Notwithstanding that all of us might believe that we are better negotiators than the Quaid himself, considering that the majority of us, me included, are afflicted by the "Know it all" syndrome, but if recent events are indicative of our national skills, we might need to consider going back to the basics.
While the Quaid was able to negotiate the independence of an entire nation in extremely adverse circumstances, we seem to be faltering in current times. On the whole, for a nation of very friendly people, which really does not harbour dreams of becoming the next superpower, and has been helping all other Islamic countries as and when the need arises, and have been fighting a war for the west, why is China apparently our only friend, if at all? And we have not exactly excelled in our trade negotiations, considering the extent of our trade deficit.
Even ignoring that we might not have been doing a bang up job internationally on negotiating relationships, trade, debt, contracts, claims, we seem to be struggling on the domestic front as well. Rationally speaking, if we did have top notch negotiators within the political space and the deep state, would we be in such a mess?
At this stage, I must confess, credit should be given where it's due, today's epiphany had a catalyst; Thomas Schelling's book, "The Strategy of Conflict". There are no accidents. I agree with the view that if a book has survived after 5 decades, it's a gem. And while some will argue that bargaining still follows age old principles, which might be true, there is still no harm in doing a refresher course especially if you are in a position which requires you to top up your bargaining skills. On the other hand all of us are bargaining one thing or the other, either with family, friends or at work almost every day! So take out the time and read the book, which by the way thankfully is not overly loaded with mathematical calculations to prove some intelligible argument through complicated equations.
"The best choice for either depends on what he expects the other to do, knowing that the other is similarly guided, so that each is aware that each must try to guess what the second guesses the first will guess the second to guess and so on, in the familiar spiral of reciprocal expectations", extracts from the above book. If you figured that out in the first reading, you probably have recently brushed up on your bargaining skills.
Personally, I am of the view that most negotiations are a zero sum game and focusing on a win-win solution, which somehow has become the buzz word, ab initio scuttles your bargaining position. To generalize, any conflict which involves monetary assets is always a zero sum game; paying money is a pain, any which way you look at it. Accordingly, it makes sense to first take stock of your position and figure out what you tend to lose, rather than what everyone might win in an abstract situation. From experience I have realised the biggest mistake that you can make in complex negotiations is inadvertent oversight culminating from arrogant over confidence; making assumptions and presumptions when the facts are staring you in the face. And necessarily, a weak position might not be weakness. "Mutual destruction cannot be used to deter an adversary who is too unintelligent to comprehend it or too weak to enforce his will on those he represent".
For instance if making concessions, which in any case can be perceived as a sign of weakness by the other party, might result in weakening positions in other similar negotiations, than it is probably not wise to make any concessions. Perhaps a better strategy can be to raise the bar and increase the stakes for the other party; as an example in an international commercial negotiation it might be a better strategy to get into government to government level discussions, especially if cordial relationships exist amongst both governments. Governments always have leverage over persons operating in their domain. Alternatively, international businesses have a reputation which needs to be carefully protected. In some ways everyone has vulnerabilities; you just need to find one.
The chapter, "An Essay on Bargaining", in Schelling's book adequately sums up the characteristics of negotiations; use of a bargaining agent, secrecy vs. publicity, intersecting negotiations, continuous negotiations, precedents, casuistry, and so on so forth. Except that perhaps it overlooked delaying tactics, always time is the best judge. Legal costs alone have become formidable in current times, sometimes the counterparty might lack the wherewithal or the patience for an extended conflict. On the other hand, to quote from the movie "The Dark Knight", some men just want to watch the world burn
Best of luck-Bargain to win!
(The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad. Email: syed.bakhtiyarkazmi@gmail.com)