Negotiation Styles

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Styles

Negotiation styles vary with the person, their beliefs and skills, as well as the general
context in which they occur. Here are a number of different styles considered from
different viewpoints.

Belief-based styles
There is a common spectrum of negotiation that ranges from collaborative to
competitive. The approach taken is generally based on beliefs about people and how
selfish or generous they are.

The Spectrum of Negotiation Styles: From concession to competition.

Collaborative Negotiation: Negotiating for win-win.

Competitive Negotiation: Negotiating for win-lose.

Balanced Negotiation: Walking between collaborative and competitive

negotiation.

Professional styles
Professional styles are those use by people who have a significant element of
negotiation in their roles. Here is a selection of different contexts in which such
negotiation takes place.

Industrial relations: Confrontational bargaining.

Managing Board: Together and competing.

International: Diplomatic dancing.

Political: Scheming horse-trading.

Selling and Buying: Professional sellers and buyers.

Hostage: Emotional big-stakes exchanges.

Contextual styles
Negotiation often happens within non-professional contexts, where the people either do
not know that they are negotiating or they are not skilled at it.

Domestic: Discussions and arguments at home.

Everyday: Everybody, every day, negotiates.

Hierarchical: Parent-child, boss-subordinate, etc.

Remote Negotiation: Negotiating at a distance.

The Spectrum of Negotiation Styles

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Styles > The Spectrum of Negotiation Styles
Consideration for self | Consideration for others | A middle way | See also

Although negotiation styles can be classified as competitive or collaborative, in practice

there is a range of styles, based on the degree to which a person thinks first about
themself or about the other person.

Consideration for self

Considering yourself in negotiation is natural and reasonable -- after all, the main point
is to get something that you want. If you care little about the other person or the
relationship, then you will prioritize your needs above those of others.
Excessive consideration for self leads to a Machiavellian approach, where the ends
justifies the means. Overt aggression, intimidation and coercive deception are
considered normal and necessary, and destroying the other person in some way may be
a symbol of your victory over them.

Consideration for others

Consideration for others will depend on your values, which are often based on
your beliefs about people. In particular, if you put yourself down (for example if you
have low self-esteem) or you escalate the importance of others (or your relationship
with them) too highly, then you will think considerably more about the other person and
prioritize their needs well above your own.
Excessive consideration for others leads to relentless concession, where you create a
lose-win situation with you as the loser. You may even lose elements of the relationship
as giving away too much can just end up in you losing respect. Some people like being
the victim, but it is no way to conduct a negotiation.

A middle way
Between concession and competition lies balance, although in practice this may be more
dynamic and variable than may be expected. What should be a highly collaborative
negotiation may become abalanced negotiation, even with competitive elements.
Shared values are commonly used, however, to protect the relationship and ensure fair
play. At worst, some third person is called in to ensure a reasonable balance.
Collaborative Negotiation

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Styles > Collaborative Negotiation

Win-win | Joint problem-solving | Collaborative strategy | See also

In collaborative negotiation (also called constructive, principled or interest-based

negotiation), the approach is to treat the relationship as an important and valuable
element while seeking an equitable and fair agreement (as opposed to always conceding
in order to sustain the relationship).
Win-win

The competitive approach to negotiation assumes a fixed pie, zero-sum, win-lose

situation. In collaborative negotiation, it is assumed that the pie can be enlarged by
finding things of value to both parties, thus creating a win-win situation where both
parties can leave the table feeling that they have gained something of value.
Fair process

As humans we have a deep need for fairness, and when this does not happen, even if we
emerge as winners from a competitive negotiation, the result is not truly satisfying. The
most comfortable result from a negotiation happens when our needs are met, including
the need for fairness.
Joint problem-solving

The collaborative approach to negotiation seeks to convert individual wants into a single
problem and to bring both parties together to work on solving this problem.
By converting individual positions and wants into separated problems, the people can be
freed up from jealous and personal attachment to their requirements so they can then
take a more objective and equitable position from which they can act in a more
collaborative way.
Collaborative strategy

Being collaborative does not mean being weak and giving in. On the contrary, a
collaborative approach seeks to gain the best possible solution.
Transparency and trust

Whilst you may not give away all of your information, deceptive practices need to be
curtailed if trust is to be gained. A simple way of eliminating suspicion is to be open and
transparent, giving information before it is requested.
When the other person is competitive

The biggest dilemma occurs when the other person is acting competitively, and will try
to take advantage of your collaborative approach (possibly seeing it as a weakness).
The approach with aggressive others is to be assertive and adult rather than
fall into the fight-or-flight reaction, for example naming attempts at
deception and showing your strength whilst offering an olive branch. A
critical preparation for this is to have your fall-back alternative to a
negotiated agreement ready, and to show that you are prepared to use it.
Competitive Negotiation

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Styles > Competitive Negotiation

Zero sum | Substance only | Competitive strategy | See also

In competitive negotiation, the approach is to treat the process as a competition that is to

be won or lost. Competitive negotiation may be be known as distributive, positional or
hard-bargaining negotiation.
Zero sum

The basic assumption of competitive negotiation is that it is a 'zero sum game'. That is,
the people involved believe that there is a fixed amount to be gained which both people
desire, and if one person gains then the other person loses. It is like arguing over a pie:
if one person gets a piece of the pie then the other person does not.
Win-lose

The outcome of zero-sum negotiation is defined in terms of winners and losers. One
person gets what they want and feels smug (or maybe a bit guilty), while the other
person loses out and feels cheated or a failure.
Substance only

In competitive negotiation, the substance of what is being traded is the only real
concern, and dealings are done in a hard and 'what I can get' way.
A way of thinking zero-sum is to translate everything into financial terms. Thus, for
example, if you are buying or selling a car, you think first in terms of its resale value.
The only perceived negotiable for many competitive negotiators is price.
Unimportant relationship

In competitive negotiation, the relationship between the people is unimportant. They do

not care about one another or what the other thinks about them. This typically occurs in
one-off sales where 'caveat emptor' is a key rule.
To show concern for the other person is to show weakness that may be taken advantage
of. This can lead to trickery where false concern is shown, and reactions where any
show of concern is perceived as likely trickery (and can lead to attempts of two-faced
double-dealing).
Competitive strategy

Competitive strategies that seek substantial gains focus on hard exchange and may
descend into deceptive double-dealing.

