Negotiating - A Contact Sport

In our lives we have two basic choices, to take control or follow.

Negotiating is a contact sport. To be effective you must be able to persuade others to listen to
your arguments, consider the arguments, and decide that they want to help you in some way
achieve your goals.

They do not need to decide that you are right. They do need to want to help you or allow you
to proceed toward your goal.

This is simple leadership. Managers must motivate employees to do their jobs allowing the
manager to succeed. Teachers must motivate students to study and produce homework and
learn. Parents must convince their children not to play in the street, do drugs or otherwise step
in harm’s way recklessly.

Whenever two or more people come in contact there will be some level of conflict. It may be
as simple as passing on a narrow mountain path next to a sheer canyon wall or as complex as
working out a peace accord between vying nations.

Resolving the disparate interests is a matter of establishing a commonality of interests.

Leaders are adept at forging such realignment of individual interests. Individuals do the same
when resolving conflict. They persuade others to consider alternatives in the hopes of
reaching a mutually agreeable solution.

Posted by Bill on March 21, 2010

The Art of Persuasion

"Yes" is what we all strive to make another person say. The objective of negotiating is to
inspire or coerce the other person to agree to your terms. Persuading others is the art of the
process.

People can be motivated by many things. Simple fear, a desire to be liked, respect for the
other person, or simple avarice and greed. Each are motivators in a negotiation.

In most negotiations we assume that the prime motivators are avarice and greed. It is the use
of other, less obvious motivators that makes the difference between those who barter and
those who negotiate. Bartering is an exchange, typically a fair exchange of like value.
Negotiating has the potential of creating value from the process. It is much like making
1+1=11 rather than 2.

There are many persuasion techniques. They all play off the core psychological drivers that
effect most people. They represent the basic negotiating tools most of us use consciously or
unconsciously.

One such technique is the use of classical conditioning when trying to persuade others. The
Pavlovian model can be effective. Ivan Pavlov studied the cause, effect and reaction
relationship and how consistent repetition of a reward or punishment can reinforce a specific
performance. The important lesson is that the subject need not understand the cause but
learns to relate or anticipate the response to the action.
A consistent emotional response, positive or negative, on your part can be used to condition
the other person to react in a specific way. This persuasion tactic involves reinforcing
positive performance such as reaching an agreement with you with a positive emotional
reaction.

People want to please others. It is human nature.

If you proactively reinforce their performance when you reach an agreement with something
with a sincere smile or handshake or appreciative gesture, you will be establishing a
reinforced relationship subliminally. You can do the same with negative incentive such as
frowning, feigned anger or frustration. The key is consistent reinforcement on small matter to
build the performance pattern.

Like it or not, everyone uses persuasion throughout their lives. There is no way around it.
Whether dealing with a spouse, child, boss, employee, peer, ally, school mate, date, teacher,
banker or car salesman, we are trying to hear that special word, "Yes!"

If you are unable to convince others to your way of thinking, you will constantly be doing
their bidding or lose the relationship. Rather than resenting others who are telling you what to
do realize that it is your fault, not theirs that you are not more persuasive.
Trust: An Essential Aspect of a Negotiation

No matter the conflict venue every instance of human interaction requires a basis of trust
upon which commitments can be built. Conflict resolution, alternate dispute resolution,
negotiations, mediation, settlement discussions, debt restructuring, salary and performance
reviews are all examples of human interaction. Whenever our species interacts, the
discussions are colored by the natural inclination of each person involved to trust or distrust
the others.

Those who establish credibility and an honorable reputation develop, over time, a personal
power advantage at any negotiating table.

The need to trust each other is essential for groups of people to function well together. This
grouping can be in the form of friends, family, business, church, communities, governments,
and even at the global level in forums such as NATO or the United Nations. If the trust of the
members is tested the ability of the group to function is challenged. The more diverse the
group the greater the level of mistrust and the harder it is to get the group to function
together.

As an example, we are seeing trust erode as the Administration pursues seemingly unpopular
programs and uses questionable means to secure the votes necessary to get them passed.

