One of the most important skills that an Improvement Scientist needs is the ability to negotiate. We are all familiar with one form of negotiaton which is called distributive negotiation which is where the parties carve up the pie in a low trust compromise. That is not the form we need – what we need is called integrative negotiation. The goal of integrative negotiation is to join several parts into a greater whole and it implies a higher level of trust and a greater degree of collaboration.
Organisations of more than about 90 people are usually split into departments – and for good reasons. The complex organisation requires specialist aptitudes, skills, and know-how and it is easier to group people together who share the specialist skills needed to deliver that service to the organisation – such as financial services in the accounts department. The problem is that this division also creates barriers and as the organisation increases in size these barriers have a cumulative effect that can severely limit the capability of the organisation. The mantra that is often associated with this problem is “communication, communication, communication” … which is too non-specific and therefore usually ineffective.
The products and services that an organisation is designed to deliver are rarely the output of one department – so the parts need to align and to integrate to create an effective and efficient delivery system. This requires more than just communication – it requires integrative negotiation – and it is not a natural skill or one that is easy to develop. It requires investment of effort and time.
To facilitate the process we need to provide three things: a common goal, a common language and a common ground. The common goal is what all parts of the system are aligned to; the common language is how the dialog is communicated; and the common ground is our launch pad.
Integrative negotiation starts with finding the common ground – the areas of agreement. Very often these are taken for granted because we are psychologically tuned to notice differences rather than similarities. We have to make the “assumed” and “obvious” explicit before we turn our attention on our differences.
Integrative negoation proceeds with defining the common niggles and nice-ifs that could be resolved by a single change; the win-win-win opportunities.
Integrative negotiation concludes with identifying changes that are wholly within the circle of influence of the parties involved – the changes that they have the power to make individually and collectively.
After negotiation comes decision and after decision comes action and that is when improvement happens.