The Difference between "Problem Solving" and "Negotiating"
© 1996, 1991 Situation Management Systems, Inc.
Problem solving between two or more parties occurs when the
parties encounter an obstacle to a jointly desired path and they
jointly require a solution that will alleviate the current predicament.
As the parties seek a mutually desired solution, they care-fully
assess and agree on the accuracy and veracity of available data.
Agreement on the data is essential, because the available data
point to the underlying cause of the problem. Clear problem
definitions promote identification of relevant and appropriate solutions.
Sellers and buyers can problem solve if they are willing to suspend their vested differences
and let their common goal—doing business together—drive their behavior. This stance
allows both parties to view the gap between their positions as merely an obstacle to
overcome, and to explore a range of alternative solutions for closing the gap. Some sellers
would call this “win-win negotiating,” but note that this kind of behavior assumes that both
buyer and seller see the situation from the same perspective. Differences in available facts,
or analysis of those facts, are capable of being resolved or ignored.
Consider this example:
A representative for a manufacturer of home electronic entertainment equipment is selling
to a buyer who represents a chain of retail dealers. The seller’s position on pricing is driven
by the selling organization’s national analysis of the competition and the consumer market.
However, the buyer’s pricing position has been determined by detailed analysis of local
competition and consumer trends. The two databases differ. As part of their discussion, the
seller and buyer share their divergent analyses of the market, and they recognize the
legitimacy of both data sets.
The seller is persuaded that the local market data are more compelling indices for business
with this buyer, and is able to make some pricing adjustments based on the data.
or
The buyer is persuaded that national trends will quickly overwhelm local variations, and is
able to support adjusting to the seller’s pricing position.
For both parties, this is an ideal result. They end up seeing the situation the same way, no
issues are disputed, and they agree on which alternative resolves the problem of how to do
business together.
Yet conflict between the selling role and the buying role is more the rule than the
exception—and most sellers expect it. An experienced seller knows that at some point in
the selling cycle some conflicts probably will arise. These conflicts typically concern price,
terms, and conditions of the sale, but they may also involve issues like product
specification, research and development support, delivery methods, storage capability, and
so on.
To effectively deal with conflict and resolve issues in dispute, a seller should know the
process of negotiation and be able to implement a positive strategic approach to conflict
resolution. The seller must be able to identify those situations where conflicting interests
outweigh common interests, where problem solving is difficult or impossible, and where a
positive negotiation strategy is the best option for a mutually beneficial agreement.
Negotiation occurs when at least two parties who begin with vested conflicting differences
arrive (if successful) at a point of agreement that bridges the differences to the satisfaction
of both. In a negotiation, agreement is fostered by the use of alternative currencies of
exchange.
In selling situations, conflict is natural and sometimes inevitable. One type of conflict arises
when two or more parties view the same situation and arrive at results which are different
and to some extent mutually exclusive. Here are some examples:
A seller has a list-price or published price for a product or service. The buyer wants to buy
the same product or service for a price that is eighty percent of the seller’s published price.
A price conflict exists.
A seller wants to deliver a product using standard delivery methods, but the buyer wants
accelerated delivery. A delivery methods conflict exists.
A seller offers standard financial terms, but the buyer wants extended time to pay. A
payment or terms conflict exists.
In all of these situations, the buyer and the seller both may be looking at the same
information and data but have arrived at quite different approaches, based on their own
interests and needs. One or all of these conflicting interests may exist within one selling
opportunity, and they must be successfully resolved before the sale is consummated.
A second type of conflict occurs when data available to one party is contested or
considered irrelevant by the other party. Differences in facts and evidence may be
impossible to resolve or ignore. The seller, buyer, or both may be strongly committed to the
data or the logic that underlies their positions—they are “vested”! In these cases, problem
solving as a process for reaching agreement breaks down. There is no agreement on the
facts, and so there is no agreement on the problem itself. If buyers and sellers do not
perceive the same problem, they are unlikely to agree on appropriate alternatives.
