Use facts, not threats. Both parties typically come to a negotiation with different perceptions about interests, options, and consequences. At times, you feel a need to challenge their perception of reality. For example, Trevor signed a non-compete when he joined the firm that placed legal obligations on him. Allison thinks Trevor is naïve to the consequences of approaching the firm’s client with his new services. She can bring up her understanding of the non-compete in one of two ways: as fact or as a threat. Since psychological safety is so critical, do everything you can to share your understanding of the situation without triggering a perception of malicious intent. You can do this in three ways:

1. Frame your statement as natural consequence not calculated revenge. “Cross the non-compete one inch and we’ll sue you” is a threat. In contrast, “I want to be clear that I have an obligation to protect the firm’s interests” suggests natural consequences.
2. Express reluctant determination about punitive measures. Don’t apologize for protecting your interests. But don’t relish your power to do so, either.
3. Press for dialogue, not concession. As you share natural consequences of bad outcomes to the negotiation with the other person, reassure them of your wish to avoid those consequences and your willingness to continue the dialogue in search of better mutual outcomes.

Read original article


Tags: