Architecting Influence: Negotiation as a Design Practice

For years, I've approached my role as an architect through the lens of design thinking—a discipline I deeply appreciate for its emphasis on empathy with users, value creation, and iterative experimentation. My training in design thinking wasn't just an academic exercise; it profoundly shaped my professional identity and daily practice.

Recently, I discovered the book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In by Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. Although the book is considered a classic in negotiation, somehow it had escaped my reading list until now. Upon reading it, I experienced a profound sense of recognition—it wasn't merely useful advice, but rather the blueprint for practices I had been building intuitively for years.

The book introduces the concept of "principled negotiation," a method that focuses on: 

• separating the people from the problem; 
• focusing on interests rather than positions; 
• generating options for mutual gain; and 
• insisting on objective criteria for evaluation. 

This approach moves beyond positional bargaining (where each side rigidly holds to their stated demands) to create agreements that satisfy all parties' core needs.

The Striking Parallels

As I delved deeper, the illumination came not just from the negotiation framework itself, but from recognizing the profound parallels between principled negotiation and design thinking. Consider how these methodologies align:

• Understanding People: Design thinking begins with empathy—deeply understanding users and their contexts. In principled negotiation, we separate the people from the problem while recognizing that emotions are part of the negotiation, not distractions from it. As Fisher and Ury emphasize, acknowledging feelings explicitly makes them less controlling and more productive elements of the discussion. Both frameworks begin by seeing the world through others' eyes, treating emotional concerns as legitimate and integral to the process.
• Identifying Value: In design thinking, we seek to discover what creates value for users. In negotiation, we focus on interests rather than positions. Positions are the stated demands or solutions people initially present, while interests are the underlying needs, desires, concerns, and fears that motivate those positions. Value and interests are essentially the same concept viewed through different lenses—both ask "what truly matters?" rather than "what is being demanded?" This mirrors the "define" stage in design thinking, where we synthesize our empathetic understanding to articulate the core problem.
• Creating Options: Design thinking involves developing MVPs and iterating with users to refine solutions. Principled negotiation encourages inventing options for mutual gain—brainstorming possibilities before evaluation. Both emphasize creativity before judgment.
• Testing With Criteria: Design thinking tests hypotheses against critical assumptions. Principled negotiation insists on using objective criteria to evaluate options. Both require evidence-based decision-making rather than power plays.

Even developing your BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement)—your fallback plan or what you'll do if the current negotiation fails—can use the design thinking process—you're creatively exploring options for yourself. The "one-text" technique in negotiation—a method created by Roger Fisher where a mediator works with parties to develop a single negotiating text that evolves toward a mutually acceptable solution—parallels joint design sessions with sticky notes on whiteboards.

Connecting the Dots

Reflecting on my past professional experiences, I realized my foundational exposure to negotiation came indirectly from someone trained by the authors of Getting to Yes. Yet, reading the source material directly was transformative. It sharpened my awareness, refined my understanding, and expanded my toolkit. It felt like connecting dots scattered across years of professional practice.

In agile environments, negotiation isn't merely about contracts or business agreements—it's a daily practice embedded in our work:

• Daily negotiations on concrete technical designs
• Bi-weekly negotiations during sprint planning
• Quarterly negotiations for PI (Program Increment) planning
• Regular contract negotiations and extensions

Each interaction is a leverage point—a place in a complex system where a small change can produce big shifts in behavior—a small yet critical opportunity to align interests, explore options, and build stronger relationships.

The Systems Thinking Layer

Adding systems thinking—an approach that examines how components in a complex system interact and influence each other, and a foundational element of the SAFe Agile Framework many of us use for large-scale projects—complements both design thinking and principled negotiation beautifully.

The critical feedback loops in systems thinking provide opportunities to align with client interests and create business value with every interaction. A feedback loop in this context means the continual process of gathering responses to our work, learning from those responses, and adapting our approach accordingly. Combining design thinking's empathy-driven approach and negotiation's principled exploration of mutual interests, every feedback loop becomes a powerful cycle of continuous alignment, creativity, and improved relationship management.

Conclusion: Designing Our Future, One Conversation at a Time

The success of a project—especially in agile environments—depends on constant negotiation among all stakeholders. As architects, we fundamentally work through influence; technical expertise alone isn't enough to bring people together around shared understanding and mutual benefit.

When we view negotiation as a design challenge, we recognize that perhaps the most significant designs we create aren't systems or structures, but the agreements and understandings that enable solutions to thrive. By treating negotiation as a design practice—thoughtfully, collaboratively, and creatively—we transform potential conflicts into opportunities for innovation.

By combining design thinking, systems thinking, and principled negotiation, architects can leverage influence effectively, even without direct authority. This insight has reshaped how I approach my role—and it's an approach I'd encourage every architect and agile leader to explore. It's not just about getting to yes; it's about designing a better future, one conversation at a time.

Further Readings and Learning

• Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In by Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton
• 5 Tips for Keeping Your Project on Track: Negotiating Scope Creep, Trade-Offs, and More, Stanford Seminar by Margaret A. Neale on Feb 25, 2025 
• Design Thinking: From Insights to Viability – Stanford Business School
• Apply systems thinking - Scaled Agile Framework