The American people are watching brokered deals, weekend debates, and late night votes to
get the current version of the health care bill passed through the senate. One must ask why, if
the bill is a good bill, such antics are required.

The culture of backroom negotiations and payoffs is not the hope and change promised by
this Administration. They are the same old political practices common to both political
parties that the American people have come to distrust.

This distrust, if left unchecked, will grow into resentment and ultimately a loss of support for
those in government. If that occurs, a populist change to restore confidence and trust becomes
a possibility and may empower third party movements to gain tangible footing.
Being Right Isn't Winning

Being right is an ego thing. Just because you feel that you are right does not make it so. It
also does not mean that others agree; or should agree. Being right is a perception colored by
interests, needs, history, emotion, perceptions, and, all too often, self-deception.

Thinking that you are right is almost always biased.

Don't let your ego blind your vision and foil an opportunity to advance your cause. Achieving
your objectives and goals should be more important that assuaging your ego. We often lose
sight of this. It is a dangerous mistake to make in a negotiation and can result in a satisfying
victory at the cost of losing the war.

Equally important is to consider the other person's reaction to losing. Will a loss cause more
than a material loss? Will it leave an emotional scar or, worse, terminal injury?

When handling conflict with family, friends business associates or even adversaries
consideration should be given to the relationship and its value over and above the incident at
hand. Do not ruin a valued relationship just to point out that you are right or gloating when
you are victorious.

Negotiating can be a very personal activity. People become empassioned when arguing with
those close to them because they care. They are emotionally invested with the relationship.
How you handle these situations will color the emotional health of the relationship in the
future.
Silence - a Power Tactic in Negotiations

A key aspect of negotiations is that both parties need a little power for there to be a
negotiation. It is a good idea to find the source of the other person’s power and test it to see if
it really is as solid as they would like you to believe.

Silence is a tactic used to measure the other person’s confidence in their position; a means to
testing their power base. People have an innate need to keep conversations going. Silence
makes most people uncomfortable.

Silence begs a response. When the other person makes a proposal or offer they expect you to
respond; to counter or accept. The reaction to your silence is telling. Watch both the body
language and verbal response to sense where they are in the negotiation.

If they appear concerned they may be telegraphing that they are worried that they may have
been too aggressive in their proposal giving you room to counter; perhaps more aggressively
than you would have.

If they are more concerned about the time or other distraction then they may be indicating
that they have made their final and best offer and are ready to close the negotiations and
move on to other pressing matters, like a drink at the bar or getting to Billy’s baseball game.

If they sit smugly looking disinterested in you, your response or much of anything else
beware. They are seemingly disconnected from the discussion and may be only going through
the motions. The proper response to this type of reaction is to try to solicit what has their
attention so you can decide if further discussions will be worth your time or if you need to
postpone the meeting.

Disinterest is a telling power signal. It infers that the matter at hand is really not worth the
time it is taking. That is an ultimate power statement.

Disinterest is often feigned in business and social settings. So it has to be tested.

The sixteen year old girl flirting with the visiting college man may walk away several times
before accepting a date just to set her hooks. This is feigned disinterest. The same tactics are
used in the business setting and has the same impact. Test disinterest before raising the ante.
Applying Poker Tactics in a Negotiation

Interacting with other people is always like a poker game. Invariably someone has what
someone else wants. Sex, money, food, shelter, and land have been the staples of disputes
since the first two people happened across each other. The only difference today is that we try
to be civil in our relations.

Society tries to mandate how this disparity of interest is resolved through contract laws,
social customs and other contrived bridles to our human proclivity to take what we want.
Learning to curb our enthusiasm for simply taking what we want is part of growing up. Those
who achieve a reasonable state of adulthood are able to work within the confines of the
society of which they are a part. The others struggle as criminals, sociopaths and, in general,
those who put their needs ahead of those around them. They typically resort to lying, cheating
and letting down those closest to him or her.

