So I recommend everyone to unpack what 'fair' means to them and explain that thing instead of using the word 'fair'
Yes, that's basically how I do it, although I don't have any reservations about using the word 'fair'. I don't think this is problematic unless you're attempting to unilaterally declare what "fair" is without offering up all of your assumptions in detail with the explicit declaration that they're up for debate. It's more like: "Hey so I've tried really hard to define what I think a fair deal would look like in this situation and here's the exact methodology, angles, and assumptions I came up with to do that. When I applied that methodology, here is the number I came up with. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that, or if you can think of any criticism or omissions in my assumptions or methods, or if you have any different methodology you'd like to consider, please let me know. Let's chat."
Usually when I go over all the different ways in which I have already considered their viewpoint, needs, benefits, and drawbacks, that's enough for a yes. Sometimes though, people will take issue with one of the assumptions or criteria and then we can debate about that, but the whole discussion at that point tends to already be framed on defining what fair is, rather that what they want, or what gripes they have with the opposing party.
Collaborative vs. Adversarial Negotiation essentially.
Putting yourself in the other person's shoes and knowing what they want, which is what we do all the time in trying to convince another person to do something for us, be it a child, friend, or coworker.
On a related note: It’s also a good idea to walk a mile in someone’s shoes before you criticize them. That way, when you criticize them, you’ll be a mile away from them - and you’ll have their shoes!
Comments
Yes, that's basically how I do it, although I don't have any reservations about using the word 'fair'. I don't think this is problematic unless you're attempting to unilaterally declare what "fair" is without offering up all of your assumptions in detail with the explicit declaration that they're up for debate. It's more like: "Hey so I've tried really hard to define what I think a fair deal would look like in this situation and here's the exact methodology, angles, and assumptions I came up with to do that. When I applied that methodology, here is the number I came up with. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that, or if you can think of any criticism or omissions in my assumptions or methods, or if you have any different methodology you'd like to consider, please let me know. Let's chat."
Usually when I go over all the different ways in which I have already considered their viewpoint, needs, benefits, and drawbacks, that's enough for a yes. Sometimes though, people will take issue with one of the assumptions or criteria and then we can debate about that, but the whole discussion at that point tends to already be framed on defining what fair is, rather that what they want, or what gripes they have with the opposing party.
Collaborative vs. Adversarial Negotiation essentially.
Putting yourself in the other person's shoes and knowing what they want, which is what we do all the time in trying to convince another person to do something for us, be it a child, friend, or coworker.
On a related note: It’s also a good idea to walk a mile in someone’s shoes before you criticize them. That way, when you criticize them, you’ll be a mile away from them - and you’ll have their shoes!