Harvey Spencer enters the meeting room, declares two things, the other party is subjugated, collapses, and accepts everything.
To be clear: that only happens in movies.
In the reality of behavioral economics: taking a position and giving it to someone who does not agree will result in creating an inversely proportional resistance. Asserting it angrily or cunningly will make the possibility of an agreement even weaker.
Consent just doesn't work that way.
4 rules to promote clear and assertive consent:
- The beginning of consent starts with a public and clear position in the direction of the desired agreement
Research in behavioral economics shows that to create agreement and put in place the beginning of the path to consensus, it is necessary to start small.
A yes is necessary, but it must meet formal conditions of agreement: it must (i.) be public, if there are witnesses to what you say then you feel more bound by your words (ii.) be clear and unreserved (iii.) go in the direction you want to go.
In general, the first agreement to be obtained is to agree to enter into a negotiation process.
For example, in a participatory law process, negotiations begin with the signing of a participatory agreement that sets out the conditions and framework for discussions. During the first discussion meeting, the parties should express their views on what they expect from the process and clarify their wishes.
- We always start from the smallest possible point of agreement (the PPPOP)
Even in the context of conflictual negotiations, you should always start from the smallest possible point of agreement. On the other hand, the shortcut of acknowledging that we agree with our disagreement does not work! You have to find the PPPOP based on the positive. For example, agree on the basic assumptions: there was an order, there was a contract...
That is why in any conciliation, it is essential to start by confirming mutually acceptable working hypotheses together: that is, facts that are not contested by either party.
- Consent is incremental
The negotiation process should always be a reduction of the dispute to zero.
We start from the smallest possible point of agreement and we make it bigger. Each time we agree on something, we take note of it and we move forward on another point of disagreement.
We always start from where the agreement is the easiest to go to where the agreement is the most difficult.
This method is based on two cognitive biases identified by behavioral economics: confirmation bias and persistence bias.
This point may seem obvious: in practice, the various stakeholders, if they have not been trained in behavioral economics, always try to get to the Gordian knot to save time. A classic strategic error!
- To ratify is to solder the agreement
Ratifying the agreement is critical to feeding confirmation bias.
What does it mean to ratify the agreement, that with each new agreement, it must be formally acknowledged. It is also important to have the parties ratify that they are making progress in the negotiation work.
We agree on a new point! So, it is clearly emphasized orally between the parties.
