Download printable version

Rightness, Lies and Truth: Which is the Best Choice in Negotiation?
Radu Inonescu
(Romania)
How many times do we ask ourselves: which is the best option in negotiation? Should I
sustain my point of view because I am right and everybody will see it? Should I lie in
order to manipulate others because this way I get what I need? Should I say the truth
because in this way I define my character and build my image?
Lord Kelvin said: “Every person has [their] own horizon of ideas, views and opinions. It
happens sometimes that this horizon starts to near. And as it nears, it’s getting smaller
and smaller until it becomes a point. At that moment the person is saying: this is my point
of view!”
People tend to sustain: “My point of view is the right one. Rightness is on my side.”
“So what,” can be a quick answer. Others do not care if positions are right or not,
presuming that they will take our views into consideration. If these people also think that
they are right, they may not even listen to others. In this situation what usually happens
is that each party tries to impose their point of view. This is the moment when a
positional negotiation starts. The parties start digging trenches for defending their own
position and attacking the other’s position and, as the battle becomes more intensive, the
trenches become deeper and harder to get out of them.
“Objective criteria” are used to support our points of view. I have a problem with the
term “objective”. What on the earth, is objective? As an extreme appreciation, it means
nothing. But in negotiation we can consider “objective criteria” any criteria that the
parties agree to use or are obliged to reference. Law can be an example of “objective
criteria”. Unfortunately, we all know that a trial is based on interpreting the law. Both the
prosecution and the defense are doing just that in presenting their cases.
It is alright to use criteria. Why? Because, we have to communicate to others our
opinions and we need to support them. And we have to understand their view. The
mistake appears when we try to impose our appreciations on others. This leads us
nowhere in the negotiation process and only produces confrontation.
If we go on with the confrontation we will lose energy in the battle. Our energy is
limited. The time and energy we lose in fighting, we can not use in problem-solving. We
miss opportunities. More than this, continuing confrontation leads us to imagine
problems: “If I leave my position, I will look weak, incapable or unserious. So I have to
defend it!”
Finding differences between points of view is normal. In the negotiation process it does
not matter who is right. If rightness would be the criteria, than we would go to arbitrage
or in court where somebody else would tell us who is right, but this is not negotiation.
In negotiation we use rightness only as a threat: “I am right, and I will demonstrate this in
court”. In fact, the reason that we negotiate is because we have different points of view
and through negotiation we try to find ways to balance this difference.
Imagine that in building a house, some delays occur. It was a heavy rainy and cold
season. The client can accuse the contractor of incompetence and the contractor can
accuse the client of having no clue about construction and not understanding what the
clause in the contract means about “improper meteorological conditions”. Is it important
to establish who is right? Of course not! What matters is: what ways can they find to
continue what they started? The answer to this question is given by a correct negotiation
process.
But, what if I would lie? Would I obtain advantages? Yes, of course! In negotiation
by lying, deceiving and manipulating we may gain advantages in terms of results.
With two observations:
 Advantages are real only where “time” does not exist and there is no past
and no future, only the present. We know this as “one time deal”. Selling
our house is a classic example in which people usually are tempted to
deceive and hide some disturbing truth about their houses. If there is no
law requiring disclosure, it does not matter if later the buyer realizes that
he paid for an illusion.

Lying and deceiving are used to create illusion. We try, by using them,
to create a false image for the reality. Then, we use the distortion in our
favor to take advantage of the other party. The problem is that if the
relationship has a future, sooner or later, the lie will be exposed. And that
is the moment when the other party will fight back. They will feel
betrayed and probably we will lose more than we have won.
Does this mean that in negotiation I have to tell only “the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth?” No. Even if we wanted to do so, in most cases we wouldn’t
succeed because of communication difficulties. Not everything we say is understood by
others. Partly, this is the result of our poor communication skills. Partly, this is the
product of the lack of understanding by others.
Trying to tell the whole truth is a great naivety. Showing all our cards would be our key
for failure in that negotiation. The worst possible result would be ours.
On the other hand, it is acceptable to tell only the truth, but not all of it! Hiding parts of
the truth is a practical and almost unanimously accepted practice in business. It is alright
to tell what we want, but not how badly we want it or how much we are willing to pay for
what we want.
Everybody in a negotiation is responsible for their level of knowledge. It is not our duty
to inform others about what they should be aware. And still, if we realize that they are
doing a mistake which will be in our advantage, do we ring the bell for them? In business
we do this only when we realize that later, if they became aware about the mistake, they
will try to threaten the deal. Otherwise, it is their problem. And if we want, we can
always prepare a compensating deal for later.
For a successful negotiation process, neither one of the three tools – rightness, lies and
truth – are determinant. If we concentrate on them, we lose the focus on the essence of
negotiation: satisfying the parties’ interests – especially our own - by problem solving,
finding solutions and trading.