Often negotiations get stuck in "positions" each party holds. In 3-D Negotiation authors James Sebenius and David Lax describe how you can shape important deals through the 3 dimensions of tactics, deal design, and set-up.
In this interview, the authors describe a "3-D barriers audit" for negotiations:
"First, you should ask whether it is a tactical or people-related
barrier like communication, trust, misperceptions, or the like. Second,
you should ask whether the problem is deal-related: Does the proposed
agreement offer sufficient value to the parties to be more attractive
than no deal? Does it accomplish their objectives? Third, are there
set-up problems such as wrong parties, interests, no-deal options,
sequence, or basic process choices?"
The article gives the following example :
Consider an example of both kinds of mistakes from the U.S. Midwest.
In this case, environmentalists and farmers opposed a power company's
plans to build a dam. On the surface, the parties appeared to have
deep, irreconcilable positions, which had resulted in a long stalemate.
Yet a superior deal could be designed if the parties looked past their
stubborn bargaining positions to their underlying interests.
By stepping back and mapping the parties' real interests, it emerged
that the farmers were worried about reduced water flow below the dam,
the environmentalists were focused on the downstream habitat of the
endangered whooping crane, and the power company urgently needed new
generating capacity and a greener image. After a costly legal impasse
that threatened to last for years, the three groups designed a better
deal that included a smaller dam built on a fast track, water-flow
guarantees, downstream habitat protection, and a trust fund to enhance
whooping crane habitats elsewhere.