Hard exchange

In a hard exchange, what is being exchanged is clear and above-board and both sides
agree to the deal. There is no trickery or pressure and the players agree to the exchange,
albeit with one person potentially more satisfied than the other.
The hard exchange is like a fair fight. Both players accept the rules and play cleanly
(although perhaps based more on a respect for the rules than respect for the other
person). This may be encouraged by potential punishment for double dealing, such as in
the litigation that sellers may face.
Double dealing
The alternative method of competitive negotiation is to throw the rulebook
out of the window and resort to tricky approaches such as aggression and
deception. Either party may tell lies and use verbal or even physical
persuasive methods. We are all bound by internal values and the level of
trickery or physicality used will vary along a spectrum. Although we may
find this distasteful, we all know that it happens and many of us have been
less than fully truthful in our negotiations.

Balanced Negotiation
Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Styles > Balanced Negotiation
Summary of differences | The way between | See also

Summary of differences
There are a number of differences between Competitive and Collaborative negotiation,
which are summarized in the following table:

Characteristic Competitive approach Collaborative approach

Relationship

Temporary

Long-term

Consideration

Self

Both parties

Atmosphere

Distrust

Trust

Focus

Positions

Interest

Aim to gain

Advantage, concession

Fair agreement

Information

Concealed, power

Shared, open

Strategy

End justifies means

Objective and fair rules

Tactics

Coercion, tricks

Stick to principles

Outcome

Win-lose

Win-win

The way between

Between competitive and collaborative negotiation is a narrow path where competitive
elements highlight win-lose elements and where collaborative concerns temper any
Machiavellian tendencies.
It is in this gray zone between black and white where many real-life negotiations tread,
as the participants struggle between the need to achieve their more immediate
substantive goals whilst also keeping within social norms and personal values.
It is within this middle way that social norms can vary greatly. In some global cultures,
it is acceptable, or even expected, that negotiations are full of rude personal insults and
outrageous lies, yet in other cultures, even a hint of rudeness would cause the
negotiation to be immediately called off. In fact, the insulting and apparently highly
competitive approach often works within strict social rules and, when the negotiation
concludes, the parties can act as friendly acquaintances again.
When either side of the negotiation table comes from a different negotiation culture,
then the results can be quite interesting. It can be entertaining, for example, to watch a
polite (in their terms) Western person trying to barter in an Eastern market. Even within
national cultures, different social positions can lead to very different styles.
The trick, then, is to first understand the other person's natural negotiating style and the
degree of movement into gray areas that they will expect or accept. When you have

identified the style boundaries in which they negotiate, then you can adapt your style to
find an optimally effective solution.

Industrial Relations Negotiations

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Styles > Industrial Relations Negotiations
Confrontation and competition | Powerful brinksmanship | Mediation and
arbitration | Modern consideration | See also

Negotiation in industrial situations are typified by trade union negotiations where a team
from the trade union seeks to gain better pay and working conditions from a reluctant
management.
Although many companies are more enlightened about such negotiations these days, the
'traditional' confrontational methods are illustrative of a particular style and still may be
found in many other organizations.
Confrontation and competition

The typical industrial negotiation between trade unions and managers can be very
confrontational and competitive in style.
Team negotiation

Both sides of the negotiation usually have multiple members on their teams. A team is
typically led by a lead negotiator and supported by experts and people whose main job
is to observe the other side and watch for body language and other subtle signals.
The presence of several people can create a sense of intimidation. This is exacerbated if
they are physically large, look scary and use aggressive body language.
Robust style

The standard opener is with the trade union making demands that have been determined
through many meetings and deliberations. They are usually very well prepared and have
a clear concession strategyand walk-away alternative (that typically involves strike
action or other punishment).
Managers also may respond in kind, flatly refusing any possibility of pay rises or
reducing hours or maybe even requiring cuts in staff, pay or conditions to cope with
downturns in business.

Powerful brinksmanship

The industrial negotiation are also characterized by overt use of power, threats and
taking things to the edge (and over).
The power of the membership

The basic weapon of employees is refusal to work. The company could punish one
person or allow them to resign. However, the fact that trade union are representing a
large number of people gives them power, both in the mandate that they bring and in the
potential consequences of failure to agree, for example in taking strike action or
'working to rule'.
Managers also have a strong mandate in their position and their more senior managers
will likely have given them a clear directive about what they can and cannot offer. Their
basic weapon is continued employment and provision of amenities on the requirement
that employees do specified work.
Argument and breakdown

Rather than gentle bargaining, the approach is often to play the game right up to the
wire, squeezing the maximum concessions out of the other side without a great deal of
consideration for the relationship.
This typically includes abrasive argument and strong use of negative negotiation tactics.
Negotiators may dramatically walk out of the room and play a waiting or posturing
game. In larger organizations particularly, the press may be deliberately drawn into the
game with each side pleading its case to the public at large while journalists seek
interesting angles for their stories.
Mediation and arbitration

When relationships break down and trust has completely evaporated such that either or
both sides refuse to negotiate further, the only chance of resolution comes from the use
of third parties.
There is a dilemma in using third parties as, for such arrangements to work, both sides
of the negotiation need to agree on who they will both trust. Independent organizations
exist to carry out such services and these may need to be interviewed by either side
before they are hired.
Mediation

Mediators shuttle up and down between the two sides, impartially carrying messages
and encouraging the warring parties to find some place of agreement. The mediator may
also coach the negotiators, showing how their current position is unlikely to result in a
desired resolution and that some movement is necessary.