Consider again our electronics products example:
The seller uses national market trend data to support the selling organization’s pricing
position. (Underlying this approach is the selling organization’s strong belief that letting
local differences drive market price would destroy the market for their high-end products.)
The buyer objects, arguing that local conditions are more compelling. (The dealership is
under extreme competitive pressure from a local discounter who is taking advantage of a
weak economy.) The seller, believing that a careful review of the evidence will persuade
the buyer, responds to the buyer’s position with counter arguments about the local
situation. The buyer, however, discounts the seller’s analysis of local conditions as
outdated and based on an inappropriate model for the region. The seller, still pursuing a
problem-solving approach, offers additional counter evidence, and the buyer begins to feel
abused and upset.
Both parties are becoming frustrated, and the seller is now confused. Why is the
willingness to problem solve being met with such resistance? What is the seller’s next step?
In this example, the seller should abandon problem solving as a process for trying to get
the buyer to agree on a common problem with mutually accepted causes. The seller must
recognize and acknowledge that his or her underlying needs are different from the buyer’s
needs. Now, the rationale for their stated positions (their analyses may both be correct—or
incorrect!) becomes irrelevant, and debate or argument about the parties’ views of the
situation must cease. Instead, the seller must begin to identify resources—alternative
currencies of exchange—that the parties might exchange that would help to bridge the gap
on price. Sometimes skilled buyers may initiate this activity, but usually do not. It is up to
the seller to switch to a negotiating strategy.
Negotiation may take additional time and energy. This investment will pay off in situations
where the parties involved are invested in their particular positions. The negotiation will
proceed when both parties believe that an agreement can be reached even though they
may not share much in common. Only when sellers and buyers acknowledge conflicting
vested interests can they begin to look for resources—currencies—that will help to close
the gap between the different positions, if those currencies
are placed on the table.
Learn more about these concepts and their application in our Negotiation Strategy and Tactics and
Positive Negotiation Program.
From Situation Management Systems' Managing Negotiation, Selected Readings on Negotiation
Skills (New Hampshire: Situation Management Systems, Inc., 1991).
All rights reserved. No part of this reading shall be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without
written permission from Situation Management Systems, Inc.
© 1996, 1991 Situation Management Systems, Inc.
Problem solving between two or more parties occurs when the
parties encounter an obstacle to a jointly desired path and they
jointly require a solution that will alleviate the current predicament.
As the parties seek a mutually desired solution, they care-fully
assess and agree on the accuracy and veracity of available data.
Agreement on the data is essential, because the available data
point to the underlying cause of the problem. Clear problem
definitions promote identification of relevant and appropriate solutions.
Sellers and buyers can problem solve if they are willing to suspend their vested differences
and let their common goal—doing business together—drive their behavior. This stance
allows both parties to view the gap between their positions as merely an obstacle to
overcome, and to explore a range of alternative solutions for closing the gap. Some sellers
would call this “win-win negotiating,” but note that this kind of behavior assumes that both
buyer and seller see the situation from the same perspective. Differences in available facts,
or analysis of those facts, are capable of being resolved or ignored.
Consider this example:
A representative for a manufacturer of home electronic entertainment equipment is selling
to a buyer who represents a chain of retail dealers. The seller’s position on pricing is driven
by the selling organization’s national analysis of the competition and the consumer market.
However, the buyer’s pricing position has been determined by detailed analysis of local
competition and consumer trends. The two databases differ. As part of their discussion, the
seller and buyer share their divergent analyses of the market, and they recognize the
legitimacy of both data sets.
The seller is persuaded that the local market data are more compelling indices for business
with this buyer, and is able to make some pricing adjustments based on the data.
or
The buyer is persuaded that national trends will quickly overwhelm local variations, and is
able to support adjusting to the seller’s pricing position.
For both parties, this is an ideal result. They end up seeing the situation the same way, no
issues are disputed, and they agree on which alternative resolves the problem of how to do
business together.
Yet conflict between the selling role and the buying role is more the rule than the
exception—and most sellers expect it. An experienced seller knows that at some point in
the selling cycle some conflicts probably will arise. These conflicts typically concern price,
terms, and conditions of the sale, but they may also involve issues like product
specification, research and development support, delivery methods, storage capability, and
so on.
To effectively deal with conflict and resolve issues in dispute, a seller should know the
process of negotiation and be able to implement a positive strategic approach to conflict
resolution. The seller must be able to identify those situations where conflicting interests
outweigh common interests, where problem solving is difficult or impossible, and where a
positive negotiation strategy is the best option for a mutually beneficial agreement.
Negotiation occurs when at least two parties who begin with vested conflicting differences
arrive (if successful) at a point of agreement that bridges the differences to the satisfaction
of both. In a negotiation, agreement is fostered by the use of alternative currencies of
exchange.
In selling situations, conflict is natural and sometimes inevitable. One type of conflict arises
when two or more parties view the same situation and arrive at results which are different
and to some extent mutually exclusive. Here are some examples:
A seller has a list-price or published price for a product or service. The buyer wants to buy
the same product or service for a price that is eighty percent of the seller’s published price.
A price conflict exists.
A seller wants to deliver a product using standard delivery methods, but the buyer wants
accelerated delivery. A delivery methods conflict exists.
A seller offers standard financial terms, but the buyer wants extended time to pay. A
payment or terms conflict exists.
In all of these situations, the buyer and the seller both may be looking at the same
information and data but have arrived at quite different approaches, based on their own
interests and needs. One or all of these conflicting interests may exist within one selling
opportunity, and they must be successfully resolved before the sale is consummated.
A second type of conflict occurs when data available to one party is contested or
considered irrelevant by the other party. Differences in facts and evidence may be
impossible to resolve or ignore. The seller, buyer, or both may be strongly committed to the
data or the logic that underlies their positions—they are “vested”! In these cases, problem
solving as a process for reaching agreement breaks down. There is no agreement on the
facts, and so there is no agreement on the problem itself. If buyers and sellers do not
perceive the same problem, they are unlikely to agree on appropriate alternatives.
Consider again our electronics products example:
The seller uses national market trend data to support the selling organization’s pricing
position. (Underlying this approach is the selling organization’s strong belief that letting
local differences drive market price would destroy the market for their high-end products.)
The buyer objects, arguing that local conditions are more compelling. (The dealership is
under extreme competitive pressure from a local discounter who is taking advantage of a
weak economy.) The seller, believing that a careful review of the evidence will persuade
the buyer, responds to the buyer’s position with counter arguments about the local
situation. The buyer, however, discounts the seller’s analysis of local conditions as
outdated and based on an inappropriate model for the region. The seller, still pursuing a
problem-solving approach, offers additional counter evidence, and the buyer begins to feel
abused and upset.
Both parties are becoming frustrated, and the seller is now confused. Why is the
willingness to problem solve being met with such resistance? What is the seller’s next step?
In this example, the seller should abandon problem solving as a process for trying to get
the buyer to agree on a common problem with mutually accepted causes. The seller must
recognize and acknowledge that his or her underlying needs are different from the buyer’s
needs. Now, the rationale for their stated positions (their analyses may both be correct—or
incorrect!) becomes irrelevant, and debate or argument about the parties’ views of the
situation must cease. Instead, the seller must begin to identify resources—alternative
currencies of exchange—that the parties might exchange that would help to bridge the gap
on price. Sometimes skilled buyers may initiate this activity, but usually do not. It is up to
the seller to switch to a negotiating strategy.
Negotiation may take additional time and energy. This investment will pay off in situations
where the parties involved are invested in their particular positions. The negotiation will
proceed when both parties believe that an agreement can be reached even though they
may not share much in common. Only when sellers and buyers acknowledge conflicting
vested interests can they begin to look for resources—currencies—that will help to close
the gap between the different positions, if those currencies
are placed on the table.