In the final analysis, it is the best poker player who will consistently fare better in the realm
of human interaction – negotiations.

So learn the rules of the game.

• Knowing When and What to Bet

Knowing when to bet requires an understanding fo the game, an awareness of the value of the
hand you are holding and the likely better hands around the table, and what betting will tell
the other players.

Knowing what to bet is a developed art form as you learn from experience how the other
players will react to low, high and moderate bets. Betting is a form of communication. Each
bet signals something. What needs to be learned is what the player making the bet is trying to
do; bluff, force you out, or lure you in. The other players should also be studying your betting
patterns to better understand your patterns.

• Knowing When to Hold ‘Em.

In an ideal world, one would only hold winning hands. The key is in understanding what a
winning hand is. That takes knowledge of the game, the odds, and the other players. Luck
starts and stops with the cards you are dealt. The rest of the game is a developed skill.

• Knowing When to Fold ‘Em.

In poker statistically 80% of the hands one is dealt should be folded. Few players have the
discipline to not try to improve what they are dealt by staying ‘just one more round’. In fact,
if players played by the numbers, the games would be relatively boring. It is the chance draw
that lures people to gamble on drawing to an inside straight.

• Know When it is Not Your Night.

There are times when you should not be in the game. This can be because you are distracted,
because your luck is running cold, or when you are consistently getting the second best hand.
If you should not be at the table for any reason get up and leave before you leave your stake
on the table. It is important to always have enough to buy into the next game.

The Art of Persuasion

"Yes" is what we all want to hear. There are some basic situations that motivate utterance of
that word:

Seeking reciprocation from a past deed - People naturally feel an obligation to return favors.
Do not miss opportunities to help others, to do something for them in any venue. Later, you
will have a little more leverage. Besides, it is nice to be nice. People really do appreciate it.

Establishing your authority in one or more areas by being active in trade or professional
associations, publishing articles or books, promoting yourself through public service or
excelling in your work all lay the ground work to be able to entice others to agree with your
proposal when the time comes to make your case. The human nature is to defer to experts
rather than trust ourselves. Leadership capitalizes on this propensity.

Scarcity of any service or product increases its value. By establishing the uniqueness of what
you have to offer you are creating value at the negotiating able. The less available a resource
is the more people will seek it.

Personality matters in persuading others to say "yes". People are more likely to want to say "
yes" to a proposal offered by someone they like. The second motivator is fear. In that case
they are seeking to avoid wrath rather than please someone.

Societal conformance provides the shelter some need to agree. By remaining part of the herd
they are taking less risk. Pointing out that others have agreed to your proposed terms
indirectly gives the other person a sense of safety in that they are not granting a non-
conforming concession.

While there are many other persuasion techniques these basic tenants seem to be the core
psychological drivers of persuasion without the use of power, fear or threats. They represent
the basic tools most of us have available in our daily lives.

Everyone uses persuasion throughout their lives. There is no way around it. Whether dealing
with a child, pet, boss, ally, school mate, date, teacher, banker or car salesman, we are trying
to hear that special word, "Yes!".

If you are unable to convince others to your way of thinking, you will be constantly doing
their bidding. You will quite likely resent being told what to do. Realize that it is your fault,
not theirs, that you were not more persuasive.
Desire Drives A Negotiation

I am often accused of ‘shifting into my negotiating mode’ as though it is different than my

normal mode of interacting. This impression I do find to be interesting. What some presume
to be my negotiating mode is simply a disciplined approach to assessing, analyzing,
strategizing and pursuing a solution to a problem.

Because they know what I do, they assume it is a ploy rather than simple interaction. It’s not.
It is simply an application of a process that is designed to work; not take advantage of a
situation.

In our everyday lives we negotiate constantly. Why; because we want something from
another person or animal.

Yes, we do negotiate with animals. We train our pets to do what we want and reward them
for obedience. And we punish them for disobedience. That is basic power negotiation. We
have the power and our pets are forced into a behavioral pattern to receive a treat or avoid
pain.