Arbitration

If mediation does not work, then an arbitrator may be engaged. This person listens to
both sides and then tells them what the solution will be. In order for this to work, both
sides must first agree to be bound by whatever the arbitrator decides. Generally, the
arbitrator will look at similar cases in other circumstances as well as the demands and
constraints of both sides before making their final judgment.
Modern consideration

These days there are a number of more enlightened trade unions and also enlightened
managers who at last realize that competition within the company is not good for
business and not good for jobs.
The result is that a lot more collaborative negotiation can be found in the
modern workplace, although competitive and combative approaches can
still be found.

Managing Board Negotiations

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Styles > Managing Board Negotiations
Power and control | Together and apart | Power deals and horse trading | See also

Top management teams often have to negotiate amongst themselves for the limited
resources in the organization, whether it is budget, people or something else. Although
this pattern appears largely in companies, it also happens at national levels, where a
cabinet of ministers jostle for power and budgets.

Power and control

Something that defines the people at the top of the company is that they have, by dint of
their position, significant control over the working lives of many people. The cogwheels
at the top of the company turn a few degrees and the wheels at the bottom spin like mad.
They also may control significant budgets, which they gain through potentially quite
political negotiations and often at the expense of other directors.
People who rise to the top of the pile very often are both motivated by power and are
very good at acquiring it and using it. The top team thus represents the most powerful
people in the company who are skilled at managing and using that power.

Together and apart

The managing board has a unique dilemma in that, while they negotiate with one
another for resources and may disagree about strategy or policy, they are still a single
unit with a single purpose of sustaining and growing the company. This cohesive force
provides a common drive in their negotiations and decision-making that pushes them
towards agreement.
The board members thus experience contradictory forces and have to manage this
dilemma of being both together and apart. As board members, they must appear as a
single mind to employees, investors and the public at large. Yet as heads of their own
functions, they must battle for resources and, as leaders one step below the ultimate
position, they may build empires and seek approval of their chief.

Power deals and horse trading

The style of negotiation of board members, then, may well be quite political and often
makes use of whatever forms of power they have at their disposal.
Whilst decision-making may appear as polite (or maybe not so polite) debate in the
boardroom, much of the negotiation happens in the corridors of power or on the golf
course. Alliances and coalitions may form and the use (and calling in) of favors are used
to gain power and achieve goals.
Conflict at the top can actually be quite healthy and is better than a back-slapping
country club or a timid following of the chief's orders. Open disagreement, where the
benefits of shareholders, customers and employees are balanced and debated, will help
create a healthy culture. Constructive criticism of alternative strategies will lead to a
better way forward.
Executive conflict fails where personal ambition overshadows the real job of creating
value for shareholders and other stakeholders. When power-play is used to grab control
and discredit other board members, the net result is personal gain and company loss.
Sometimes companies indirectly reward this negative activity, with bonuses based on
individual performance rather than team success. Sometimes also the boost to the sense
of control is sufficient to motivate dysfunctional behavior.

International Negotiations
Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Styles > International Negotiations
Between countries | Cultural confusion | Diplomacy and tact | Blocs and alliances | War
and destruction | See also

Between countries

International negotiation is as it says: inter-national. It is about negotiation between

countries. International negotiation occurs all the time between governments and is the
main subject of this page. It also happens between individuals and companies, where the
traps and tricks of cross-border negotiation can ensnare even the most experienced
home-country negotiators.
International negotiation is often not just between individual people, but between large
delegations, each of which is well organized and where every person has specialized
and skilled work. There may be cultural experts, linguists and subject specialists as well
as a chief negotiator and support negotiators. In a complex negotiation, there may be
multiple and interlined sub-negotiations going on at the same time, for example where a
trade negotiation includes a deal involving various industries and interests.

Cultural confusion
A big trap in negotiation lies in misunderstanding the culture of other countries,
especially in the rules they use to negotiate. While one country may emphasize
politeness and integrity, another might use deception and coercive methods as a norm of
negotiation (although they may still be polite and friendly outside the negotiation
arena).
It is easy to offend people from other cultures without realizing what you are
doing. Body language, and particularly gestures, can have very different meaning, and
what may seem an innocent movement to one person can be extremely rude to another.

Diplomacy and tact

International negotiation, done well, takes very careful notice of local cultures and
customs, and is often conducted with remarkable diplomacy and tact. Good
international negotiators are very smooth and practiced in their art, and ensure they are
extremely well informed not only about national cultures but also about the very
individual perceptions of the people on the others side.
The complexity and care of international negotiations may mean that the process can
take an inordinately long time, quite likely months and possibly even years. Some
negotiations never conclude, but the very fact that the two sides are talking is sufficient
to distract them from more violent interplay.

Blocs and alliances

International negotiation often happens between many countries at the same time. These
may band together into economic blocs (such as the European Union) or develop
shorter-term strategic alliances, such as where smaller countries band together to
confront a dominant larger nation.
Such collective negotiations are often as much marriages of convenience as the joint
action of true friends. Whilst international relationships are essential, each country
eventually puts its own needs above the needs of others. Even when countries go to war
on behalf of one another, the ultimate goal is still national at root.

War and destruction

International negotiation can be about life and death, literally, and even survival of the
entire planet. In the cold war period, Russia and America engaged in an endless series of
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) to prevent the horrors of mutually-assured
destruction (MAD). More recently, negotiations on limiting global warming have met
with limited success that may yet (depending on who you believe) lead to even more
damaging outcomes than nuclear war.
The madness of not agreeing on matters of global survival illustrates well the
difficulties of international negotiation. It is easy on the international stage to paint
yourself into a corner, and for personal posturing and political ambition to morph into
extreme and ultimately foolish acts.

Political Negotiation
Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Styles > Political Negotiation
Favors and back-scratching | Skeletons and blackmail | See also

In politics, both national and local, negotiation can be a brutal career-changing affair.
Whilst some negotiation takes a friendly and collaborative approach, many exchanges
are based on personal and political gains. Perhaps more than other methods, political
negotiation makes most use of social power.

