth.

It takes two to tango!

Tango

A SIMPLE CHECKLIST

When entering a negotiation we sometimes carry certain preconceptions e.g. that the other party has an open mind about the result or that we know what the drivers, wants and needs the other party has.

Well, it would have been nice to live in an ideal world but unfortunately, reality is much more complicated.

As Clive mentions in his book:

“For a negotiation to take place the following elements must be present:

  • There must be two or more parties,
  • they must at least be prepared to reach agreement,
  • they must have some interests in common and some conflicting interests to resolve,
  • Those involved must have the freedoms to meet each other’s needs,
  • Those involved must be willing to be explicit to some degree about their wants and needs,
  • Those involved must be prepared to compromise to some degree.” Clive Rich (The Yes Book)

The above is a useful list to have when entering a negotiation.

As mentioned here, embracing the second position is the key to an effective negotiation. This means that you approach each occasion without misconceptions or false assumptions but explore interests, needs, wants and attitudes for what they really are.

.

 

[Image courtesy of Aracelota / flickr.com]

 

Filed under Effective Negotiation Tools series, Sourcing Tagged with , , ,

Negotiation – what it really is!

September 28, 2013

Often the term negotiation brings to mind high level discussions solving global problems or austere negotiation teams sweating over price or the other usual targets that austere negotiation teams target.

I feel that this is a big misconception and so, in this blog post I will try to provide a wider perspective in an effort to be-free the term from this very restrictive viewpoint.

The broadening of the term definition is a necessary start.

DEFINITION OF TERM: NEGOTIATION

I firmly believe that we can define the totality of the human experience and our interaction with the world as, a negotiation between us and the world in an effort to find meaning and meaningfulness.

From the plethora of available definitions I think the below remark from Danah Boyd on the MIT Media Lab is capturing this nuance well.

“Fundamentally, social interaction is a negotiation between individuals performing within a particular social context to convey aspects of their identity. This negotiation often occurs with little conscious thought; people comfortably interact with one another, revealing what is appropriate while assessing what information is being given.”- Danah Boyd, MIT Media Lab, Master’s Thesis

When you think about it, common verbal or non verbal everyday interaction is effectively an effort to understand and be understood. This is because in its core, during our interaction with others we are negotiating the conveyance of meaning.

If we do this well we reach a positive self-image which assists in the development of our identity, among others.

Hence, the logical conclusion is that the negotiating process is:

i) far more frequent that some may think as it is the most common part of the everyday human experience.

ii) extremely important and so, to develop good negotiating skills as a basic human skill is a must.

Of course, negotiating the resolution of the conflicts in the Middle East has completely different gravity than negotiating the time your son or daughter should come home after a late night.

But in saying that, when we become conscious of the effect good negotiating skills have in our lives we may start aiming to develop more of this essential skill.

This can then become a necessary prerequisite for leading a happier and more fulfilling life e.g. the contemporary demand for work-life balance then becomes a target that good negotiating skills can definitely assist in.

20682743-row-of-colorful-books-illustration

RESOURCES – FURTHER READING MATERIAL

As mentioned in an earlier blog post, the first step towards a successful negotiation depends on embracing the second position i.e. understanding the other’s point of view (see more about this here).

Over future posts, I will look into common errors in the negotiation process as well as different ways to approach a negotiation.

Moreover, I wholeheartedly recommend the below great resources that discuss effective communication and negotiation skills. These are now classics:

  1. Roger Fisher and William Ury – Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.
  2. Robert Cialdini – Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.
  3. Dale Carnegie – How to Win Friends and Influence People.

as well as, the Harvard Negotiation Project which has great resources for developing your negotiation skills.

Have you come across other good resources? Feel free to share in the comment section below or send me a private message.

So, how were your negotiation skills today?

[Image credit: 123rf.com]

Filed under Effective Communication, Effective Negotiation Tools series, Procurement Tagged with , ,

The first step to a successful negotiation.

August 16, 2013

There are many guides that provide expertise and tips on how to prepare, plan and conduct a negotiation.

Reflecting on my experience, the essential first step to a successful negotiation is this:

Embrace fully the second position.

THE THREE POSITIONS

In a negotiation there are effectively three positions:

1st position: Your position

2nd position: Your counterpart’s position (i.e. the other side) and

3rd position: The position from an independent observant of the negotiation.

In a lot of negotiations that fail, I have distinguished that, the outcome is dependant on a very simple element. The fact that one or both sides do not fully understand the drivers, concerns and/or the position of their counterpart (the other negotiating side).

Effective communication is the responsibility of both sides. However, even if the other party is a poor communicator you need to make every effort to understand fully their position and give it a fair go.

In essence, how can you expect your counterpart (the other side) in a negotiation, to listen and understand, when you may not have spent the time and energy to understand his/her positions, concerns, pressures and targets?

Hence, a simple and effective advice is to try to see things from the other’s perspective.

Then built a value proposition that:

i) creates value for the other party as well as,

ii) covers your own requirements.

Understanding the business, the drivers, the cost elements and the market is the key, the first step towards a successful negotiation.

Trust, which is the core element of a successful relationship, depends on it. As a consequence, successful category management and effective sourcing strategies rely on it as well.

This is a simple piece of advice that is often overlooked.

Did you embrace the second position the last time you were at a negotiation table or, you had to work with a supplier or customer to resolve and issue or create a solution. What would you have done differently?

Filed under Effective Communication, Effective Negotiation Tools series, Procurement Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Newer posts →