Learn more about these concepts and their application in our Negotiation Strategy and Tactics and
Positive Negotiation Program.
From Situation Management Systems' Managing Negotiation, Selected Readings on Negotiation
Skills (New Hampshire: Situation Management Systems, Inc., 1991).
All rights reserved. No part of this reading shall be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without
written permission from Situation Management Systems, Inc.
| Testimonials “We were able to put together three separate agreements with a combined value of 9 to 10 million. Negotiations resulted in savings of 20 percent (+/-) off quoted (not list) pricing. Savings estimated $1.5 million.” "Overall an excellent course, very relevant to my current job and future assignments." “I believe I will be using the concepts taught in this class on a daily basis.” "Everyone should be required to take this class." Click Here for More |
influence, negotiation, change management training, influence training, negotiation training, interpersonal training,
management training, supervisory skills training, supervisory skills, change management training, communication
training, positive power and influence program, PPI, presentation skills training, meeting management training,
interpersonal skills, training, business training, harvard, positive power and influence, communication, change
management, management training, positive negotiation, negotiation skills, presentation skills, meeting management,
effective meetings, influence without authority, situation management, train the trainer, customer service, conversation,
skill building, experiential training, experiential, interactive training
management training, supervisory skills training, supervisory skills, change management training, communication
training, positive power and influence program, PPI, presentation skills training, meeting management training,
interpersonal skills, training, business training, harvard, positive power and influence, communication, change
management, management training, positive negotiation, negotiation skills, presentation skills, meeting management,
effective meetings, influence without authority, situation management, train the trainer, customer service, conversation,
skill building, experiential training, experiential, interactive training
influence, negotiation, change management training, influence training, negotiation training, interpersonal training,
management training, supervisory skills training, supervisory skills, change management training, communication
training, positive power and influence program, PPI, presentation skills training, meeting management training,
interpersonal skills, training, business training, harvard, positive power and influence, communication, change
management, management training, positive negotiation, negotiation skills, presentation skills, meeting management,
effective meetings, influence without authority, situation management, train the trainer, customer service, conversation,
skill building, experiential training, experiential, interactive training, call center coaching, call center training, contact
center training, contact center coaching, telephone sales, e-mail communication, email communication, customer
service training, technical support training, field rep training, customer service for field reps, customer service for
technical support, getting to the heart of, getting to the heart of customer service, getting to the heart of technical
support, getting to the heart of email, the other side of service
management training, supervisory skills training, supervisory skills, change management training, communication
training, positive power and influence program, PPI, presentation skills training, meeting management training,
interpersonal skills, training, business training, harvard, positive power and influence, communication, change
management, management training, positive negotiation, negotiation skills, presentation skills, meeting management,
effective meetings, influence without authority, situation management, train the trainer, customer service, conversation,
skill building, experiential training, experiential, interactive training, call center coaching, call center training, contact
center training, contact center coaching, telephone sales, e-mail communication, email communication, customer
service training, technical support training, field rep training, customer service for field reps, customer service for
technical support, getting to the heart of, getting to the heart of customer service, getting to the heart of technical
support, getting to the heart of email, the other side of service
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Customization Clients may tailor programs to a particular audience or industry by selecting relevant cases and exercises from our extensive library or by working with their APRENDA account manager to develop alternatives. |
| Our Negotiations Successfully Delivered in Hundreds of Organizations Including: CNA Insurance Anheuser-Busch Amoco BASF Bell Atlantic Chevron Citibank ExxonMobil Lever Brothers Philip Morris Shell Van Leer WangAetna Life Amoco Apple BASF BP Coca-Cola Digital Equipment IBM Levi Strauss & Co. Morgan Grenfell Pepsi Cola Philip Morris Rhone Poulenc Shell Texaco Union Carbide |
