A while back, I handled a divorce for Barb.* The case was set for trial, but by the time we all showed up at the courthouse, Barb and her soon-to-be ex-husband Richard had resolved every issue except one.

When the case was called, the judge asked us what the issue was, and how far apart we were. He then sent us back to the courthouse’s conference room to make one last effort at settling the case.

On paper, the dispute didn’t seem that hard to resolve. Barb and Rich had both taken positions that were within the range of what the judge might do if he had to decide the case, and the numbers we were working with were relatively small, as these cases go. Barb had proposed a settlement figure approximately 50% higher than Richard’s last offer.

The 95% Solution

Not surprisingly, when we met in the conference room, Richard came back with a proposal that split the difference between the two. Barb rejected that number immediately, and after some further discussions, we settled on a figure that was 95% of where Barb had started.

While I would like to think it was my prowess as a negotiator that produced this result, I know that, in fact, it was really what Barb did for herself that made the difference.

Early on in the case, I asked Barb to make a list of her goals and values were, and why these things were important to her. When serious negotiating starts, it is easy to get lost in details, and overlook what is important to the client. If my client and I have a clear map of what we are trying to accomplish, the chances of getting lost go way down.

In this case, Barb gave me a very clear picture of what was important to her, and she gave me a set of goals that reflected her values. Applying Barb’s values and goals to the specific facts of the case pointed us to a very precise settlement figure. During our negotiations, I had more than just a number to give Richard and his lawyer; I had a very clear explanation why Barb believed this was the best outcome for the case.

Richard, on the other hand, simply put numbers on the table, without any real explanation as to why those numbers were appropriate. As the negotiations went on, I repeatedly pointed to what Barb intended to accomplish, and also noted that Richard had not identified anything he wouldn’t be able to accomplish if Barb got the settlement she was asking for. Eventually, the Richard agreed that a settlement that allowed Barb to accomplish her goals was a fair outcome, since it did not affect his goals in any way.

Focus On the Big Picture

There were a couple of important lessons here. First, the talk Barb and I had early about her goals and values paid big dividends for both of us. When the “split the difference” offer was made, Barb quickly reminded me that the proposed outcome was not aligned with her goals. We spent very little additional time on discussing any other “middle ground” proposal. Barb’s goals and values were very important to her, and she was willing to risk losing in court rather than agree to an outcome that compromised her values.

The late author and leadership guru Stephen Covey referred to this as “beginning with the end in mind, one of his Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Covey recognized that the choices people make are often made in a rush, and what matters most can get lost in the pressure of the moment. Having a clear picture of what is important to you, and why it is important, helps keep the important things in focus.

There Doesn’t Have to Be a Loser

Second, negotiations are not just about meeting the needs of your side; getting to an agreement requires recognizing and addressing the needs of the other side as well. In this case, Richard had not really identified any needs or goals, so as far as barb and I knew just about any outcome might be acceptable. If, like Barb, he had come armed with a list of goals and outcomes that were important to him, the negotiations might have gone in a different direction. Where both sides have a clear picture of the goals they hope to achieve, the discussions can focus on how use their resources to meet as many of those goals as possible. If there are insufficient resources to meet everyone’s needs, the talk turns to what compromises both parties might be willing to make to get close to accomplishing their respective goals.

Covey had a phrase for this, too: “Think win/win.” If negotiations are viewed as a competition, there must be a winner and a loser, and things often get bogged down because giving the other side something they want must mean you have lost on something. But when you understand what the other party wants and, more importantly, why they want it, you can craft solutions that work well for both parties.

Building the Foundation

Barb and Richard’s case was unique, and, as they say on the investment commercials, past performance is not a guarantee of future results. However, the way Barb and I approached her case was something I do with every client. I want to know what the client thinks a good outcome will look like, so I can keep that outcome as our focus.

When my client has a clear picture of what is important and what is to be accomplished, I can do a much better job of advocacy, and the chances of getting a good outcome go way up. My clients’ goals and values are the foundation for the work I do for them.

Dan Bestul is a Wisconsin divorce and family law attorney practicing primarily in Green and Lafayette Counties. He can be reached by e-mail at bestul@swwilaw.com.

*While the account of this case is accurate, the names have been changed.