Women flirt with their husbands, boyfriends, potential boyfriends, complete strangers and
even their best friend’s husband suggesting an illicit rendezvous in exchange for something
they want; sometimes only attention. Men react because they are programmed to want the
favors of a woman. They may have no intent to consummate the deed but can’t resist the
challenge. Sometimes the game goes too far and the collateral damage is far greater than ever
intended. The original flirty look that started the process is an example of a very human and
natural negotiation. One person’s leveraging an asset to gain something.

The key in any negotiation is mutual incentive. For a negotiation to create value above the
intrinsic worth of the basic assets involved the parties must have a desire, especially a driving
desire, to have the assets being offered.
Fear is not the best negotiating tactic.

If people can't communicate they cannot possibly get along together much less negotiate.
Fear puts people on the defensive and is a major obstacle to clear, open communications.

Unless you have absolute power, seek to diffuse any fears that may exist on both sides
through open and direct communication. This will promote the involvement of all concerned
and facilitate resolution.

If you are trying to convince the other person, do not shut them down by yelling, shouting or
otherwise attacking them. That is not the way to win your point.

Fear blocks communications. It makes people defensive, apprehensive and inhibits

resolution. Only if you wield brute strength over the other person should you invoke fear to
control the situation.

Realize that in doing so it is your intent to decimate the other person into abject subjugation.
You may not like the relationship that results. Worse yet, if you value the relationship realize
that it will be lost when the other person gets an opportunity to escape the situation.

In day-to-day business, family or social settings no one person typically holds absolute power
over others. Everyone values the relationships enough to steer clear of deploying absolute
power and jeopardizing the relationship. It is the emotional fears of the social setting that
impact communications and negotiating in a civil setting.

These fears are harder to discern but are just as problematic to clear, concise communication.
As such, they stand in the way of reaching a resoltion until resolved.
March 1, 2009

When is compromising negotiating?

Is bipartisan compromise possible in Washington?

So much is touted lately about bringing Washington together and acting in a bi-partisan
manner. It is interestng that many view this as a novel idea. It is, in reality, what the Congress
was challenged to do since first formed.

Compromise, in a negotiation, is the process by which each party gives a little to get a little.
It is the process of merging interests to yield a balanced outcome meeting the needs, not
necessarily the wants, of the parties to the agreement.

We are a very diverse nation, a federation of states in fact. This diversity is what makes
America great. Our system was designed to enable the diverse interests to get along side by
side and in harmony. Today that harmony seems ot be constantly challenged.

In Washington, unfortunately, the effect of our lawmakers working together is typically the
creation of a bill loaded with all the necessary extra provisions to attract votes seemingly with
disregard for how the earmarks will be paid.

That is not negotiating. That is not compromising. That is simply buying votes to assure
passage.

One wonders what has happened in Washington over the last forty to fifty years that has seen
our lawmakers seeking to do right by their country change to fighting to get their fair share
for their constituencies, advocates and, yes, special interest supporters.

I may be naive being outside the beltway but I have not sensed true compromise when it
comes to garnering votes for a bill in a long time. What I have repeatedly seen is the purchase
of votes that violate the interest of the Country for the interests of a select few in the form of
earmarks. Earmarks are riders to the bill that promises something to a small group in
exchange for support of the major bill. It typically has nothing to do with the actual bill. It is,
pure and simple, a payoff.

What ever has happened to principles. honor or integrity? Since when did the lawmakers of
America, and that includes both of the Parties, become Machiavellian advocates of the end
justifying the means. When those in the Congress cast dispersions upon the CEOs of America
they should, once in a while, reflect on their own questionable behavior. It smells the same!
They have been and continue to spend beyond their means.

Many of our good representatives are not negotiating in good faith. They can't cover to costs
of their promises...unless we, The People, bail them out.
Why do we negotiate?

Is it our avarice and greed that compels us to try to best our fellow man or woman? It it the
need to win? What is it in some of our psyches that motivates the quest to size the upper
hand, to compel obedience, to prevail?

