What the Cambridge Dictionary Tells Us about Negotiating
According to the Cambridge dictionary, the word “negotiate” is defined thus: “to have formal discussions with someone in order to reach an agreement with them.”
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I disagree on at least three counts.
-
Since when were negotiations limited to “formal discussions”? I try to negotiate with my children – “you tidy your room, then you can go out and play”, a fair enough opening proposal in the upcoming negotiation, but hardly a “formal discussion”. In other words, negotiations can take place in informal as well as formal settings and the Cambridge Dictionary compilers ought to know better than to restrict themselves so in their definition.
-
Where in that definition is there a description of the actual process of negotiation? It is far more than a “discussion”; in fact, I would argue that negotiation is a process whereby, in order to achieve objectives, you make concessions. I can just see the negotiators in the recent BA union management dispute sitting down and having a “formal discussion”. Did they stuff! They sat down and thrashed things out. They made proposals and counter-proposals. They traded and, when none of that worked – they went out on strike (the unions, that is). “Formal discussions” indeed! Tesco buyers having “formal discussions” with the various company representatives that they meet on a regular basis? Stuff and nonsense!
-
Finally, I take issue with “in order to reach an agreement”. What – any agreement?
And yet – maybe all the compilers are doing is reflecting the reality of the situation. I am constantly amazed by so-called negotiators who tell me that their job when they are negotiating is to bring the business in and “strike a deal”. One of the most common mistakes that I see negotiators make is that they genuinely believe that
