Book Review: Schranner, M. (2020), The Schranner Concept, Schranner AG

The author, Matthias Schranner, is a leading expert on difficult, complex negotiations. He started his career as a hostage negotiator with the German police, having spent some 15 years in the police force. Today, his institute supports businesses as well as political entities in difficult negotiations.

Before discussing specific aspects of the book, let me bring out three more general issues:

-              First, is the book somewhat outdated, having been written in 2020? My sense is that this is not the case. The various principles that the author revises seem just as important today as they were five years ago.

-              Second, the author is offering a large number of examples. This adds definite strength to the book.

-              Third, the author also highlights key underlying principles central to effective negotiations – also helpful.

The author claims that any negotiation can be won using the following four basic principles:

a)        Undertake a thorough preparation without bias.

b)        To trigger a crisis at the beginning of a negotiation.

c)        Trying to take the lead to find a path towards an agreement.

d)        Break out of a deadlock through escalation.

Let us now discuss each of these factors in more detail.

a)        This section of the book provides valuable advice in many ways:

-              Try to achieve some sense of clarity regarding what a negotiation may be all about. This also includes trying to get a better understanding of key relationships. Complexity and ambiguity are often present!

-              Try to understand what types of information are available to the parties, as well as to assess the decision-making mandate of the opposite side.

-              To try and set objectives seems particularly key. If the range between the opponent’s objectives and one’s own is relatively small, then it may become harder to find a solution in the end. When the opposite is the case, i.e., a solid range between the opponent’s and one’s own objectives, then it might be easier to find a solution.

-              To have prepared negotiation teams is then a final part of a thorough preparation.

A well-known approach when it comes to negotiation is the so-called Harvard Concept. The author compares this with his “own” Schranner concept. The essence of the Harvard Concept can be gleaned from the following: Two sisters both want to have an orange. After a lot of bickering, the mother cuts the orange in half and gives each sister a half. None seem totally happy, however. The first sister wanted to make use of the orange to press juice – now she can only get half of the volume of juice she had hoped for. The other sister had planned to use the orange peel to bake a cake – now she would not have enough peel. If the mother had peeled the orange, and given one sister all the peel, and the other sister all of the pulp, there would have been a win-win situation, with all parties happy. While both sisters had their separate, different positions, there was a common ground! Rational negotiations, focusing on each party’s interest, and finding a mutually beneficial solution, would lead to a “win-win” outcome. Thus, the Harvard Concept assumed rationality, searching for a win-win outcome, with no losers.

In contrast, the Schranner Concept focusses on situations where one side wants to win at any cost. Its preparation is for winning, with no analysis of the other side. “Winner takes it all”! This approach seems to be found in many real-world applications.

b)        To trigger a conflict at the beginning of a round of negotiations might have a lot to do with the tactical approach one decided to choose.

-              To outline clearly what the true issue of dispute might be seems to be key – “put the fish on the table”.

-              It is important to realize that one negotiates with people, and that there are ethical norms and regulations – to bluff excessively may simply not be ethical.

-              To listen (actively), to show empathy, to rapport possible solutions, for finally to highlight the one joint solution developed in common and agreed on is key.

c)        The author suggests five different strategic paths, to ty to find an agreement.

-              Competing: This demonstrates the willingness of a side to use its power.

-              Giving in: This would be to avoid a conflict.

-              Compromising: To find a solution where all parties might be comfortable with give and take” by all.

-              Avoiding: To avoid a conflict now, and thereby be ready to negotiate later.

-              Cooperating: All parties seem to be able to live with a certain solution, in the middle, typically based on trust.

But any of these approaches typically involve negotiations that might take shape in various ways, i.e., characterize a negotiation. The author discusses six:

-              “I am right”! This phase is self-explanatory but does not leave much room for negotiating!

-              Actions. This involves taking legal proceedings, getting lawyers involves. Typically, this can be both time consuming and expensive.

-              Friend or foe? It would typically help a lot if the other side is a friend.

-              Threats. Threats typically lead to counter-threats. Each party might fall into the illation that they are powerful – not necessarily the case!

-              Power struggle. This can lead to too much of a dysfunctional “battle mood”, with too much adrenaline running.

-              Obsessive belligerence. Sadly, since no acceptable solution might be found, all parties might instead “sink together”.

But, there is, of course, various elements of tactics that also might be applied. The author lists seven:

-              What can we resolve now?

-              The future is all that counts.

-              A solution is all that matters.

-              Highlighting common grounds instead of differences.

-              Options, options, options – and not offers!

-              When able to close, do not wait!

-              Walking and talking.

So, trying to find a path towards an agreement (principle three) would involve, first attempting to settle on a strategy – one out of five. Then one might wish to pursue one out the six different types of phases for a negotiation. The finally to choose one of the seven factors.

d)        Breaking out of deadlock (principle four). This would typically involve better understanding of politics, including personal dimensions driving key actors. An agreement would then at times be reached. Each party would then want to feel convinced that everything had been tried!

But, it may be that an agreement might not be found. This may have to do with a sense of unreasonableness, at least for one side. There might also be an element of warning here – delaying may not lead to any improvements! Negotiations may have to be reentered later.

As the author says, face to face interactions always seem to be the best in situations such as this.

So, to recap, there are four key principles that the author claims might lead to negotiated outcomes:

The author also offers a set of useful questions at the end of his book, which may serve as an excellent way to become prepared. This is in line with maybe the most fundamental aspect of Schranner’s approach: to put a lot of emphasis on preparation!

Appendix: Two negotiation issues, typically seen as common, by Peter Lorange:

As indicated at the beginning of this brief note, I shall make these small observations regarding negotiations, as I have come to see them:

1.        To find a price that all parties can live with – seller and buyer – is often a key issue for negotiations. I typically start the negotiation by stating a relatively high selling price, alternatively a relatively low purchasing price, expecting that the other party shall come with a counteroffer that is lower/higher. We then tend to settle in the middle. Both parties tend to be satisfied. And, the negotiation has been simple, smooth, and in a “win-win” spirit.

2.        Often negotiations are had between a senior executive on the opposite side, typically one of the owners, and me. Often, we reach an agreement. But the operating executives on both sides might not have been involved. So, a negotiated agreement might have been reached “at the top”, while the central players on both sides might not have been involved. This can lead to a lot of frustration, new rounds of negotiations, even a final collapse. Regrettably, in my experience, such negotiations, without all parties on both sides having been brought in line from the start are quite common.