Favors and back-scratching

A common scenario in the political arena occurs where one person has some legislation
which they want to get approved. In order pass this, they first have to get a majority of
their own party to back the proposal. Whilst many may agree, they may also see this as
an opportunity to ratchet up the points they are owed or demand a particular concession.
Political parties are typified by an inner circle (and maybe more circles with circles).
Currying favor with those higher up in the party who have greater influence and power
is a normal route to advancement. 'Old boy' networks of people who went to the same
schools or belong the same societies may abound, as will a social web of real and
convenient friendships.
Negotiations are integral to the fabric of daily political life and their effects ripple
outwards into the future. To be a politician is to navigate treacherous shoals and clearer
waters of the history and effects of negotiations by many other people as well as
yourself.

Skeletons and blackmail

Politicians live on their public persona and anything that might besmirch their squeakyclean image can be not only damaging but finish their career in very short order. Stories
from a mis-spent youth can come back to haunt politicians later in life, for example with
questions as to whether they experimented with drugs. Sexual adventures are also a
wonderful hunting ground for opponents and journalists.
Negotiations that were used in the past to climb the political ladder may also prove
unwise at a later date. A classic here is allowing political influence from major sponsors.
If a person or company contributes funds to your party, they may well believe that you
owe them something in return, which they will one day call in -- and may threaten to
expose the politician if the obligation is not returned as requested.
An effect of all this is that much energy is spent in covering up any career-limiting
history, which itself then becomes even more corrupt. The net result is that many people
in the political arena have something to hide, leading to the stalemate of a tacit
agreement to not expose others if they do not expose you.
When a new person appears on the scene, this can lead to a flurry of research into their
background and a determined seduction of them in order to bring them into the fold of
safe corruption.
Of course the extent to which this happens is unlikely to be universal -- but we are also
unlikely to ever find out that which is well-hidden. There are politicians who, against
currents of subtle corruption, maintain their integrity throughout their careers, which
may be limited as a result of their refusal to compromise on their ideals.

Selling and Buying

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Styles > Selling and Buying
Business to business | The professional buyer | The rest of the clan | See also

Business to business
Much selling is not done to the general public, but from one business to another. These
'B2B' sales are typified by being for much larger sums than the general consumer sale.
Businesses buy in bulk, spending large sums in order to minimize unit costs and hence
gain economies of scale. Where they make individual purchases for such as computers
or industrial machines, they cannot afford to buy low-quality equipment that will easily
break down. Stoppages in production can be far more costly than spending more on
acquiring reliable equipment.

This, coupled with the common need of the sales person to make multiple repeat sales
means that they will most likely seek to use relationship selling rather than use the
trickier one-off selling methods.

The professional buyer

In industrial buying and selling, the person doing the buying has a significant
responsibility to get the best deal for their company whilst not buying shoddy goods.
Professional purchasing people are thus used, who are qualified and experienced in their
craft, and may even have gone on the same sales training courses as the people who are
going to sell to them.
Professional buyers can easily spot closing techniques and objection-handling and will
push back strongly against any inappropriate manipulation by the sales person. They do
need sales people from suppliers, but will seek those who will take time to understand
their real business needs and offer superior value.

The rest of the clan

The sales person may need to persuade a range of other people across the customer
company, in particular three customer types. There may be many presentations and
exchanges which form the overall negotiation. In some circumstances the purchasing
manager may make the primary purchasing decisions, but in other circumstances they
support the negotiation but make neither the initial nor final choice.
Hostage Negotiations

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Styles > Hostage Negotiations

About hostage situations | First arrival | Assessing the situation | Getting
close | Developing the scene | Releasing the hostages | See also

A hostage negotiation happens when a criminal or deranged person uses innocent people
as bargaining chips.
About hostage situations

This can happen in a range of circumstances, including:

A desperate mother who barricades herself in with her own child.

A bank robber who is disturbed on the job.

Terrorists who take foreign nationals.

Thus:

There may be one or more hostages of any age

The situation may be planned or ad hoc.

There may be one or more hostage-takers, who are usually armed.

In the more extreme hostage situation, the hostage-taker has several choices:
1. Kill hostages or release them.
2. Kill themselves by their own hand or in a shoot-out.
3. Negotiate a way out (often desired, seldom possible).
4. Give themselves up.

Fortunately for most of us, we never meet these situations. Fortunately for those who
become hostages, there are professionals whose job it is to get them safely released.
First arrival

Police will on a hostage scene before a negotiator and may be trained to use the ICER
concept.
Isolate

Isolate the hostage zone, creating an outer perimeter and keeping keep onlookers
beyond the police safety line.
Contain

Limit the mobility of the hostage taker to the smallest area possible (the inner perimeter)
and prevent them from observing police activity.
Evaluate

Evaluate the original information provided, which may be from the hostage taker or a
representative, or perhaps a member of the public.
Without causing any escalation, gather as much additional information as possible,
including the number of hostage takers and hostages, their appearance, weapons and so
on.
Assess the threat and estimate the resources that may be needed to handle the situation.
Report

Report all available information gathered, including on the hostage takers and hostages,
events, weapons, zones, routes and so on, informing other officers and the chain of
command.

Assessing the situation

Preventing early harm

The first job of the hostage negotiator is to assure safety. When they arrive on the scene,
there may be armed police, high emotion and general confusion in which hostages may
get hurt.
Their immediate task is to get a swift briefing from the officer in charge and to ensure
that any actions by the police do not lead to hostages being harmed. The police (or
whatever authority is in charge) may have a high interest in capturing the hostage-taker,
whilst the negotiator is only interested in the safety of the hostages.
Getting organized

The next step is to organize communications with the hostage-takers. Hostage-takers

usually want this, to make their demands known. If the negotiation looks like it could
take some time (which may be days or more), then a permanent position must be found.
There may also be covert monitoring, for example with window lasers and hidden
cameras. Everything that provides information is used, including relatives, friends and
other sources.
Finding information

The negotiator will want to find as much information about the situation as possible,
including:

The numbers and names of the hostage-takers.

