By James A. Baker
Founder and Chairman
Baker Communications
January 2012
Many people have made the analogy between negotiation and chess. It seems like such an obvious comparison. In chess, as in negotiation, there is a back-and-forth exchange between two sides. Each move made by the other side will affect your next move, but there are generally a number of ways you could respond to any action they take.
Negotiating, like chess, can a predicable event, with rules, planned moves, and counter-moves. In both chess and in negotiation, those with some experience learn various strategies, and how to work with or against them to reach their ultimate goal. True masters of either will plan several moves ahead, with logical extrapolations of how the other side is likely to move, and contingencies in case things don’t go the way they expect.
Chess is a fairly apt analogy for negotiation - up to a point.
Negotiation Has More Than Two Dimensions
One problem with comparing negotiation to chess is that the rules of chess are fixed. Each piece can only move in the prescribed way; you can’t suddenly decide to make a pawn go sideways, or straight up off the chessboard. That’s against the rules. You may have similar constraints upon you in some negotiations, but you always have the option of creating a new move, or even walking away without finishing the game!
Another issue with the chess analogy is that in chess, both sides start out on entirely equal footing. Each player has exactly the same pieces. The pieces always start from the same positions. Each player is subject to the same constraints and rules. It is the players’ respective skill and ability alone that makes the difference between who wins and who loses. In the real world, however, it is extremely rare to find such a balanced situation, where both parties and their chances of winning start out equal.
They Might Be Playing Poker
Chess is a game of logic – so much so that it can be very effectively played by computers. Negotiation has a human element to it; more specifically, it has the element of human emotion. Either party in a negotiation may do something illogical or irrational, based on their emotional responses. Personalities and moods can bounce off each other in many unpredictable ways, and emotion can easily win out over logic.
It’s entirely possible, in fact, that one or both negotiators may be playing poker instead of chess. The poker player works on emotion, reading and manipulating the other party while trying not to give away his hand. He may bluff or intimidate, watching the other party’s facial features and body language, listening to vocal tremors - looking for “tells” that will signal what their position really is. Faced with a poker player, a negotiator who is playing chess will quickly find that the rules are different.
There’s No Win-Win In Chess
Another problem with treating negotiation like chess is that chess is a zero-sum game, where one player wins and the other loses. The game is aggressive and adversarial; in fact, it’s like a little war. You can’t collaborate in chess.
In chess, since there is only one way to win, you always know what the other side’s goal is – to get you in check. There are many different approaches and strategies that can be used to achieve this goal, but in a negotiation you can never assume that you know exactly what the other side wants with such certainty. Each party may have complex interests, goals, and hidden motivations that can affect the course of the negotiation.
Negotiation, unlike chess, does not have to be a war or a zero-sum game. It is often more beneficial to work with the other party and discover how to build a win-win solution.
Checkmate
In the final analysis, though logic, strategy, and the ability to plan ahead are invaluable in both negotiation and chess, a principled, collaborative negotiation is really not much like playing chess at all. You can’t expand the chessboard, trade pieces, or work together to find a way you can both win!
Re-Print Permission
This article may be reprinted in it's entirety if the following
conditions are met:
