Upload
buithien
View
234
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
STITT FELD HANDY GROUP
ON-LINE NEGOTIATION COURSE
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
POSITIONAL VERSUS INTEREST-BASED NEGOTIATION …………………… 4Positional Negotiating ……………………………………………………………….. 4Interest-Based Negotiating ………………………………………………………….. 4The Difference Between Positions And Interests …………………………………. 4Choosing Between Positional Negotiating And Interest-Based Negotiating ….. 5Finding Out Others’ Interests ………………………………………………………. 6Generating Options …………………………………………………………………. 6Points To Consider In An Interest-Based Negotiation …………………………… 7Tips ……………………………………………………………………………………. 9
MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ……………………………………………………………. 10Tips …………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
SALES AND COLD CALLING ……………………………………………………….. 11Tips …………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
SPEAKING PERSUASIVELY …………………………………………………………. 14Tips …………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
EFFECTIVE LISTENING ………………………………………………………………. 15Interactive Listening …………………………………………………………………. 16Using Open Body Language Or Other Non-Verbal Clues ……………………….. 16Using Prompters ……………………………………………………………………… 16Asking Clarifying Questions ………………………………………………………... 17Restating Or Paraphrasing ………………………………………………………….. 17Identifying Feelings ………………………………………………………………….. 17Acknowledging Underlying Values ……………………………………………….. 18Tips ……………………………………………………………………………………. 19
DEALING WITH AN INFLEXIBLE BUREAUCRAT ……………………………… 20Going To The Superior ……………………………………………………………… 21Trying To Establish A Positive Relationship With The Inflexible Bureaucrat
By Being Polite And Respectful ………………………………………………….. 21Threats ………………………………………………………………………………… 22Exaggerating Or Stretching The Truth …………………………………………….. 22Focusing on What Is Fair ……………………………………………………………. 23Providing Information ………………………………………………………………. 23Directing The Inflexible Bureaucrat To What You Think Is The Right Answer . 24Asking The Inflexible Bureaucrat Questions That May Lead Them To The
Answer, Rather Than Telling Them What They Should Do …………………… 25Focusing On Who Is Right And Who Is Wrong …………………………………… 25Using Silence …………………………………………………………………………. 26Brainstorming Possible Options With An Inflexible Bureaucrat ……………….. 26Putting The Onus On The Inflexible Bureaucrat To Find A Solution ………….. 27Knowing Your Audience …………………………………………………………… 28
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont’d.
Focusing On The Positive …………………………………………………………… 28Focusing On Interests ……………………………………………………………….. 29Challenging The Rule ……………………………………………………………….. 29Focusing On Standards of Legitimacy …………………………………………….. 30Knowing and Understanding the Value of Your Best Alternative To A
Negotiated Settlement (BATNA) ………………………………………………… 30Tips ……………………………………………………………………………………. 31
NEGOTIATION TENDENCIES ……………………………………………………… 32People Who Have A Tendency To Be Analytical ………………………………… 32People Who Have A Tendency To Seek Justice ………………………………….. 33People Who Have A Tendency To Seek Results …………………………………. 34People Who Have A Tendency To Avoid Hostility ……………………………… 34People Who Have A Tendency To Focus On Relationship ……………………… 35Tips ……………………………………………………………………………………. 35
MAKING THE FIRST OFFER OR PUTTING FORWARD THE FIRST NUMBER 36Tips …………………………………………………………………………………….. 37
HOW MUCH INFORMATION SHOULD YOU SHARE? ………………………… 38Tips ……………………………………………………………………………………. 39
IS IT IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO APPEAR TO BE REASONABLE? …………… 40Tips …………………………………………………………………………………….. 41
SHOULD YOU MISLEAD IN NEGOTIATION? …………………………………… 42The Prisoner’s Dilemma ……………………………………………………………... 42One-Time Negotiations ………………………………………………………………. 44Strategies For Dealing With The Prisoner’s Dilemma ……………………………. 45
Don’t be envious …………………………………………………………………. 45Don’t be the first to defect or deceive …………………………………………. 45Reciprocate both co-operation and defection/deception ……………………. 46Don’t try to be too clever ………………………………………………………… 47
Tips ……………………………………………………………………………………. 48
WHEN YOU SHOULD WALK AWAY FROM A NEGOTIATION ANDWHEN SHOULD YOU ACCEPT WHAT IS OFFERED ………………………... 49When Should You Say “Yes?” ………………………………………………………. 51Tips …………………………………………………………………………………….. 52
NEGOTIATING IN PAIRS OR TEAMS …………………………………………….. 53Advantages of Negotiating In Pairs Or Teams …………………………………… 53Disadvantages of Negotiating In Pairs Or Teams ………………………………… 54Ideas To Consider When Preparing to Negotiate As A Team …………………… 54Strategies To Consider When Negotiating In Pairs Or As Part Of A Team ……. 55Tips …………………………………………………………………………………..… 57
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont’d.
DIFFICULTIES IN NEGOTIATION …………………………………………………. 58Steamrolling With Information ……………………………………………………... 58Assuming A Deal …………………………………………………………………….. 60You Commit, I Decide ……………………………………………………………….. 61Unreasonable First Offers …………………………………………………………… 61Mixing The People And The Problem ……………………………………………… 62Being Obstinate ………………………………………………………………………. 63
Tips ………………………………………………………………………………………... 64
INDEX ………………………………………. …………………………………………….. 65
4
POSITIONAL VERSUS INTEREST-BASED NEGOTIATION1
POSITIONAL NEGOTIATING
In positional or competitive bargaining, the negotiators begin with an exchange of
positions. A position is a specific proposal or suggested solution. The negotiators
usually then argue about why their position should be accepted. Concessions may or
may not be made. If an agreement is reached, it is normally a compromise between two
positions.
INTEREST-BASED NEGOTIATING
In interest-based negotiation, the negotiators focus on each sides’ interests and try to
create options that will satisfy those interests. Interests are the underlying needs,
desires, wants, goals, and concerns behind the positions.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POSITIONS AND INTERESTS
Positions are specific proposals or solutions, which have been designed to satisfy
interests. A position can be satisfied in only one way. Interests, on the other hand, are
the underlying needs, desires, concerns, and fears that the person is trying to satisfy by
adopting a position. Interests can be satisfied in many ways.
Positional negotiating involves starting with the answer (the position) and then
discussing possibilities and concerns. Interest-based negotiating involves starting with
needs, exploring possibilities, and arriving at answers (or positions) at the end of the
negotiation rather than at the beginning.
1 © 2002 Stitt Feld Handy Group. This material may not be reproduced without the permission ofthe Stitt Feld Handy Group. C01022
5
CHOOSING BETWEEN POSITIONAL NEGOTIATING AND INTEREST-BASED
NEGOTIATING
Positional Negotiating - Advantages
The advantages of positional negotiating include:
• It may achieve a very good substantive result.
• It may result in a quick deal.
• It may not require a lot of preparation.
• It may convey to the other side that you feel strongly about your position.
Positional Negotiating - Disadvantages
The disadvantages of positional negotiating include:
• The negotiation may result in an agreement that is not the best possible
agreement.
• The people negotiating may fail to reach an agreement even though there
were good agreements that could have been negotiated.
• The relationship between the two negotiators may be damaged.
• Opportunities for creative options may be missed.
Interest-Based Negotiation-Advantages
The advantages of interest-based negotiation include:
• There is a greater likelihood that agreement will be reached that satisfies
the interests of the negotiators.
• Focusing on interests promotes creativity and there is a greater likelihood
that options will be generated that create value.
• The relationship will likely be maintained or even enhanced.
Interest-Based Negotiation-Disadvantages
The disadvantages of interest-based negotiation include:
• It can take more time to prepare for and participate in an interest-based
negotiation.
• You may miss opportunities to take advantage of the other side.
• You may be perceived as weak by a positional negotiator.
6
FINDING OUT OTHERS’ INTERESTS
It may be difficult to determine the interests of others’ because:
• Others may not be fully aware of their own interests.
• Others may not understand the value of sharing their interests with you.
• Others may resist sharing their interests with you for fear that their
disclosing their interests will give you a strategic advantage.
To encourage others to identify and discuss their interests, you may:
• Ask others why they take the position they do (for what purpose).
• Ask them why particular solutions do not satisfy them.
• Ask them how they will be better off if their position is accepted.
• Ask them how the situation has affected them.
• Ask them where they see themselves in five years.
• Ask what they hope to achieve in the negotiation.
• Ask whether something has changed, and if so, what has changed to lead
to their position.
• Ask what the situation would look like if it were improved tomorrow.
• Ask them to explain how they arrived at their position.
• Use silence to allow the other person to fill the vacuum.
• Share your own interests.
• Show others that you are open to listen to them.
If other negotiators are unwilling to discuss their interests, you may want to imagine
yourself in the other person’s shoes and consider what their interests might be.
GENERATING OPTIONS
Once the interests have been identified you may try to generate options that might
satisfy those interests. In coming up with options, you may consider the following:
• You may find it helpful to separate the creativity of coming up with
options from the process of analyzing the options. You may want to
create as many options as you can with the other side and then review the
options to determine which options make the most sense.
7
• One way to generate options is to brainstorm. Brainstorming involves
thinking creatively and coming up with a list of possible solutions.
• A recommended ground rule of brainstorming is that no one be bound by
or committed to options that they generate. Options are not offers. A
second recommended ground rule is that people who are brainstorming
should refrain from criticizing or evaluating the options as they are being
generated.
• Brainstorming can turn the negotiation process from a competitive one
into a joint problem-solving exercise. When negotiators exchange
positions, the process can become adversarial and it can create a dynamic
of competition. When negotiators brainstorm, they work together to
identify options that satisfy the interests of both sides.
• Brainstorming may allow you opportunities to create value or “expand
the pie.”
• Once the options have been brainstormed, the negotiators can review the
options to determine which ones they want to explore further, and which
ones may lead to a mutually beneficial negotiated agreement.
POINTS TO CONSIDER IN AN INTEREST-BASED NEGOTIATION
• When you are asking other negotiators questions about their interests, you
are not trying to force them to justify their interests; you are trying to get
clarity about what their interests are.
• Try to uncover as many of other peoples’ interests as you can. People
often have more than one interest and some of their interests may conflict.
• The other negotiator may have constituents whose interests must be
satisfied. Therefore, it can be helpful to try to identify who those other
people might be (e.g., a partner, a spouse, a boss, etc.) and what their
interests might be.
• It may be helpful to focus on the interests you would like to have met in
the future and not on the interests that were not met in the past.
• Opposing interests are not necessarily bad. Sometimes agreement is
possible because people have different interests and the interests are
complimentary.
8
• It may be helpful to acknowledge the other negotiator’s interests once you
understand them. Acknowledging someone’s interests is not the same as
saying that you share them or that they will all be satisfied; it is simply
indicating to that person that you have heard and understood their needs,
desires and concerns.
• Once the interests have been identified, brainstorming can be used to
identify as many options as possible.
• You may find it effective to talk about interests before you talk about
potential solutions. If you start with a potential solution (your position)
and then try to justify why the solution is appropriate given your
interests, the other negotiator may be less able to hear your interests and
generate options than if you start the discussion by identifying both sets of
interests and then explore possible solutions together.
9
TIPS
• focus on the interests behind positions
• know your own interests
• try to find out the other side’s interest
• ask “why” and “why not” to get at others’ interests
• ask others how they will be better off if their positions are accepted
• try to avoid taking positions at the start of the negotiation; instead, try
to find solutions that meet underlying interests
• brainstorm options that may meet interests
• set ground rules during brainstorming: no commitment to options and
no criticism of options
10
MAKING ASSUMPTIONS2
Some of us are too quick to make assumptions in negotiations. When we do, we risk
that:
• we may be wrong
• others may be put off by our making assumptions
• we may close our mind to other possibilities.
We tend to look for evidence that supports our assumptions, and we see facts so as to
support our assumptions. In order to avoid the dangers inherent in making
assumptions, we can try to:
• keep an open mind
• continually test assumptions that we are making
• ask whether our assumptions are valid.
TIPS
• try to avoid making assumptions
• test your hypothesis to see whether your assumptions are valid.
2 © 2002 Stitt Feld Handy Group. This material may not be reproduced without the permission ofthe Stitt Feld Handy Group. C01022
11
SALES AND COLD CALLING3
In sales, you may have to try to sell to someone who doesn’t want to talk to you; that is,
you may have to make a cold call. People you are trying to sell to may be:
• busy
• in a hurry
• disinterested
You will need strategies that encourage the other person to stay and listen to your pitch.
You may want to consider the following:
• Find out what they need rather than telling them what you are selling.
The days of making a pitch and waiting for the order are over. The pitch
has to meet the clients’ needs.
• Be careful making assumptions about what your clients want and need.
The consequences of being wrong are too great.
• Consider starting your pitch by inviting the potential customers to
indicate that they in fact do not need or want the product. Tell them that
if your product or service is not for then, they should tell you right away
so that you don’t waste their time. Your invitation may be perceived as
refreshing and it may encourage them to listen. They will often respond
by asking what it is you are selling.
• People usually don’t like to feel pressured. While some will make
decisions because they feel as though they are in a corner, others will react
negatively to being forced to decide.
• People often do, however, work better when there are fixed time frames.
Provided the constraints are not so tight that they feel pressured, letting
them know that there are consequences to making no decision may force
their hand.
• People prefer to work with people they trust. If you are not scrupulously
honest, you will not be trusted and it will likely be harder to make a sale. 3 © 2002 Stitt Feld Handy Group. This material may not be reproduced without the permission ofthe Stitt Feld Handy Group. C01022
12
• People like freebies. Customers often appreciate gifts, no matter how
small. People sometimes feel obligated to give you an order if they
believe you have given them a gift with no guarantee of anything in
return.
• People appreciate it when you spend a lot of time with them and do extra
work to answer their questions and help them. If you show that you want
to help them, they may feel an obligation to try to help you. If you are
busy and don’t have a lot of time for them, do not expect them to have a
lot of time for you.
• People appreciate kindness. If you are sensitive to the fact that the people
you are trying to sell to are human beings, with feelings and time
constraints, they may be more open to what you have to say.
• People appreciate it when you have taken the time to learn about them.
Read their promotional material, have a look at their website, and show
them that you care about their business.
• Try to speak to decision-makers, but people don’t usually like being told
who in their organization should hear your pitch. You may be more
successful speaking to the person or people whose job it is to hear your
pitch.
• You may want to pause during your presentation to give your client the
opportunity to interject and ask questions. People have a tendency to stop
listening if they are not speaking as well as listening.
• It sometimes requires a number of attempts before people say yes. Some
people need time to think about whether they really need what it is you
are selling. Follow-up can be crucial.
• People prefer to deal with other people who are reliable. If you say you
will call back on a particular day and you do not call, you may be
perceived as unreliable.
• Some people discount everything that is said by someone who arrives late
for a meeting. Your tardiness can prevent you from making a sale that
you would otherwise have made.
13
TIPS
• ask questions first and pitch after
• give them the freedom to say no to you
• give people what they want, not what you are selling
• be on time, reliable, and scrupulously honest
• be generous with your time and, where feasible, be generous with token
gifts, even when you may not make a sale.
14
SPEAKING PERSUASIVELY4
We all want to be persuasive in negotiation. Usually, we tell others why we are right
and they are wrong. Unfortunately, telling others why they are wrong and should
agree with us is often the least effective way to be persuasive. To be more persuasive,
you may want to consider the following:
• Be open to be persuaded. If you want others to be open to be persuaded
by you, you need to show that you are open to be persuaded by them.
• Find out others’ concerns and try to address those concerns rather than
explaining why you are right and they are wrong. People are more likely
to be persuaded if their concerns are met.
• Try to remain curious. People do not hold beliefs that they know to be
irrational. Their positions make sense to them. Once you understand the
information they have and the way they interpret it, you are in a better
position to try to alter the way in which they interpret the information.
• Demonstrate that you have understood what the other person has said
before you share your differing viewpoint. If you listen to them, they may
be more likely to listen to you.
• Try to think about the message you want to send (the content), how to
send it (the form), and how the message might be heard.
• If you have something that you wish to say, try to frame it in a way that
the other negotiator can hear your message. Try to avoid questions that
are really statements in disguise and ask questions for the purpose of
obtaining information.
TIPS
• be open to be persuaded
• show that you are listening to them so that they will be encouraged to
listen to you
4 © 2002 Stitt Feld Handy Group. This material may not be reproduced without the permission ofthe Stitt Feld Handy Group. C01022
15
EFFECTIVE LISTENING5
Whether you negotiate in person, over the phone, or by e-mail, you are communicating.
Negotiation is communication for the purpose of exploring whether people can do
something together that is better than what they can do on their own. Better
communicators are usually better negotiators.
People often try to communicate by arguing why they are right. Often, however, telling
someone why you are right is the least effective way to persuade.
If you want to persuade someone, you will want to first understand how that person
sees the situation. Once you fully understand the other persons’ perceptions, you will
be better equipped to change them. Also, you may be more persuasive if you listen first
and then speak. To be an effective negotiator you will need to be an effective listener.
The benefits of effective listening are that it:
• allows you to gather important information about the other negotiator’s
interests, needs, concerns and feelings
• allows other negotiators to know that they have been heard
• builds trust between you and other negotiators
• helps to establish respectful relationships
• encourages disclosure
• provides an opportunity for venting
• provides other negotiators with the opportunity to hear how their
message is being received
• models the behaviour you would like the other negotiators to exhibit
when you speak
• allows you to determine whether you have correctly understood other
negotiators
• reduces other negotiators’ need to repeat arguments
5 © 2002 Stitt Feld Handy Group. This material may not be reproduced without the permission ofthe Stitt Feld Handy Group. C01022
16
INTERACTIVE LISTENING
“Interactive listening” involves listening by interacting with the other person – listening
by interacting in a way that allows the other person to feel heard and understood. The
techniques for interactive listening include:
• Using Open Body Language or Other Non-Verbal Clues
• Using Prompters
• Asking Clarifying Questions
• Restating or Paraphrasing
• Identifying Feelings
• Acknowledging Underlying Values
USING OPEN BODY LANGUAGE OR OTHER NON-VERBAL CLUES
We send messages with body language and we may want to consider the messages that
we send. For example:
• If we cross our arms and our legs, we may suggest that we do not agree
with what the other person is saying, even though that may not be the
message we want to send.
• The amount of direct eye contact we make may suggest to others the
extent of our sincerity.
• Our facial expressions may suggest to others that we disagree with what
they are saying.
• If we use open body language, that may suggest to others that we are
interested and listening.
USING PROMPTERS
Prompters are simple verbal cues you can use to encourage the other negotiator to say
more. They include comments such as:
• uh huh
• I see
• go on
• tell me more about that
17
ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS
You ask questions for the purpose of clarifying information provided by the other
person. They are genuine attempts to obtain information, as opposed to questions
asked for the purpose of persuading. Examples of clarifying questions could include:
• You said that you have data that suggests that your salary is too low, what
data do you have?
• Does the guarantee cover dents to the car?
RESTATING OR PARAPHRASING
Restating or paraphrasing is repeating, in your own words, what you have heard the
other person say, and checking with the other person to make sure that you have
correctly captured his or her comments. Examples of paraphrasing could include:
• It sounds as though the three major issues you feel we should discuss
today are: the completion dates for the different stages of the project, who
will be responsible for supervision, and cost, is that right?
• Let me make sure I understand you correctly, you are saying that any
agreement we reach today would have to include a provision that protects
you should we not be able to honour our promissory note, is that right?
IDENTIFYING FEELINGS
People sometimes become emotional during a negotiation. The other negotiator may
become angry, frustrated, upset or offended, for example. Identifying the feelings and
acknowledging that you have recognized that those feelings exist lets other negotiators
know that you are paying attention to their emotional responses as well as the content
of what they are saying. This may provide other negotiators with an opportunity to
manage their emotions so that the focus can return to the substantive issues. How and
when you choose to identify emotions in a negotiation will depend upon:
• your personal style
• your relationship with the other person
• your assessment of what might be helpful to the other person
• the circumstances in which the negotiation is taking place
18
Some examples of how you might identify the other negotiator’s emotions include:
• It made you angry when I did not acknowledge how hard you had
worked to complete the report on time, is that right?
• Would it be fair to say that you were frustrated by the response you
received from us when you raised your concerns?
ACKNOWLEDGING UNDERLYING VALUES
Each of us has underlying values which guide our behaviour. We also interpret the
behaviour of others according to whether it aligns with our values. Examples of
underlying values include:
• a desire to be treated fairly
• a desire to act with integrity
• the belief that one should contribute to those who are less fortunate.
Often, people in negotiation believe that one of their underlying values has been
violated. Frequently, however, people talk about the offending behaviour which
violated the value without expressing the underlying value. For example, a negotiator
may argue that you are posturing and being unreasonable. The underlying value may
be that it is important to the negotiator that people negotiate in good faith. It can be
helpful in a negotiation to acknowledge the other person’s underlying values that are
not being stated. An example of a statement designed to acknowledge an underlying
value is:
• When you say that you have been unfairly treated by the company, it
sounds like it’s important to you that people treat each other with respect,
is that right?”
19
TIPS
• try to listen interactively when the other person says something that you
disagree with or want to argue about
• try to show others that you are listening by interacting with them
• try to use open body language
• use prompters, paraphrase, ask clarifying questions, and acknowledge
their emotions
• try to determine the underlying value in what they are saying and ask
them whether you have accurately determined the value
• try to show that you have heard before you respond.
20
DEALING WITH AN INFLEXIBLE BUREAUCRAT6
When negotiating with inflexible bureaucrats, you may encounter a number of
challenges:
• They may have limited time to deal with your concerns.
• You may be perceived as simply one in a sea of abundant clients.
• They may have partisan perceptions of you and your problem, in the
sense that they may, without adequate information or reflection, unfairly
pigeonhole you and your problem into a category of clients or problems
that they have dealt with in the past.
• They may see little or no consequence to not making you happy.
• Because you may have to negotiate over the telephone rather than in
person:
• there may be opportunities for miscommunication;
• you may not be able to pick up on the other negotiator’s
non-verbal cues;
• it may be more difficult to establish a rapport;
• it may be easier for the person you are dealing with to exit
the negotiation by hanging up the telephone.
There is no magic formula for dealing with these challenges; however, there are basic
strategies you may consider using. Each of the strategies has risks and benefits and
deciding which strategy to use involves weighing the risks and benefits. If the first
strategy you try does not succeed, you may want to try a different strategy.
Consider the benefits and risks of the following strategies.
6 © 2002 Stitt Feld Handy Group. This material may not be reproduced without the permission ofthe Stitt Feld Handy Group. C01022
21
GOING TO THE SUPERIOR
Benefits:
• Asking to speak to a superior may shift the negotiation to another person
who can override the subordinate’s decision.
• The superior may be more reasonable than the subordinate.
• The superior may have more authority to deal with the problem than the
subordinate.
• The superior may care more about keeping clients happy.
Risks:
• The subordinate could perceive your request to speak to a superior as a
threat.
• The superior may be removed from the details of the situation.
• Superiors often do not like to override the decisions of subordinates. The
superior may try to defend the actions of the subordinate.
• You may get sidetracked into a debate about whether the subordinate
acted reasonably rather than a discussion focused on finding a solution
that meets your needs.
• The superior may be more difficult to deal with than the subordinate.
• The superior may have less time and be less open to dealing with the
problem than the subordinate.
TRYING TO ESTABLISH A POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INFLEXIBLE
BUREAUCRAT BY BEING POLITE AND RESPECTFUL
Benefits:
• You may get more with honey than with vinegar. It may be difficult for
people to agree with you if they perceive you as unpleasant.
• Front line service people have to deal with impatient and rude people all
the time and they do not like it. You stand out from the crowd when you
are polite and respectful. This may set you up for special treatment.
• People tend to agree with others when they believe others are acting
reasonably. Being polite and respectful sends the message that you are
reasonable and that what you are asking for is reasonable.
22
Risks:
• Some people see politeness and respectfulness as a sign of weakness. They
may think that they can bully you.
THREATS
Benefits:
• The inflexible bureaucrat might be intimidated and give in.
Risks:
• People who are threatened often react by threatening back or by trying to
exit the situation. A threat can put an end to a negotiation or create an
unproductive exchange of threats.
• Threatening others may make it more difficult for them to listen to you
and be sympathetic to you and your situation.
• Your threat may be perceived as unreasonable. That unreasonableness
may taint everything you say.
• Threatening can damage a relationship and prevent inflexible bureaucrats
from considering options that they otherwise might have considered.
EXAGGERATING OR STRETCHING THE TRUTH
Benefits:
• You might get more attention if the bureaucrat thinks your situation is
worse than it really is.
• You may be able to trick the bureaucrat into giving you what you want.
Risks:
• Lies are often easier to discover than liars think.
• If inflexible bureaucrats think you are exaggerating or lying, they may
stop trusting you. Everything that you say may appear suspect, including
your story, your concerns, and your positions.
• If the inflexible bureaucrat believes that you are exaggerating, the person
may also perceive you as unreasonable, with an unreasonable story and
23
unreasonable demands. Inflexible bureaucrats do not like to say yes to
people they perceive as unreasonable.
• Inflexible bureaucrats may believe that you are trying to take advantage of
them if they believe you are exaggerating. Your reasonable position could
get lost in the emotion you create by the exaggerating or lying.
• If you are found to have exaggerated, the inflexible bureaucrat may not
want to negotiate with you and may try to end the negotiation.
FOCUSING ON WHAT IS FAIR
Benefits:
• Most people want to be fair, be perceived as fair and do what is fair. If
people believe that what you are asking for is fair, they are more likely to
want to try to help you.
• It is harder for the inflexible bureaucrat to walk away from the negotiation
if you are asking to be treated fairly.
• You can use fairness as an objective standard for determining which
option should be accepted.
Risks:
• Different people have different perceptions of what is fair. Their
perception of what is fair may be very different from yours.
• You may be perceived as being on your “high horse”.
• Some people are more interested in what is in it for them and those they
work for than what is fair. They may decide to do what is good for them
even if it is unfair.
PROVIDING INFORMATION
Benefits:
• If you make a demand before others understand the problem, they may
have a knee-jerk rejection of your suggestion. Providing information can
help them to understand your problem and may help them to identify
possible solutions.
24
• An inflexible bureaucrat may pigeonhole you and your problem.
Information may help the inflexible bureaucrat classify the situation and
get you out of a pigeonhole. You might even be able to convince the other
person that your situation is unique and that it does not fit into a
preconceived pigeonhole.
Risks:
• Providing information takes time; you might be able to get what you want
without a detailed story.
• The information you are providing may not seem relevant or useful to
inflexile bureaucrats. As a result, they may become frustrated or stop
listening.
• If you provide too much detailed information, the inflexible bureaucrat
may not be able to see the forest for the trees.
DIRECTING THE INFLEXIBLE BUREAUCRAT TO WHAT YOU THINK IS THE
RIGHT ANSWER
Benefits:
• The inflexible bureaucrat might agree with you.
• Telling the inflexible bureaucrat what the right answer is can send a clear
message about what you think and what you are prepared to accept.
• Saying what you want conveys confidence and may give you credibility.
• Being direct can save time.
Risks:
• People do not like to be told what to do and what the right answer is, even
if the answer is a good one. Sometimes they need to be able to come to the
answer themselves before they see it as credible.
• When you give inflexible bureaucrats the “right answer”, they are faced
with a choice: agreeing or disagreeing. By forcing them to make the
choice, you run the risk that they may say no and exit from the
25
negotiation. It may be too early in the negotiation to force the inflexible
bureaucrat’s hand.
ASKING THE INFLEXIBLE BUREAUCRAT QUESTIONS THAT MAY LEAD THEM
TO THE ANSWER, RATHER THAN TELLING THEM WHAT THEY SHOULD DO
Benefits:
• People are more likely to want to implement a solution if they think they
came up with it.
• You appear to be less pushy and more reasonable.
Risks:
• An indirect route can take more time.
• You may appear to be confused, unprepared and tentative.
• You may send the message that the problem is not as important to you as
it really is.
• Some inflexible bureaucrats may not be able to come to solutions on their
own.
• Asking questions may appear to be patronizing.
FOCUSING ON WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG
Benefits:
• You may be able to convince the inflexible bureaucrat that you are right.
• Since most people want to do the right thing, if you are right, the inflexible
bureaucrat may be more inclined to say yes to you.
• If the “wrong” person is somebody other than the inflexible bureaucrat,
you may be able to shift the blame to that third party.
• There may be no way of resolving the matter without focusing on who is
right and who is wrong.
Risks:
• Few people like to admit that they are wrong.
• Even if you do not mean to criticize or attack inflexible bureaucrats, they
may perceive your focus on who is right and who is wrong as criticisms or
26
attacks. Suggesting to inflexible bureaucrats that they have made
mistakes may make them more resistant to everything you propose.
• Focusing on who is right and who is wrong focuses the discussion on the
past. Solutions are usually found in the present and in the future.
Focussing on the past can put distance between you and a discussion
about solutions.
USING SILENCE
Benefits:
• Being silent encourages others to talk and to provide information.
• When people are thinking through issues, they sometimes need time to
think. Silence can give them that opportunity.
Risks:
• If used at the wrong time, silence may be seen as a negotiation tactic by
others.
• If you are silent when an answer is expected of you, others may become
frustrated, may believe you are trying to make something up, may see you
as confused and unmotivated, or may simply believe, in the case of a
telephone negotiation, that you have hung up.
BRAINSTORMING POSSIBLE OPTIONS WITH AN INFLEXIBLE BUREAUCRAT
Benefits:
• Brainstorming may lead you to solutions you had not considered.
• There are often many solutions to a problem and some of these solutions
are frequently better than others. It is not uncommon, however, for
people to miss an elegant option because they have failed to generate all
of the possible options. Brainstorming can increase the likelihood of
exploring all of the potential options.
• Brainstorming can help change the direction of a negotiation. It can help
pivot the negotiation into a discussion of options and away from who is
right and who is wrong.
• Brainstorming can create an environment of joint problem solving.
27
Risks:
• Brainstorming requires more time than focusing directly on a particular or
limited number of solutions. If you are dealing with people who are tired,
busy, and want to resolve issues as quickly as possible, brainstorming
might annoy them.
• You may be perceived as not knowing what you want.
• An inflexible bureaucrat may see your request to brainstorm as
patronizing.
PUTTING THE ONUS ON THE INFLEXIBLE BUREAUCRAT TO FIND A
SOLUTION
Benefits:
• Playing to the expertise of inflexible bureaucrats can empower them and
give them the sense of controlling the situation. The perception that they
are in control may encourage them to continue the negotiation, and
perhaps find a solution to the problem.
• The inflexible bureaucrat may know of solutions that you have not
considered.
• If inflexible bureaucrats come up with a solution, they may be more likely
to want to implement it.
• Inflexible bureaucrats may have an understanding of the situation that
you do not have. Hearing their view may provide you with important
information.
Risks:
• You may appear not to know what you want.
• The inflexible bureaucrat may not care enough to find a solution.
• You may not like the solution that the inflexible bureaucrat proposes.
• If inflexible bureaucrats believe that you share some blame for your
predicament, they might believe that you should share some
responsibility of finding a solution.
28
KNOWING YOUR AUDIENCE
Benefits:
• If you understand how inflexible bureaucrats see things, you may be able
to predict how they will react. You may be able to put yourself in their
shoes, ask yourself how they are likely to react to what you are about to
say or do, and then ask yourself whether that is the reaction you want. For
example:
• Will asking to speak to a superior be perceived as a threat?
• If you suggest to inflexible bureaucrats that they are under stress, will
they see this as a suggestion that they were wrong?
• If you praise the inflexible bureaucrat, will you appear patronizing?
• It forces you to see the negotiation from the inflexible bureaucrat’s
perspective. The first step in building a strategy to get somebody to
change their mind is to understand how they see the problem.
• It may help you to anticipate challenges in the negotiation. If you know
what to expect, you will likely be better prepared.
Risks:
• You may become so focused on the inflexible bureaucrat’s perspective that
you lose sight of your agenda and what is important to you.
FOCUSING ON THE POSITIVE
Benefits:
• People like to deal with others who are positive.
• By recognizing the positive things that the inflexible bureaucrat does, you
may appear more reasonable. People like to agree with those they
consider reasonable.
• Inflexible bureaucrats may be less likely to exit the negotiation if they hear
positive things.
Risks:
• You may appear to be patronizing.
• You may be perceived as weak and unfocused.
29
• It may leave the inflexible bureaucrat with the impression that you were
not treated as unfairly as you believe you were.
FOCUSING ON INTERESTS
Benefits:
• People tend to act in their best interest or in the best interest of the
organization they represent. If inflexible bureaucrats understand how a
solution or a course of action is in their best interest, they may be more
likely to accept it.
• Understanding inflexible bureaucrats’ interests may help you come up
with solutions that they can accept. If you know their interests, you will
have a better sense of which solutions are likely to be attractive to them
and which are not.
• Helping inflexible bureaucrats understand your interests may help them
understand what is important to you and why.
• If inflexible bureaucrats understand your interests, they are more likely to
understand your position.
Risks:
• Understanding and finding underlying interests may take time.
• If you focus on your interests, inflexible bureaucrats may be encouraged
to focus on theirs. This may lead them to reject solutions they might
otherwise have accepted were they not as focused on all of their interests.
CHALLENGING THE RULE
Benefits:
• Where inflexible bureaucrats invoke a rule to justify a course of action,
challenging the legitimacy of the rule may get them to reconsider whether
they should apply the rule to your situation.
• It may be possible to challenge the application of the rule to your
circumstance without challenging the rule itself. You may be able to argue
that the rule is appropriate but it simply does not apply to your
circumstances.
30
• You may be able to convince the inflexible bureaucrat that applying the
rule to your situation defeats the purpose behind the rule.
• The person you are dealing with may not like the rule.
Risks:
• The person you are dealing with may have no discretion to disregard the
rule and may be annoyed and frustrated by the discussion.
• The inflexible bureaucrat may hide behind the rule and lose the desire to
help you.
FOCUSING ON STANDARDS OF LEGITIMACY
Benefits:
• If you can demonstrate that your solution fits with objective standards,
you may be able to persuade inflexible bureaucrats to implement your
solution because they may perceive it as fair.
Risks:
• If you have decided that you want more than what is fair in the
negotiation, focusing on standards of legitimacy may focus the inflexible
bureaucrat away from your goal.
• Inflexible bureaucrats may have other standards that they can refer to that
do not support your preferred solution.
• Finding and comparing standards may take a lot of time.
KNOWING AND UNDERSTANDING THE VALUE OF YOUR BEST
ALTERNATIVE TO A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT (BATNA)7
Benefits:
• Your BATNA is what you will do if you cannot reach an agreement.
Knowing your BATNA provides you with something to measure against
potential solution. If the solution proposed is better than your BATNA,
you should agree to it. If not, you should reject it in favour of your
BATNA.
7 Fisher Roger and William Ury, Getting To Yes, Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Penguin Books,New York, 1981
31
• Knowing your BATNA helps you to assess whether to accept or reject a
potential solution.
• You may appear more confident in the negotiation if you know and
understand what you will do if you do not reach an agreement.
Risks:
• You may cave in too early (say yes to the first thing that is better than your
BATNA) and not push to get the best possible deal.
• You may appear nervous if you know that the result of walking away
from the negotiation is bad for you.
TIPS
When dealing with inflexible bureaucrats:
• try to find solutions that meet their interests
• try to be polite, respectful, and establish a positive relationship
• show that you understand their constraints and are open to creative
solutions
• treat them as experts and create a challenge for them to find a solution
to your dilemma
• know what you will do if they refuse to help you
32
NEGOTIATION TENDENCIES8
Every negotiator has a unique style. If we were to examine styles closely, however, we
would notice that many people in negotiations exhibit common tendencies. People may
be analytical, seek justice, seek results, avoid hostility, or focus on relationships.
Most negotiators possess a combination of tendencies, and while they will usually have
a dominant tendency that will take over in most of their negotiations, they will likely
have different tendencies dominate in different situations. While some of us are aware
of our dominant tendencies, others are unaware of how they are perceived in
negotiations. If you become more conscious of your negotiating style, you can draw on
the advantages and minimize the disadvantages of your style.
In addition to knowing your own negotiation tendencies, it can be helpful to be aware
of the tendencies that other negotiators exhibit. The other negotiator may have different
dominant tendencies or the same dominant tendencies as you.
When reviewing the advantages and disadvantages associated with the tendencies
(listed below), please note that the advantages and disadvantages relate to an
individual tendency and not an individual negotiator.
PEOPLE WHO HAVE A TENDENCY TO BE ANALYTICAL
Advantages
The advantages enjoyed by people who have a tendency to be analytical may include an
ability to:
• identify issues
• identify symptoms of a problem
• deal rationally with issues
• work efficiently and quickly
• separate people from the problem
8 © 2002 Stitt Feld Handy Group. This material may not be reproduced without the permission ofthe Stitt Feld Handy Group. C01022
33
• have creative and flexible thought processes
• be good at organizing
Disadvantages
The disadvantages may include an inability to:
• deal well with emotions
• arrive at a fair outcome
• listen effectively
• be sensitive to concerns of others
• step back and see the big picture
• consider that there may be many possible good solutions
• conclude negotiations quickly
PEOPLE WHO HAVE A TENDENCY TO SEEK JUSTICE
Advantages
The advantages enjoyed by people who seek justice may include an ability to:
• improve relationships
• defend results
• remain open-minded
• negotiate with a clear conscience
• accept merits of others’ positions
• maintain a good reputation
Disadvantages
The disadvantages may include an inability to:
• be perceived as strong negotiators
• conclude a negotiation quickly
• be open to others’ assessment of fairness
• get the best substantive deal
34
PEOPLE WHO HAVE A TENDENCY TO SEEK RESULTS
Advantages
The advantages enjoyed by people who seek results may include an ability to:
• get good results
• be focused and well-prepared
• be satisfied with results
• appear persistent and tenacious
• have a strong reputation with clients and constituents
• conclude the negotiation quickly
Disadvantages
The disadvantages may include an inability to:
• take into account others’ concerns
• hear others’ ideas
• maintain a good relationship during and after the negotiation
• reach a deal at all, even when there are deals that can be reached
PEOPLE WHO HAVE A TENDENCY TO AVOID HOSTILITY
Advantages
The advantages enjoyed by people who avoid hostility may include an ability to:
• anticipate problems before they arise
• be open to new ideas
• emphasize the positive
• avoid getting locked into positions
• maintain (or even improve) relationships
• learn about the concerns and interests of others
Disadvantages
The disadvantages may include an inability to:
• deal with issues that need to be addressed
• defend one’s own position, interests and objectives
• negotiate effectively with a tough bargainer
• avoid making inappropriate concessions
35
• investigate all of the options
• avoid a damaging blow-up at the end of the negotiation
• be perceived as strong
PEOPLE WHO HAVE A TENDENCY TO FOCUS ON RELATIONSHIP
Advantages
The advantages enjoyed by people who focus on relationships may include an ability to:
• take long-term view of situations and relationships
• encourage others to communicate
• enhance trust
• maintain credibility and a good relationship
• anticipate needs of others
• negotiate with less stress
Disadvantages
The disadvantages may include an inability to:
• protect oneself from being taken advantage of
• focus on the problem rather than on the emotion
• negotiate without being exploited
• bargain without making concessions
• negotiate effectively when there is no on-going relationship.
TIPS
• know your dominant tendencies and their advantages
• try to protect yourself from the disadvantage of your dominant tendencies
• know that others may have different dominant tendencies than you
• try to assess their dominant tendencies
• try, however, not to stereotype people as having only one tendency
36
MAKING THE FIRST OFFER OR PUTTING FORWARD THE FIRST
NUMBER9
Most people prefer to receive rather than make the first offer. Advantages of receiving
the first number (receiving the first offer) include:
• you learn information about how the other side sees the situation
• you can gauge whether a deal is likely to be reached
• you get a sense of what kind of offer you should make
• the offer may be very good - better than what would have been your first
offer
• it feels more comfortable to receive rather than give information
Disadvantages of making the first offer include:
• it could be too generous and the other side may accept it
• it may be perceived as too extreme and the other side may react angrily
and walk out
On the other hand, there are benefits to putting forward the first number or making the
first offer. They include:
• you set the “playing field,” the zone in which the discussion will focus
• because most people like to receive the first number, you can avoid the
awkward and time-consuming phase of negotiation where both sides wait
for the other to put forward a number
• you can control the process in the way you make the offer by, for example,
justifying your offer based on objective criteria and thereby encouraging
others to justify their offers
9 © 2002 Stitt Feld Handy Group. This material may not be reproduced without the permission ofthe Stitt Feld Handy Group. C01022
37
Disadvantages of receiving the first number include:
• the other side may never make an offer
• you sacrifice control of the negotiation
If you are going to put forward the first number, you may consider:
• putting it forward as an option rather than as a demand or even an offer
• avoiding starting with a “final offer”
• putting forward the number based on objective criteria and asking
whether the criteria are accurate
• expressing that you are open to be persuaded that the offer is not fair
People usually like to engage in the “negotiation dance” and make some counter-offers,
so it can be dangerous to have your first offer be your best offer. One idea is to start by
looking at all of the possible offers that you could reasonable argue are fair, and
choosing the one that is the best for you.
TIPS
• consider the benefits of putting forward the first number or first offer
on a negotiation
• leave room in your first offer for the negotiation dance
• try to justify your offers based on objective criteria
38
HOW MUCH INFORMATION SHOULD YOU SHARE?10
Deciding whether to share a piece of information with the other side involves
measuring the risks and benefits of sharing the information. People often withhold
more information than they should in a negotiation and when thinking about whether
to disclose information, you may want to consider:
� • There are benefits to sharing information about your needs in the
negotiation. People negotiate to try to satisfy needs that they have going
into the negotiation. It will be difficult for others to come up with
settlement options to satisfy your needs if they do not know those needs.
• Disclosure of information is not the same as agreeing to do something.
People often decide on the answer in negotiation (their position) before
they understand the needs of the other negotiators. An exchange about
what each side needs at the beginning of the negotiation can result in a
better, more creative, and durable deal that meets both sides’ needs.
• If you have information that is damaging to you, you have no obligation
to disclose it, and you can get a deal without revealing it, you may be
better off not revealing it.
• Before deciding to withhold information from the other side, you may
want to think about the importance of the relationship. Some people with
on-going and long-standing relationships expect you to make full
disclosure, and may become angry if they later learn that you withheld
information.
• Consider how the situation would appear to others if they find out later
about the information that you withheld. If that prospect worries you,
you may choose to disclose the information.
• If your BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) is worse
than the other side thinks, you may want to avoid revealing it to the other
side. Once others know your BATNA, they will only have to craft an offer
10 © 2002 Stitt Feld Handy Group. This material may not be reproduced without the permission ofthe Stitt Feld Handy Group. C01022
39
that is slightly better for you than your BATNA in order for you to
logically accept it. You may want to share your BATNA with the other
side only if, in your opinion, it is better than the other side believes it to
be.
TIPS
• consider the value of sharing information about your interests and
needs
• think about the possible consequences if the other side discovers
information that you chose not to share
• consider keeping your BATNA confidential if it is worse than the other
side thinks it is.
40
IS IT IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO APPEAR TO BE REASONABLE?3
When others perceive that you are threatening or perceive that you are not being
reasonable, they may hide information from you, be more reticent to make offers to
you, and consider the information you provide and your positions to be suspect.
People like to deal with and agree with people they perceive to be reasonable. If you
give them the impression that you are reasonable and fair, they may be more open to
consider your ideas and may be more willing to share information with you.
Most people perceive that they themselves are fair and reasonable. The challenge is to
persuade others that you are fair and reasonable.
In order to appear reasonable, you may want to:
• Be prepared to justify any offers you make. Reasonable people are able to
explain their positions logically and rationally. If you take a position or
make an offer that is arbitrary, others are less likely to perceive you as
reasonable.
• Treat others with respect and dignity. Reasonable people treat others
appropriately. Treat others the way you want them to treat you. Model
the behaviour you expect of others and you will encourage them to exhibit
that behaviour.
• Avoid taking unfair advantage of others. Reasonable people do not push
others around or take advantage of them. If you search for a deal that is
fair to you and fair to others, they are more likely to consider agreeing
with what you perceive to be fair.
• Listen to all the arguments and points of view before making up your
mind. Reasonable people know that they can make mistakes. If you show
yourself to be open to be persuaded, others are more likely to be open to
be persuaded by you.
3 © 2002 Stitt Feld Handy Group. This material may not be reproduced without the permission ofthe Stitt Feld Handy Group. C01022
41
• Be prepared to discuss options that you may not be prepared to accept.
Reasonable people make a distinction between what they are prepared to
discuss and what agreements they are prepared to make. Just because
you are discussing something does not mean that you will do it. If you
can leave commitment until the end of the negotiation and discuss issues
that are uncomfortable for you, others may be more open to discuss the
options that are uncomfortable for them.
TIPS
• to appear reasonable, justify offers that you make
• try to treat others with respect, and listen before you speak
• show that you are open to be persuaded
42
SHOULD YOU MISLEAD IN NEGOTIATION?11
We make promises during negotiations. Should we always follow through on our
promises or are there situations in which we should not do what we have said we
would do? If we are deceptive, lie, mislead, or defect from our agreement, that may get
us better short term results, but it could produce worse long term results and harm our
reputations.
THE PRISONER’S DILEMMA
Assume the following:
A murder is committed and the police suspect that two men committed
the crime together. The police have only enough evidence to convict each
of the suspects of “attempted murder”, a less serious crime. If convicted
of attempted murder, each suspect would go to jail for a short period of
time. The punishment for murder is a significant jail term. The two
suspects are arrested and separated from each other. In their separate
rooms, each is advised of the same offer: if one provides the information
necessary to convict the other of murder, the person who provides the
information will go free and the other person will receive the significant
jail term for murder; if both suspects implicate each other, both suspects
will receive the significant jail term. If neither suspect implicates the
other, each will receive the short jail term. Each criminal is told that the
other has been offered the same deal. The two suspects get a chance to
talk, and they promise each other that they will not tell the police the
information that would implicate the other.
This type of situation is what is known as a Prisoner’s Dilemma. The choice for each
accused is to “cooperate” with his co-accused and carry through with the agreement not
to talk to the police, or to defect from the agreement and provide the information to the
police. 11 © 2002 Stitt Feld Handy Group. This material may not be reproduced without the permission ofthe Stitt Feld Handy Group. C01022
43
Because this is a one-time negotiation, likely not to be repeated, one may assume that it
make sense for an accused to defect from the agreement and talk to the police. Yet if
both suspects choose this path, they will both go to jail for a long time. If they stick to
their agreement, they only go to jail for a short time. A Prisoner’s Dilemma can be a
one-time event (such as the example set out above), or a continuing series of events. An
example of the latter would be as follows:
Every month, you purchase gold from an international and potentially
disreputable jeweler in a foreign country. The way that you buy the gold
is that you are supposed to mail the cash to the jeweler on the same day
that the jeweler is supposed to mail the gold to you. If either of you does
not mail what you are supposed to, the other has no recourse, even
though you and the jeweler have agreed to mail each other on the same
day every month. (You agree to mail cash and the jeweler agrees to mail
the gold.) Each month, you must decide whether to cooperate with the
jeweler or defect from the agreement.
The decision each month of whether to stick with the agreement (cooperate) or defect is
impacted by the fact that both you and the jeweler know that this is not a one-time
negotiation, and your conduct will impact what the jeweler does next month. Does it
make sense to break your promise if you are in the last month of the agreement?
Perhaps yes, since you get the gold without paying for it, and there is no opportunity
for the jeweler to retaliate. But could you ever know for sure that you would never deal
with the jeweler again?
When we decide in a negotiation whether to be honest and whether to follow through
on agreements we have made, one of the factors we will have to consider whether a
decision to be deceptive, lie, or defect from an agreement will impact what the other
person does in future negotiations with us. In other words, we have to assess whether
the negotiation is a one-time event.
44
ONE-TIME NEGOTIATIONS
Deciding whether to treat a particular situation as a one-time negotiation may therefore
impact our decision about whether to deceive or stick to our word. Negotiators who
treat negotiations as one-time occurrences may:
• miss out on opportunities to develop the best solution
• encounter problems implementing the agreement reached
• undermine opportunities for future dealings
• create unnecessary tension or mistrust
Negotiators who treat negotiations as part of a series of dealings may:
• be taken advantage of in the short term
• give up current gains for the prospect of potential future gains that may
not arise
The vast majority of negotiations are not one-time events. If there may be future
negotiations with the same negotiator or if there may be issues with respect to the
implementation of what has been agreed, a negotiator will be taking a significant risk
by assuming that the negotiation is a one-time event.
Even if you decide the negotiation is a one-time event, that does not mean that lying or
deceiving is your best course of action. Lying may harm your reputation so that
negotiations with others will be adversely impacted. We rely on our reputations when
we negotiate, and when people trust us, we can achieve results that we cannot achieve
when they don’t trust us.
Also, some people are not comfortable with the ethics of lying and being deceptive.
Their morals do not allow them to lie, even if they are convinced that a negotiation is a
one-time event. Being able to sleep at night and look at yourself in the mirror may be
more important to you than economic gain.
That said, if you never defect from an agreement (even after the other side has
defected), others who are less scrupulous may continually take advantage of you. So
what is the best strategy?
45
STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH THE PRISONER’S DILEMMA
There have been studies that have explored different approaches to a Prisoner’s
Dilemma that is not a one-time event. Robert Alexrod12 conducted linked computer
tournaments in an attempt to determine a successful strategy in deciding whether to
deceive or cooperate when one is faced with a repeating Prisoner’s Dilemma. He
concluded that the most effective strategy is one of “Tit for Tat”. That strategy involves
starting by cooperating and then defecting from an agreement only after (and
immediately after) the other side deceives you and defects. In his article, “The
Evolution of Cooperation” Alexrod has four suggestions for doing well in these
situations:
1. Don't be envious.
2. Don't be the first to defect (or to deceive).
3. Reciprocate both cooperation and deception/defection.
4. Don't try to be too clever.
1. Don't be envious
For you to “win” a negotiation, you need not always “beat” the other
person. Being envious (i.e., demanding that your outcome be the same as
or better than the other side's) can undermine your ability to achieve your
own goals. Most negotiation situations are not "win/lose or "all or
nothing". It may be that for you to do well, the other person also has to do
well. Sometimes, you can beat the other person and get a worse result (for
you) than if you had cooperated.
2. Don't be the first to defect or deceive.
You can fundamentally and negatively alter the negotiating climate if you
are the first to lie or be deceptive. Having been burned, opposite parties
in negotiations are likely to see you as untrustworthy, and are likely to try
to find a way to reciprocate your deceptive conduct. They are likely to
reject your future attempts at cooperation, believing that you have an
2Alexrod, R., The Evolution of Cooperation, 1984, Basic Books
46
ulterior motive. They may not agree to work with you, even if doing so
makes sense for them (and for you). Once a destructive spiral has
commenced, it is very difficult to recover from it.
You have to decide in every negotiation whether you will be trustworthy.
How important is it for you to be trustworthy? Imagine negotiating with
someone you trust, and with someone you don't trust. The range of
possibilities discussed, the terms for implementation, and the tools for
enforcement will likely be very different in the two negotiations. The
negotiation with the untrustworthy person will likely be considerably
longer, more stressful and procedurally difficult, and at the end of the
day, you may still decide to say no. Further, you may be unwilling to
consider options that you would have considered if you had trusted the
other negotiator.
You can separate your trustworthiness from your level of trust of others.
You have complete control over your own trustworthiness, whether you
stick to your word, and whether you are scrupulously honest. Even if you
do not trust others, you can choose to be trustworthy. You can choose not
to be the first one to deceive.
That said, it may make sense to deceive if you know that the other person
will also deceive. The challenge of negotiation is that we rarely (if ever)
know in advance whether the other person will defect or tell the truth.
3. Reciprocate both co-operation and defection/deception.
Reciprocity can build stability and predictability in your negotiations. By
reciprocating cooperation, you indicate openness to achieving good
results for both people. On the other hand, if you retaliate when you are
deceived, that indicates that you will not be taken advantage of by the
other negotiator.
47
That said, once you have punished someone for deceiving you or for
defecting from an agreement, it may not make sense to continue to punish
indefinitely. Holding a grudge may not be to your advantage. Others
may regret their actions or may perceive that there has been a
miscommunication. Forgiveness, on occasion, can allow you to rebound
from deception or lack of cooperation. Those who are prepared,
periodically, to assume good motives in others and forgive perceived
injustices, may do better than those who punish and never forgive.
4. Don't try to be too clever.
If you have a purpose and are clear in your negotiations, the other side
will understand exactly what you are doing. It can therefore be helpful
for you to make it clear to the other side that if they cooperate, you will
cooperate as well. In addition to telling others that you will cooperate
with them (and asking them to cooperate with you), you can choose to
behave in a positive way, in the way that you want others to behave, and
in a way so that others perceive that cooperation will be beneficial for
them.
48
TIPS
As part of your preparation for any negotiation, you may want to ask yourself the
following set of questions:
• How trustworthy should I be?
• How trustworthy is the person I am dealing with?
• Is this a one-time negotiation?
• Do I need to “beat” the other side in order to win?
• What are the potential consequences of being deceptive or defecting
from an agreement I have made?
• What are potential gains I can achieve if we cooperate and trust each
other?
• Am I modeling behaviour that I want others to exhibit?
• Am I morally comfortable with my behaviour?
In considering your answers, you may choose to think about the following:
• You have complete control over how trustworthy you are, even if others
are untrustworthy
• You can sometimes achieve more by being cooperative than by being
competitive and aggressive
• If others are untrustworthy and deceptive, you may want to punish their
behaviour so as to discourage it in the future
• You may consider, after a time, forgiving what you consider to be
aggressive and deceptive behaviour
49
WHEN YOU SHOULD WALK AWAY FROM A NEGOTIATION AND
WHEN SHOULD YOU ACCEPT WHAT IS OFFERED13
People in negotiations need to know when they should continue negotiating and when
they should walk away and end the negotiation. It is not necessarily bad to walk away.
You should walk away from any agreement that is not as good for you as what you can
get if you walk away.
The courses of action you can take if you walk away are your “alternatives”. These are
the paths you can take or courses of action that you can follow if you do not reach
agreement. In most negotiations, you will have a number of alternatives and you will
not be indifferent from among the alternatives. Your best alternative, the best course of
action you can take if you do not reach an agreement at the negotiation, is your BATNA
(Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement).
If you cannot reach an agreement that is better than your BATNA, you should walk
away from the negotiation.
Before the negotiation starts, it may be helpful to do the following:
• Consider the courses of action you might take if you don’t reach an
agreement, the courses of action that do not involve the other side (your
alternatives).
• Decide which of the alternative courses of action you would follow if you
had to select only one (your BATNA).
• Make your BATNA as concrete as possible (try to determine exactly what
you would do and how you would do it).
• Try to improve your BATNA (because the better your BATNA, the better
the deal on the table will have to be for you to accept it).
13 © 2002 Stitt Feld Handy Group. This material may not be reproduced without the permission ofthe Stitt Feld Handy Group. C01022
50
• Assess the best-case scenario, worst-case scenario, and likely scenario of
following the course of action that is your BATNA.
• Think about how your BATNA would compare to possible deals that you
may reach.
• Consider the other side’s BATNA (what you think it might be).
At the end of the negotiation, before you accept what has been offered, it may be
helpful to:
• Compare what is offered with your BATNA.
• If what is offered is better than your BATNA, accept what is offered.
• If what is offered is not as good as your BATNA, thank the other person
and politely terminate the negotiation.
People sometimes accept a deal that is not as good as their BATNA, only to regret the
decision later. Reasons why people accept deals that are better than their BATNA
include:
• they have not figured out their BATNA
• they have not compared their BATNA to the offer they have accepted
• they feel pressure to settle
• they (erroneously) perceive that reaching a deal in negotiation is a success
and not reaching a deal is a failure
• they like the other person and don’t want to say no
• they have invested a lot of time in the negotiation
• they are negotiating on someone else’s behalf (clients, constituent, a boss)
and don’t agree with the instructions they have been given
• they are uncomfortable saying “no”
It usually makes sense for you to keep your BATNA confidential and not disclose it to
the other side. That said, there may be situations where it makes sense to disclose your
BATNA, such as:
• You may want to disclose your BATNA if, in your opinion, your BATNA
is better than the other person thinks it is.
51
• If you are about to walk away from the negotiation because the other side
is not offering anything better than your BATNA, you may consider first
disclosing your BATNA to see whether doing so causes the other side to
make an offer that is better than your BATNA.