What they are demanding and what they really want.

Their emotional state and how close they are to harming hostages.

The numbers and general health of hostages.

Some of this information may be available from the authorities. Other will be gained
from the hostage-takers. In the early conversation with them, which is very much about
listening, the negotiators may find out much of this. Some other information may take a
while to extract.
The hostage-takers will want to make their demands known, but may be very cagey
with other information as they fear deception and attack.
The police will also want all information, including the location of everyone in the
situation, in case an armed assault is required.
Getting close

A critical process used in many hostage negotiations is to get close to them, to

build bonds and gain their trust.
Creating normality

Whilst there may be chaos and panic on all sides, the negotiator first seeks to create
calm. They talk in a calm voice and do a great deal of listening. In particular, they seek
to establish a sense of normality amongst the emotion, a space in which the hostagetakers can talk with the negotiator as reasonable people, much as you would talk with
any normal person on the phone.
The negotiator is always there and always ready to talk. They will listen to everything
and will create an even keel on which reasonable negotiation can be conducted.
Creating humanity

Within the normality, the negotiator listens uncritically to the hostage-taker, accepting
them as they are and creating a sense of humanity. From that humanity, they then can
extend to discussing the hostages, how they are bearing up and whether they are unwell.
Developing authority

The negotiator may also seek to position themself as an authority figure. This can start
by being authoritative on behalf of the hostage-taker, for example in getting them
communications and food. This may later turn to being authoritative with the hostagetaker, which can be a tricky and dangerous activity as the hostage-taker wants to be in
charge. Authoritative work may thus be done in particular circumstances. If the
negotiators can establish this relationship, they may be able to direct the hostage-taker's
actions more effectively.
Developing the scene

Once a relationship is established, the negotiator can seek to move the situation forward.
Small steps

Progress may be in small steps, as trust and relationships continue to be built. Food and
medicine may be given. Conversation with a hostage may be requested. Everyday chat
creates normality.
Depending on the urgency of the situation, the negotiator may seek to speed up or slow
down the talking. If hostages are hurt, then speed may be needed. If the hostage-takers
are requiring transport or other things that would lead to more problems, then it may be
more prudent to insert delays, such as saying you are 'looking into it'.
Managing stress

Stress and tension will continue throughout the negotiation in some way. The negotiator
may deliberately manage this, reducing stress to create hostage safety, but also possibly
increasing stress to wear down the hostage-taker.

Exploring solutions

Talks will eventually get around to what can be done to resolve the situation. The
negotiator may ask the hostage-taker for their thoughts and may offer possibilities
themselves. Of course the safe release of the hostages is always an important element.
The goal of the hostage taker may be simply to escape and may be for publicity or other
gain. If this is not acceptable to the authorities, for example release of a captured
terrorist leader, then other alternatives must be found.
Releasing the hostages
Wearing them down

Sometimes, just talk, talk, talk is enough to wear down the hostage-takers and for them
to give themselves up. High emotions do not last for ever and are followed by
exhaustion. The ideal negotiation ends with the hostage-taker agreeing to let everyone
go.
Releasing the weak

Depending on the number of people taken hostage, a release of children, old people and
those with medical conditions may be negotiated. It allows the hostage-takers to show
that they are not 'bad' people after all and also rids them of the problems of illness and
wailing children.
Concessions for people

People may also be exchanged for various concessions, from food to publicity. When
something is given to the hostage-takers, especially if it is on their list of demands, then
a concession may be requested in return, with the ultimate concession of hostage
release.
The final assault
It is a very delicate balance for the negotiator when no clear exchange can
be found and the hostage-takers look like they are going to kill hostages.
Whilst they are seeking to create exchange, the negotiator must also find
the point at which they pull the plugs and let the armed forces take over.
Even though some hostages may be killed, force may ultimately be the best
solution to minimize total harm.

Domestic Negotiation
Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Styles > Domestic Negotiation
Little things writ large | Love and hate | Persistence and creativity | See also

Domestic negotiation includes all the exchanges that you have in the home
environment, whether with your partner, children or other residents or neighbors.

Little things writ large

In the grand scheme of things, domestic negotiations are seldom the most critical things
for humanity. Yet they happen and include many significant decisions.
When your time at home is a big part of your life, then what may appear small to others
becomes larger for you. When others at home do things about which you disapprove,
then this can be remarkably annoying. I, for example, hate it when people leave lights
switched on everywhere. My wife is not very keen on the way I leave piles of books in
assorted corners.
And so we negotiate at home most of the time, whether it is to answer the phone or to
decide where to go on holiday.

Love and hate

It is difficult to exclude emotions from domestic negotiations. In fact, other than such
traumatic circumstances as hostage negotiations, few negotiations can raise the
emotional temperature so far and so fast. Love and hate can change places in seconds
and domestic disputes lead to physical or psychological harm on too many occasions.
Almost by definition, you have an emotional relationship with others in your household,
whether they are your children or house guests. This relationship is easily dragged into
the negotiation and can quickly become a weapon ('if you love me, you'll do what I
want').