Negotiation stems not from avarice and greed but from our primal instinct to survive and
thrive.

Man, alone and on his own, would fend of other men and scrounge for roots and berries while
looking for the hapless female to take back to his cave. His negotiations were against his
environment to see it though the night and, if fortunate, to seed a child. Life was simple if
short-lived.

Those fortunate enough to find unprotected females soon learned the challenges of heading
up small clans. Gathered around a small fire our ancient ancestors would find ways to work
together to share the tasks of protecting and providing for their small clan and, most
important, growing it. The size of the clan gave it the strength to find more food, work
together to fell larger beasts and generally survive yet another night.

As clans grew and became more numerous, clans started to interact. The result was initially
conflict based as they fought one another out of fear and distrust protecting their turf and their
women and children. The currency of these negotiations was rather basic: death or life.
Victory was clear.

In spite of their attempts to kill all outsiders who threatened them, eventually clans began to
merge and learned to get along with each other. Civilization was sprung and these new
entities did what....carried on the same habits as the original clans. They feared and distrusted
other feudal states and tribes and did their best to eradicate any who came into their arena of
influence. But commerce did emerge in spite of their baser instincts.

Times have not changed a lot. Be it 21st century nation-states or vast religions spanning the
world, fear and distrust are the sentiments that prevail. But the incentives that drive those
feelings are based on the need to provide and protect. So there is a balance of good and evil at
play.

We negotiate to preserve the value of what we have achieved. In the dawn of man's existence
the clan that learned how to raise and harvest produce sought to trade it for what they needed
in a fashion that they benefited as much as possible from the exchange. Bartering quickly
gave way to negotiating when the concept of currency was introduced. Currency gave a
standard of value to be applied universally. Now barterers has the ability to try to increase the
value of their labor by getting more currency for their product than bartering it for the
neighbor's pig.

But currency is not the root of negotiating. It is only the measure. Currency is not solely
monetary. Currency can be in the form of product, services, coinage or even promises of
future action. Currency, in a negotiation, can be as illusive as good will.

Currency is what the negotiators decide it is and is unique to the negotiation at hand. In any
negotiation, understanding the many dynamics of the currency at play is essential in the
creation of value from the exchange. To negotiate properly one must consider all aspects of
the situation and leverage those commodities to his or her advantage.

Properly done, the outcome will be far better than simply accepting the pig for three bags of
potatoes.
Six Basic Negotiating Tips

The First Tip Never discuss settlement terms until the end of the process, when both parties
are committed to trying to resolve the situation. Before discussing the meaty terms of a
settlement get to know each other, find out what you can about possible competitors, learn as
much as possible about the issue at hand, determine if this is really what you need or want,
wait until they indicate that they really want or need to settle.

The Second Tip The purpose of negotiating is to discover the term parameters of the other
person. You want to know the most the other person will pay for something or the least they
are willing to sell for so you can couch your initial offer or response to strategically position
your offer or proposal. 

The Third Tip Try to get the other person to make the first offer or proposal. Knowing how
to bracket your response will let you move the final outcome toward your goal. But the
starting point is a critical step in getting there. Manipulating the other person into making the
opening proposal allows you to set the parameters of the negotiation to your advantage.

The Fourth Tip Prepare before meeting by considering why you are negotiating, what you
expect to gain, why that is important to you, and what you expect to have to offer. If you fully
understand your needs and wants you will be able to quickly determine if continuing a
negotiation is worth your time.

The Fifth Tip Test the market before sitting down. Get comparables, talk with others, and
establish reasonable parameters for the negotiation . The key to a successful negotiation is
keeping your proposals and counters within a range of reasonableness. Do not undermine
your credibility by appearing ill-informed or overly aggressive.

The Sixth Tip Be aware when it is time to bring the negotiation to a close. Don’t let the
discussion drag on as the other person may lose interest, patience or the desire to commit.
Over negotiating often kills deals or agreements that should have been made.