• If you do disclose your BATNA, you may want to wait until the end of the
negotiation to do so because, once you disclose your BATNA, others will
know that they only need to offer something slightly better than your
BATNA for you to accept it.
WHEN SHOULD YOU SAY “YES?”
Not every offer that the other side makes that is better than your BATNA is the other
side’s “best offer”. Others may be prepared to make proposals that are significantly
better than your BATNA, and better than their initial offer. You will want to say yes to
a deal that you perceive is the best deal that the other side is prepared to make. In
making the assessment, you may consider:
• Few negotiators start with their best offer (as they often leave themselves
room to manoeuvre).
• Others will likely accept, at the end of the negotiation, any deal that is
better than their BATNA. If you can offer something that is better for
them than their BATNA, they are likely to accept.
• Their body language may suggest that they expect the discussions to
continue.
• People sometimes bluff in a negotiation.
• There may be opportunities to create value or “expand the pie”.
• People are more likely to be persuaded if you show yourself to be open to
be persuaded, and search for fair standards of legitimacy.
If you decide not to accept the other side’s offer where that offer is better than your
BATNA (whether or not you make a counter-offer), you risk the possibility that the
other side will withdraw the offer. You will be balancing the potential gains you may
garner by rejecting the offer with the risk of the other side withdrawing the offer. In
performing that balance, you may consider:
• The other side may make a final offer and not budge from that offer.
52
• If others perceive that you are respectful, reasonable, and fair, they are
more likely to continue negotiating with you and less likely to withdraw
an offer.
• If others have a good BATNA, it is easier for them to leave the table and
withdraw offers.
• People sometimes act illogically and contrary to their own interests if they
become angry or frustrated.
TIPS
• in every negotiation, figure out your Best Alternative To a Negotiated
Agreement (your BATNA)
• try to improve your BATNA and make it concrete
• only disclose your BATNA in the negotiation if it is better than the
other person thinks it is
• accept a deal only if it is better than your BATNA
• walk away from a negotiation if you cannot reach a deal that is better
than your BATNA
53
NEGOTIATING IN PAIRS OR TEAMS14
Teaming up with another person to negotiate has advantages and disadvantages.
ADVANTAGES OF NEGOTIATING IN PAIRS OR TEAMS
• It is difficult to talk and collect information at the same time. While one
person is talking, others can listen and collect information.
• While one person is talking, others can strategize about your side’s next
move.
• There is less chance of missing something important if there are more eyes
and ears at the table.
• A person who is not talking can observe body language. Many people do
not control the non-verbal cues they give. A negotiator may verbalize one
thing while his or her non-verbal demeanor says something different.
• The members of the negotiation team can monitor and temper each others’
behaviour.
• Negotiators on a team may have different negotiating styles and
approaches. This allows the team more versatility in the negotiation. The
team may develop a strategy so that the negotiators alternate taking the
lead because of their different styles.
• Having a number of people on a team allows different strengths to be
brought to the table. For example, one person may be a great negotiator
while another may be an expert on a technical issue.
• It may be appropriate to add a person of the right gender or cultural
background to your negotiation team.
• Having more people at the negotiation table trying to resolve an issue
may make it easier to generate innovative solutions.
14 © 2002 Stitt Feld Handy Group. This material may not be reproduced without the permission ofthe Stitt Feld Handy Group. C01022
54
DISADVANTAGES OF NEGOTIATING IN PAIRS OR TEAMS
• You may not agree with a team member’s style, values, priorities,
strategy, or solutions. This can result in your negotiating as much with a
member of your team as with the other side. It can also waste time. If the
other side recognizes what is happening, your side may appear divided,
disorganized, or unfocused.
• In the course of the negotiation you may disagree with what a team
member says.
• Some members of your team may not be good negotiators. Worse, they
may not know it and may want to take the lead. A chain is only as strong
as its weakest link and it can be hard to hide a weak team member.
• Some people have difficulty delegating. If you have a need to be in
control, you may find it difficult to share that control others, especially in
the often unpredictable and dynamic environment of a negotiation.
• Communicating with your team members during negotiations can be
challenging. When you negotiate alone, you instantly know everything
your side knows. When you negotiate with others, you face the challenge
of sharing information during the negotiation without appearing
disorganized, unprepared, or weak.
• Negotiation is a creative process; you are trying to create a solution to
which both sides can agree. It can be difficult to be creative without
knowing what others on your team are thinking.
• Increasing the number of people in a negotiation can slow the process and
make it more cumbersome.
IDEAS TO CONSIDER WHEN PREPARING TO NEGOTIATE AS A TEAM
If you are going to be negotiating with a partner or as a member of a team, you will
likely want to prepare. You may find it helpful when preparing to:
• Explore your strengths and weaknesses and those of your team members
and establish your respective roles for the negotiation (for example, lead
spokesperson, notetaker, etc.) in a way that capitalizes on the strengths of
the team and minimizes the weaknesses.
55
• Explore with your team members what you will do if you do not reach an
agreement, your interests, the possible solutions, and standards of
legitimacy you might use in the negotiation.
• Explore with your team members what the other side might do if no
agreement is reached.
• Develop an overall strategy for the negotiation.
• Develop with your team members each of the topics or issues that need to
be dealt with in the negotiation and develop sub-strategies for each of
these issues.
• Create a tentative agenda that you can follow during the negotiation to
ensure that issues are addressed completely and in their proper order.
• A negotiation does not always unfold as expected. You may want to
discuss how you will change direction, strategy and approach to react to
what the other side is doing. You may also want to discuss whether to
develop a set of signals you can use during the negotiation to call for a
caucus (private meeting), show approval for a course of action, or show
disapproval for a course of action.
• Try to anticipate what the other side might do and develop contingency
strategies you can implement during the negotiation as the needs arise.
• Set ground rules with your team members. For example, you may want to
agree that no offer will be accepted or made unless you have all agreed.
• Do dry runs of the negotiation with one team member acting as the other
side. This will help you fine-tune your delivery and help you explore
strategies.
STRATEGIES TO CONSIDER WHEN NEGOTIATING IN PAIRS OR AS PART OF
A TEAM
Here are a few strategies you may want to consider when negotiating with a partner or
as part of a team:
• Try to be patient. Unless things have really gone off the track, maintain
your strategy.
56
• Try to remember your role and to support your team members in their
roles. Focusing too closely on what your team members are doing may
interfere with your ability to perform effectively.
• When in the presence of the other side, try to foster the impression of
unity among team members. When you disagree with others on your
team, you may not want the other side to be aware of the disagreement.
• Try to give others on your team room to manoeuvre. If things do not
unfold as planned, others might have to be creative to react to what the
other side is doing. Try not to react negatively if something unexpected
comes up and one of your team members moves the negotiation in an
unanticipated direction. Reflect on the new direction. You may conclude
that it is a good one and that there is no need to intervene.
• Do not expect perfection from yourself or your team members.
Negotiation is an art, not a science. You may become frustrated if you
raise the bar too high.
• Think about caucusing (having private team meetings). Caucusing allows
you to regroup with your team, though it can disrupt the flow of the
negotiation.
• If you decide that a caucus is necessary, you may want to give some
thought to when and how you ask for it. Asking for a caucus too early can
irritate your team members and irritate the other side. Asking for a
caucus can also suggest to the other side that the issue under discussion is
one that raises disagreement on your side of the table or is a subject you
had not considered. As a result, you may want to wait to caucus with
your team and, when the times comes, you may want to create the
opportunity for a caucus that does not reveal why you are caucusing.
• Unless there is a reason not to, try to make each caucus relatively short.
The longer you caucus, the more likely the other side may read something
into the caucus.
• If you think the negotiation should change direction, you may be able to
convey this to your team members without a caucus. For example,
sharing a particular piece of information with the other side may be
enough of a hint to get your team members to shift tracks.
57
• Remember that you may not just be negotiating with the other side. You
may have to negotiate within your team about strategy, and any offer you
make or accept. Try to bring as much skill to the negotiation within your
team as you do in the negotiation with the other side.
• Members of your team may want to exchange feedback during or after the
negotiation. If you agree to give feedback during the negotiation and you
think there is a better way of handling the negotiation, try to discuss it
with your team members in caucus in a constructive and non-threatening
way.
• Try to remain flexible in the negotiation. It is good to have a plan until
that plan gets in the way of success.
TIPS
When negotiating in pairs or as a member of a team:
• decide who will lead the discussion
• have signals for when to take a break and when your team members say
something you don’t agree with
• give your team members room to manoeuvre
• decide who has the authority to make offers
• caucus when necessary
• try to take a unified approach to the negotiation
58
DIFFICULTIES IN NEGOTIATION15
Not everyone is a skilled negotiator and not everyone has taken negotiation training.
Some people do things in negotiations that are difficult to deal with, either for a
purpose or unconsciously. Your task is to recognize the difficulty and to find a strategy
to deal with it. The best strategies are those that work whether or not the person is
creating the difficult situation on purpose.
STEAMROLLING WITH INFORMATION
Some people steamroll you with words in negotiation; they speak very quickly and
continuously without giving you an opportunity to jump in. They might be trying to
control the negotiation and keep you off balance, or they may be nervous and excited.
When you have to deal with a steamroller, you may want to:
• Remain calm. If others are steamrolling as a tactic, they may be trying to
gain control. If you get flustered or frustrated, they may gain the control
they are seeking. If others are steamrolling because they are nervous and
enthusiastic, your calmness may help them to relax.
• Sit back quietly and let them steamroll. People who are talking may be
providing you with valuable information that can help you get a better
deal.
• Interrupt and ask them to slow down. If you point out to them that they
are talking quickly, they may relax and slow down. On the other hand,
they may feel stifled and not then disclose
information that they otherwise would have disclosed.