Persistence and creativity

Domestic negotiators are, by definition, amateurs. They lack the subtly of
industrial sellers and buyers or international negotiators, yet they can be remarkably
effective.
Children, in particular, are an arch-example of how lack of training does not mean lack
of skill. They famously and frequently run rings around their exhausted parents, playing
mom and dad against one another or just nagging and whining until they get their way.
They may not have subtlety, but they do have persistence and creativity, two of the key
attributes that make for successful negotiation.
Everyday Negotiation

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Styles > Everyday Negotiation

Everybody, every day | Amateur vs. professional | See also

Everybody, every day

'Everyday negotiation' is a simple description of the negotiations in which we engage

every day. And we do negotiate, almost every time that we meet another person.
Silent negotiation

We even negotiate silently with strangers as we dance past them on the street. We look
at them, they look at us. One of us leans the body slightly one way, the other lean the
other way. The leans turn into swerves. Or maybe one person just goes straight and the
other has to dodge around.
Conversational dancing

In conversation, we want others to listen to us, which is a negotiation in itself as we

seek to interrupt their flow. We wait for our turn or dive quickly into the pause. A
slightly raised voice at the start of our speech is often used to firmly grab the talking
stick.
Then we get even more serious as we try to change their minds.
At a crass level, we just assert our ideas and work on the principle that because they are
obvious truths to us, they must be obvious truths to others. More subtly, we try to see
things from their viewpoint and genuinely try to persuade.
Yet we are still amateurs.
Amateur vs. professional

Where things get particularly tense for us is when we have to buy something from a
professional sales person. All at once, we are up against someone who knows that they
are doing and knows what we are thinking. Sometimes we know this and sometimes we
are lambs to the slaughter. Either way, if we are not careful we can end up with a much
worse deal than we realize.
Joe buys a car

A classic scenario is where Joe (or Jane or you) buys a car.

Joe drives up to the sales lot in his old Ford. The sales person smiles broadly at Joe and
shakes his hand.
'Hello sir, what are you looking for today?'
Joe smiles back and frowns. 'I need a new car.'

'Indeed sir.' The sales person also contemplates the Ford and shakes his head. 'Well,
you've come at just the right time, sir. We've some new stock in, including some very
popular Toyotas. I never keep those cars long. They're so comfortable and reliable that
people in the know go for them every time.'
Joe raises his eyebrows. 'Toyota? I wasn't thinking about them. Can you show me one?'
'Certainly sir. Just sit in this lovely blue one over here...There, how does that
feel?...Now watch this...'
Joe seems impressed and asks how much.
'Before we get to that, sir, I'd just like to show you another car. We've only one and it's
just in the back at the moment, but I can see that you appreciate good motoring so I
thought I'd let you have a go. In fact my manager's not in yet, so why don't we go for a
drive in it...'
Guess which car Joe drives off the lot, with a smile on his face and a hole in
his finances that will horrify his wife. Never mind. Bill next door will be green
with envy.
Hierarchical Negotiation

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Styles > Hierarchical Negotiation

Domestic hierarchy | Social hierarchy | Hierarchy at work | See also

Domestic hierarchy

Hierarchy starts at home, where the most fundamental hierarchy is that of parent-child.
Parent power

We grow up with the imbalance of parents in charge and children who, at least for some
time, were seen and not heard. Parents have financial, resource and (at least for a while)
a physical advantage. Even though we railed against it from time to time, it gave us a
sense of security that harked back to very early childhood where we instinctively clung
to our mothers for safety.
Our parents provide the dual key needs of a sense of control and a sense of identity from
early in our lives. In exchange, they demand our respect and often obedience.

Even later in life, our parents have a unique sway over what we think and do.
Depending on the family and culture, parents may be friendly advisors or harsh
dictators. Matriarchs and patriarchs are a regular feature around the world.
Child power

When children argue and leave, parents suffer terribly. The children's bargaining chips,
of compliance and relationship, are deployed even at an early age when they refuse to
hug a parent who has upset them.
Asymmetrical negotiation

Domestic negotiation is affected by this hierarchy, with parents doing more telling and
children doing more disobedience. This hierarchical relationship may thus seem
imbalanced, but the exchange is simplydifferent. Asymmetrical negotiation works when
a balance can be found in which each has something the other wants and each has
the power to change how the other feels. It is, in the end, the relationship on which
domestic negotiations stand or fall.
Social hierarchy

The hierarchies that we learn at our parent's knees are often replicated subconsciously in
social relationships. The fact is we like hierarchies, they make us feel comfortable and,
as a result, they generally work simply because they are a mechanism that most people
respect.
Building the hierarchy

When we meet with others, one of the first things we try to discover is whether they are
superior or inferior to us. When we form groups and teams, one of the early negotiations
is about who is going to be the leader and how the pecking order is going to work. Only
when this 'storming' is complete will the team function effectively. If every command or
request is debated, opposed or negotiated, then things will happen very slowly indeed.
When it's not a hierarchy

Social negotiation often works in a networked sense, in that to create any significant
change you need to generate a groundswell of opinion. This means selling your ideas to
many people, which typically requires a lot of time and energy. Much social power lies
with opinion leaders to whom many other people will listen and accept new ideas.
Social negotiation is more effective if you can reach these people and get them to spread
your ideas further.
Hierarchy at work

In the workplace, a part of the contract of employment is that you will respect the chain
of command, and that disobedience and even disrespect of a manager may be grounds
for instant dismissal.

Boss power

Managers have the power vested in their position to tell their subordinates what to do.
They allocate work to people and, possibly as a negotiating ploy, may offer more
desirable work to those who play the game.
Managers also make decisions about pay and promotion. If they like you, then you can
climb the hierarchy. If they do not, then your career may be seriously limited. This
power can reach beyond the company as they may give bad references to people who
leave under a cloud of some sort.
Managers generally can be less pleasant to their employees than their employees have to
be to them. Of course there are rules and harassment is not allowed in many companies.
Yet the manager can still make the life of their people more or less comfortable, and it is
the implied threat of this that can have a significant effect on general motivation and in
specific negotiations.
Worker power

Workers also have power. First, they have the power of expertise, of being able to do the
job. They then have the power of their two feet: they are not captives and may leave at
any time (although personal financial circumstances may make this difficult). Workers
also have the power of the collective, and may negotiate not as individuals but in the
form of industrial relations negotiations, as used by trade unions.
Another form of power that is often forgotten is how bosses are human and want to be
liked. A part of the reason that people want promotion is so others will look up to them
and hence support their identityneeds. A little flattery goes a long way and being nice to
your manager builds social capital that can be of significant weight in individual
negotiations.
Individual negotiation

As opposed to industrial relations negotiations, individual negotiation at work can be

asymmetrical in a similar way to parent-child negotiation. The manager may ask,
though this is generally a face-saving way of telling. When a manager says 'Can you do
this, please', they usually mean 'do this'.
Workers, on the other hand, need to think particularly carefully about how they will
change the manager's mind, and may marshal evidence and otherwise employ more
subtle techniques.
Managers may be concerned with leadership, which is less hierarchical as it
implies optional followership. They may also be concerned
with motivation of their people and so be careful about the demands that
they make.

