Question
Joe Strong, president of Purechem, was torn when Mark Lincoln, his controller, threatened to quit. Lincoln was a prized company asset. But at the moment, Purechem could ill afford a hefty salary hike, which Strong simply assumed it would take to keep Lincoln.
After all, that is what Strong would have demanded. So negotiations never actually got off the ground, and Lincoln left.
Strong later learned through the grapevine that what Lincoln really wanted was more prestige, not more money.
Strong was flabbergasted: "A better title was no problem. That's free! Why didn't he just tell me?" Purechem lost out because Strong misjudged Lincoln's values for possible deals, a not uncommon error by opposites in negotiations. Reflect on negotiations you have observed in your own company.
What do those observations suggest as effective ways your company could avoid such misjudgments and thereby achieve more mutually acceptable negotiated settlements?