• Suggest that you do not agree with everything the steamroller says, but
want the person to continue. If the steamroller says
15 © 2002 STITT FELD HANDY GROUP. This material may not be reproduced without the permissionof the STITT FELD HANDY GROUP. C01022
59
something you disagree with and you say nothing, the other side may
think you agree with what has been said. That can create a
misunderstanding.
In deciding whether to interrupt, you may want to consider:
• Are you getting information by letting the other person talk? If so, you
may want to defer your interruption.
• Does the other person need to vent nervousness and enthusiasm? If so, it
may be too early to interrupt.
• How will others perceive the interruption? Will they get the impression
they are not being allowed to explain their side of the story? Will they get
the impression that you do not see what they are saying as important? If
so, you may choose not to interrupt.
• Do you have the luxury of time? If you are running out of a limited
amount of time to negotiate, it might be unrealistic for you not to
interrupt.
• Will letting others continue to talk give them the impression you are
agreeing with what they are saying when you are not? If so, you may
need to interrupt, at least to let them know that you do not agree with
everything they say.
If you decide to interrupt, you may want to consider:
• Do you want to interrupt to ask a question?
• Do you want to interrupt to make a point?
• Do you want to interrupt to demonstrate that you are listening and have
heard what they have said?
• Do you want to interrupt to let others know that you are writing down
what they are saying and that you cannot write as fast as they are
speaking?
• Do you want to interrupt to ask for a break?
• Do you want to interrupt to talk about process? For example, do you
want to try to establish time limits or an agenda of issues to be discussed?
• Do you want to interrupt to distract?
60
• Do you want to interrupt to express concern about the difficulty you are
having, for example:
• telling others they are talking too quickly and that you are having
difficulty understanding what is being said or
• telling others you need clarifications of facts.
ASSUMING A DEAL
Sometimes others say something that suggests that they believe that a deal has been
struck on an issue and you believe the matter is still open for negotiation. They may
suggest that your boss or another negotiating team member has already dealt with the
issue.
When the other side assumes a deal is done, it may be that the other side has made an
honest mistake about the existence of a deal, the other side is assuming a deal as a tactic
to get you to give in, or a deal has, in fact, been made.
If they have made an honest mistake, you may anger them if you suggest that they are
lying or trying to deceive. As well, you will likely want to avoid giving the other side
the impression that your side is trying to get out of a deal that is made. On the other
hand, you do not want to give in if the other side is assuming a deal as a tactic.
When you have to deal with someone who is assuming a deal, you may want to:
• Confirm that you are prepared to live up to any deal that has been made
and seek the information you need to determine whether a deal has been
made.
• Take a break to attempt to verify whether a deal has, in fact, been made.
• Ask for details about the deal and about when and with whom it was
struck.
• Explain that you have different information about what has or has not
been agreed.
• Suggest that there may have been a misunderstanding and then explain
what you have been told about the matter.
61
YOU COMMIT, I DECIDE
Some people try to negotiate by getting you to make a series of offers and negotiate
against yourself. It may be that they are uncomfortable making offers or making
commitments, or it may be that they are using “you commit, I decide” as a tactic to try
to make you move closer to your bottom line.
When you have to deal with someone who is trying to get you to negotiate against
yourself, you may want to:
• Avoid making offers; rather, put forward numbers as options without
commitment.
• Avoid making numerous offers in succession.
• Base your offers on objective criteria and ask the other side why your last
offer was not fair.
• Set ground rules for making offers.
• Talk about the fact that you are concerned about negotiating against
yourself.
UNREASONABLE FIRST OFFERS
Some negotiators make unreasonable first offers and then take the position that they are
making concessions by coming down from that unreasonable first position. This may
be a tactic used by the other side to try to get you to make concessions from a
reasonable position or they may believe that they are being reasonable.
When you have to deal with someone who has made an unreasonable first offer, you
may want to:
• Keep your cool. If the other side has presented an inflated first number as
a tactic, you may be dealing with a negotiator who likes to play on your
emotions.
• Try to avoid making concessions from your reasonable offer.
• Focus the discussion on objective criteria and away from the other side’s
unreasonable first offer and any concessions made from it.
• Don’t accept the other side’s offer as a position. Rather treat it as an
option.
62
• Show yourself to be open to be persuaded that the unreasonable offer is
fair.
• Talk about the fact that if an agreement is not reached, both you and the
other side will have to go to your Best Alternative To a Negotiated
Agreement (BATNA), and that could be unfortunate for both of you.
If you choose to focus the other side on objective criteria, you may want to ask the other
side:
• How have you come up with that offer?
• Why do you believe the offer is fair?
• Why have you made concessions from your first offer?
• Why do the options that you had talked about not make sense?
MIXING THE PEOPLE AND THE PROBLEM
Some people entangle the substantive issues with the relationship issues and try to
encourage you to agree to something for the sake of the relationship, even if it is
unreasonable. You may find over time that the relationship does not compensate you
adequately for your other needs that are not being met.
Preserving relationships that are valuable is important. It is also important to meet
other needs in the negotiation. Agreeing to neglect your substantive needs in the
negotiation for the sake of the relationship can be dangerous for you.
People may mix the people and the problem to try to encourage you to make
concessions for the sake of the relationship, or because they believe one cannot separate
the problem from the relationship.
When you have to deal with someone who tries to encourage you to make concessions
for the sake of the relationship, you may want to:
• Try to separate the people from the problem.
• Try to help the other side realize that there are other needs in the
negotiation besides preserving the relationship.
• Try to find ways to preserve the relationship and meet your other needs.
63
• Acknowledge that preserving the relationship is important to you as well.
• Recognize that in some situations, the relationship is more important than
the substantive issues being negotiated.
• Talk about the danger of not meeting other needs in the negotiation in
addition to relationship needs.
• Put a fair value on preserving the relationship without overvaluing or
undervaluing it.
BEING OBSTINATE
Perhaps the most challenging person to deal with in negotiation is someone who is
positional and will not budge from a position. If you choose to take another position
and be obstinate as well, you may find that you do not reach agreement. Further, you
may irreparably damage the relationship and miss opportunities to come up with
creative solutions.
Others may become obstinate as a tactic, believing that if they stick to positions, you
will eventually agree with them rather than walk away. Others take firm positions and
don’t make concessions because they believe that they are right.
When you have to deal with an obstinate person who sticks to a position, you may want
to:
• Ask how the other person came up with the position.
• Show that you are open to the possibility that their position is a fair one.
• Treat the position as an option rather than as a position.
• Look for creative ways to find a solution that accepts their position and
results in your getting what you need.
• Talk about how you will both be worse off if no agreement is reached.
64
TIPS
When negotiating with difficult people, you may choose to:
• model behaviour that you want them to exhibit
• show yourself to be open to be persuaded
• show others that you are listening to them
• avoid assuming that everything they are doing is a tactic
65
INDEX
A
Advantages of negotiating in pairs orteams, 53
Analytical people, 32Asking clarifying questions, 17Asking the inflexible bureaucrat
questions, 25Assumptions, 10, 60Avoiding hostility, 34Axelrod, Robert, 45
B
BATNA, 30, 38, 49-52Being obstinate, 4-5, 63Best Alternative To a Negotiated
Agreement, see BATNABody language, 16, 20, 51, 53Brainstorming, 6-8, 26-27Bureaucrats, 20-31
C
Challenging the rule, 29-30Cold calling, 11-12Communication, 15-18Competitive negotiating, 4-5, 63Concessions, 34, 35, 61, 62Cooperation, 42-47
D
Dealing with an inflexible bureaucrat,20-31
Deceptive, being, 22, 42-47Defecting, 42-47Disclosure, 38
E
Effective listening, 15-18Emotion, 17-18Envy, 45
Exaggerating or stretching the truth, 22,42-47
F
Fairness, 23Feelings, 17-18Finding out others' interests, see
InterestsFirst offer, 36-37, 61Fisher Roger and William Ury, Getting
To Yes, Negotiating Agreement WithoutGiving In, 30
G
Generating options, see OptionsGong to a superior, 21
I
Inflexible bureaucrats, 20-31Information, sharing, 38Interactive listening, 15-18Interest-based negotiation, see InterestsInterests, 4-8, 29Interests versus positions, 4-8Intimidation, 22
J
Justice, people who seek, 33
K
Knowing your audience, 28
L
Lying, 22, 42-47
M
Making assumptions, 10, 60Making the first offer, 36-37, 61Misleading, 42-47Mixing the people and the problem, 62-
63
66
N
Negotiation tendencies, 32-35
O
Obstinance, 63Offer, first, 36-37, 61One-time negotiations, 42-47Open body language, 16Options, 6-8, 26-27
P
Pairs, negotiating in, 53-57Paraphrasing, 17Persuasion, 14, 62Positional negotiating, 4-5, 63Preparation as a team, 54-55Prisoner’s Dilemma, 42-47Prompters, 16Providing information, 23
R
Reasonableness, appearance of, 40-41Relationship, people who focus on, 35Restating or paraphrasing, 17Results, people who seek, 34Retaliation, 43, 46
S
Sales, 11-12Silence, 26Speaking persuasively, 14Standards of legitimacy, 23, 30Steamrolling with information, 58-60Superior, going to, 21
T
Team preparation, 54-55Teams, negotiating in, see PairsTendencies, 32-35Threats, 22Tips, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 31, 35, 37, 39, 41,
48, 52, 57, 64Trust, 42-47
U
Unique styles of negotiating, 32-35
W
Walking away, see BATNAWhen should you say "yes?", see
BATNA
Y
You commit, I decide, 61