To protect the future interests of their organization, negotiators sometimes must accept fewer benefits or absorb greater burdens in the short run to maximize the value to all relevant parties – including future employees and shareholders – over time.
Suppose that the operations VPs of two subsidiaries of an energy company are preparing to negotiate the location of a new energy source within the company. Beta, the energy source, is limited in supply, but it is inexpensive and efficient to use in the present and grows in potency over time.
One subsidiary would reap short-term gains by using Beta immediately, while the other is generating a technology that would make even greater use of Beta in the future.
Retaining Beta for future use would create more long-term value for the company overall.
But because the future consequences of our decisions often appear remote, it could be difficult for the executives involved to negotiate this wise decision.
In negotiation, a temporal delay often exists between our decisions and their consequences, a situation that becomes complicated when ‘others’ – rather than ourselves – will be affected by our decisions.
In negotiations concerning long-term concerns, a strong symmetry exists between powerful present organizational actors and powerless future generations. Because those with control over the decision process have less at stake, the dependency of future generations on the present generation intensifies.
When you download the New Conflict Management: Effective Conflict Resolution Strategies to Avoid Litigation you will learn how wise negotiators extract unexpected value using an indirect approach to conflict management.