Remote Negotiation
Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation styles > Remote Negotiation
Face-to-face | Telephone | Email or letter | Negotiation by proxy | See also

When negotiating, you do not need to be face-to-face with the other party. You can use
telephone, email, letter and so on. This remote nature of negotiation however does
change the dynamic.

Face-to-face
When people negotiate face-to-face, they are forced to consider social niceties more
than when they are negotiating remotely. Face-to-face negotiations hence tend to be
more civilized, with more concessions made and a higher likelihood of reaching a
successful agreement.

Telephone
When face-to-face is not possible, the telephone is the next best thing. However, when
people negotiate over the phone, the communicative elements of body language are lost,
from gestural signals to eye-to-eye contact. This loss can make agreement more difficult
to reach, although if a good relationship has already been established, and particularly if
there has already been face-to-face contact, then this can be very helpful.
With increasing use of video conferencing, the loss of the visual aspect can be
mitigated, although the quality of the image and also of the sound can still have a
significant effect for the better or the worse.

Email or letter
Negotiation by email or letter further separates the two parties such that they do not
have to speak to one another.
This method is asynchronous, as there is a delay between each person 'speaking'. This
allows time for careful consideration, research and consultation with others, but also
stretches out the conversation possibly over a rather long period Where the parties are
further apart, it can hence take a long time to to reach agreement. If, however, there is a
need for agreement, this may be reached in only a few exchanges.
Email messages are notoriously terse and the additional communication through voice
tone and body language are lost, leading to the potential for misunderstanding and
conflict.

Negotiation by proxy
A proxy is an intermediary, a person who takes your demands and offers and
communicates them to the other person. The proxy may be a mutual acquaintance, a
lawyer, a mediator or some other person. This may be necessary if the parties are
already in conflict or where trust is low.
In negotiation by proxy, the parties may never meet or even know who they are. This
can lead to stereotyping, objectification and other caricaturing of each other, which can
lead to further problems.
Where negotiation by proxy can work well is where the proxy, who must be trusted by
both parties, acts as a trust substitute and facilitates an equitable agreement.

The Eight-Stage Negotiation Process

Disciplines > Negotiation > The Eight-Stage Negotiation Process

This is a unique combination framework that puts together the best of many other
approaches to negotiation. It is particularly suited to more complex, higher-value and
slower negotiations.
1. Prepare: Know what you want. Understand them.
2. Open: Put your case. Hear theirs.
3. Argue: Support your case. Expose theirs.
4. Explore: Seek understanding and possibility.
5. Signal: Indicate your readiness to work together.
6. Package: Assemble potential trades.
7. Close: Reach final agreement.
8. Sustain: Make sure what is agreed happens.
There are deliberately a larger number of stages in this process as it is designed to break
down important activities during negotiation, particularly towards the end. It is an easy
trap to try to jump to the end with a solution that is inadequate and unacceptable.

Note also that in practice, you may find variations on this model, for example where
there may be loops back to previous stages, stages overlapping, stages running parallel
and even out of order.
The bottom line is to use what works. This process is intended to help you negotiate, but
do not use it blindly. It is not magic and is not a substitute for thinking. If something
does not seem to be working, try to figure out why and either fix the problem or try
something else. Although there are commonalities across negotiations, each one is
different and the greatest skill is to be able to read the situation in the moment and adapt
as appropriate.
Prepare

Disciplines > Negotiation > The eight-stage negotiation process > Prepare
Know what you want | Know how you'll get there | Guess the same for them | Set up the
meeting | See also
The process
stages: Prepare - Open - Argue - Explore - Signal - Package - Close - Sustain

The overall action in preparation is to be ready for every stage of the actual negotiation.
In preparation, you may walk through many scenarios and prepare for many
eventualities.
How much time should you spend in preparation? As much as is appropriate. If you are
buying a fridge, you may read a few reviews. If you are buying a house or a business,
then much more serious preparation is needed. The sections below are rather long,
especially if you follow all the links. This reflects how useful it can be to think through
the whole negotiation process before you start.
Know what you want
Understand needs

The first step in preparation is to know what you really want. This may seem obvious,
but many negotiators do not understand their deeper needs, let alone their goals for this
negotiation.
It is often very helpful to differentiate between positions and interests, as this can give
you significantly more flexibility.

Know your priorities

Distinguish between your needs, wants and likes. Know what you really need and know
what you are ready to give away. Know what is more important and what is less
important. Know what something is worth generally and also worth to you.
Two common areas of importance are time and money. How important are these to you?
Are you desperate to conclude the negotiation today or could you let negotiations drag
on for a while. Is money a critical factor, or could you flex on this to find a good deal?
Generally speaking, the more flexibility you have, the greater the chance you have of
reaching a satisfying conclusion.
You also need to consider whether the relationship with other person is important and
hence whether a competitive or collaborative approach should be used (or
some balanced approach somewhere in between).
Identify your boundaries

What will be your opening offer? If it is too high, you might insult the other person or
frighten then off. If it is too low, you may lose out. To do this, you may need to consider
the agreement zones that might occur.
Your opening offer will be based on a combination of the range of 'reasonable value' of
the things that you want, the situation of the other person and the dynamics that you
want to cause within the negotiation itself.
In practice, if the other person makes an opening offer first, which can be a useful
action, you may revise your opening offer. Nevertheless, it is still worth deciding where
you will start.
Know how you'll get there

When you know what you want from the negotiation, the next step is to plan for how
the negotiation might operate in practice. Of course you cannot predict exactly how
things will go, but this preparation will significantly increase your chance of
succeeding.
Count your resources

Look at everything you have at your disposal that you can bring to bear on this
negotiation. What do you have that the other person might value? When buying
something, what extra money could you bring to the table? Do you have people you can
call on for support? Can you use time in any way?
Finding variables is a key activity that can significantly increase your options. Look to
the variables in the resources that you have. What could you increase or decrease? What
could be expanded? What could be exchanged?

