Two managers who each care most about different issues agree to back each other where it matters to the other, so both proposals pass when neither could carry alone.
An example
At a software company selling scheduling tools to clinics, the vice president of engineering wanted a quarter set aside to pay down technical debt in the billing module, and the vice president of sales wanted a dedicated integration team for a large hospital network deal. Each had lost their request at the previous planning session, partly because the other had argued against it. Over lunch they compared priorities. Engineering cared little where integration engineers sat as long as they were not pulled from the core team; sales could live with a slower feature roadmap for one quarter if the hospital deal got its people. At the next planning session they brought a joint proposal: the integration team staffed by two new hires, and the debt quarter starting once the hospital contract signed. The chief executive approved both and remarked that it was the first planning session in a year without a fight between them.
Why it works
People most likely to oppose each proposal now have a reason to support it, which makes both easier to pass. The trade works because the two managers value the issues differently: each gives up little on the issue the other cares about most and gains a lot on their own. A joint proposal also removes a predictable fight from the decision-maker's agenda. The priorities must really differ, both proposals must be defensible on their merits, and the trade must be made openly, so the decision-maker can judge the combined package.
The thinking behind it
Richard M. Cyert A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (1963), by Cyert and March, holds that a firm's goals are set by bargaining among coalition members whose priorities and information differ, producing compromises that follow an implicit order of priority. Two vice presidents who trade support across a planning session are doing that bargaining in the open. The theory treats this as how organizations normally settle goals, which is why an open trade reads as ordinary management.
Deepak Malhotra Negotiation Genius (2007), by Malhotra and Bazerman, explains that discussing several issues together and making package offers lets each side trade what it values less for what it values more, which is how value is created when priorities differ. Engineering cares about the debt quarter and little about where integration engineers sit; sales cares about the reverse. Combining the two requests into one package is what turns that difference into a deal.
When it fits
Recurring decisions where several managers compete for the same attention or resources (planning cycles, budget rounds, committee agendas) suit it, provided two of them care most about different things. It calls for a clear sense of your own priorities, a working relationship with the other manager, and two proposals that each stand up on the merits.
How to use it well
Rank your own issues honestly before you talk to anyone: which you must win, and which you would trade.
- Find a counterpart whose ranking differs from yours, and ask what matters most to them and why.
- Look for trades where each of you gives up something you value less than the other does.
- Make the combined package explicit and bring it to the decision-maker as a joint proposal, saying plainly that you have agreed to support each other's items.
- Keep your side of the trade, including the parts that come due later.
Trade only within your own authority and on items you would defend if asked. The deal should look sensible to anyone who reads it.
What it costs and where it backfires
Trades create obligations that come due at awkward times, and failing to honor one costs more than the trade gained. A decision-maker who sees repeated trades between the same managers may suspect a bloc. Trading your support for a proposal you think is wrong for the company, to win your own, is where logrolling turns into collusion. Done openly, on the merits of both items and within each manager's authority, it is ordinary bargaining; once it buys votes with resources neither of you controls, it is no longer a trade between peers.
When it is used on you
Two colleagues arriving with a joint proposal have usually traded something. Judge each item on its own merits and ask what each gave up. If your resources or interests pay for the trade, say so, and ask for the package to be split so each item is decided on its own.