Develop your concession strategy

When you know where to start, you can now develop the concession strategy, whereby
you will make exchanges in order to gain final agreement. This will include the use
of variables where you can made trades in many different areas.
Develop your walk-away position

Having a walk-away alternative can be surprisingly useful and you should spend a
proportionate amount of time in developing your walk-away. Thus, if you are buying a
house, you should spend a lot of time and effort, whilst if you are persuading your son
to go to bed, then a few moments thought can be a wise investment.
Guess the same for them

After you have a good idea about your needs and priorities, repeat the exercise with
regard to the other person. If you can even half-guess what they want and what they are
prepared to give away, then you are well on the way to a successful negotiation.
Understand the person

Start by taking time to understand the person with whom you will be negotiating. What
are their beliefs and values? What is their personality and preferences? What are
their goals, both overall and in the negotiation?
Assess their likely approach

Having understood your own approach, you should also consider how the other person
will approach the negotiation. This may be done after you have built your own strategy,
although it can be useful to do this in parallel. Thus, understand your needs and then
consider their needs, and so on.
At the very least, do a final review of both your and their likely strategies. A good way
of doing this is to write them down on paper and place them side-by-side.
Set up the meeting

Finally, set up the negotiation meeting itself, if this is appropriate. If you can choose the
time and the place, you can add further control over the tone of the meeting.
Select the time and place

Choose a right time for the negotiation can be very useful. You may not want to
negotiate when people are not ready to give you the attention you need (although when
they are distracted by other things can sometimes be useful for getting compliance to a
'small' request).
Setting up location in which to negotiate, considering everything
from geography to seating is also an important activity. Our environment shapes how
we feel and hence how we think.

Invite the other person

Finally, invite the other person to join you. In a surprise negotiation, you might invite
them to a 'meeting' in which you spring the negotiation on them, hoping to gain
advantage from their confusion.
In many situations, however, and particularly where the relationship is important, then
you may prefer to let them know that this meeting is intended to reach an equitable
agreement.
When the other person is hard to get time with, then you may need to book their time
well ahead, which itself can be something of a difficult negotiation.
Prepare yourself

Being personally prepared includes knowledge of the situation and others as described
above. It also includes mental and emotional preparation. If it is a big negotiation, then
you may want to catch up on any lost sleep or maybe take a day or two to wind down.
Preparation also includes your appearance. As necessary get your hair
styled, buy new clothes and ensure you are clean and well-groomed on the
day. A smart appearance signals a smart mind, which can make all the
difference.
Open

Disciplines > Negotiation > The eight-stage negotiation process > Argue
The importance of opening | State your case | Listen to their case | See also
The process
stages: Prepare - Open - Argue - Explore - Signal - Package - Close - Sustain

The purpose of the opening stage of negotiation is to position yourself and your needs,
letting the other person know what you want, both as a outcome and in the process of
negotiation.
The importance of opening
The first few seconds

The beginning of any relationship is critically important as each person sizes up the
other, categorizing them against stereotypes and other internal models. The negotiation
thus effectively starts well before the talking starts in earnest.

When meeting the other person, you should hence seek to create the desired impression
right from the start. If you want to negotiate collaboratively, then you might start with
an agreeable and friendly greeting, whilst for a competitive approach, you may take a
strongly assertive or even aggressive position in order to intimidate and dominate the
other person.
Be confident

Whatever style you use, it is important to be confident and show that you know what
you are doing and where you are going. If you seek to be collaborative, then this
encourages the other person to trust you. If you intend to be competitive, it positions
you as capable of doing whatever it takes.
A part of confidence is not needing to feel apologetic about what you want. It can be
useful to demonstrate the need, but you should not use floppy language.
Who goes first?

A good question in all stages of the negotiation is 'who goes first?'

If you open first, then you are showing a lead and forcing the other person to follow. If
you put a good case, then you may upset the applecart for them, forcing them to try and
counter your early initiative. Especially if you have a good idea of the position they are
going to take, you can support or disrupt it as you choose.
If you open second, then you have the opportunity to respond to whatever the other
person says. If you are smarter, you may upstage them. If you are competitive, you can
nullify their position by the position that you take.
Controlling the process includes making sure that you or the other person goes first as
will suit you best. This requires proactive and often subtle management of the situation.
State your case
Paint the context

The context around a negotiation provides information that justifies and explains the
need. For example, when selling your car, you might start by explaining how your wife
is pregnant and will be giving up work soon, thus setting the context for your explaining
later how you cannot accept a low price (whilst also justifying your need to sell the car
and suggesting that it is not because it has any inherent problem).
Telling stories here can a useful way to help the other person understand and sympathize
with your situation. Be careful with this, working to legitimize your later arguments
whilst not showing that you are in a weak negotiating positions (for example that you
are desperate to sell the car).

Also match the length of the story to the negotiation -- if it is a quick exchange, then
keep it to a few words. If you are expecting to negotiate all day, then a somewhat longer
explanatory preamble may well be appropriate.
State the need

Explain what you need as a result of the contextual situation. Show that your need is
real and legitimate. Make it clear what you want from the other person.
In some situations this is clear and simple, whilst in others you may have multiple
needs, for example if you are negotiating an employment contract then there may be
many terms and conditions to consider.
Positioning

In stating your case, you can take a position which you will later defend. You may start
with an initial position, from which you are prepared to move, although you may well
state it as being a necessity and imply it is a final position (you can signal that you will
move from this position and bargain later on).
A useful approach in postioning can be to frame this for the outcome, where the benefits
to be gained are explicit, rather than the immediate deliverables.
Listen to their case

When it is your turn to listen, do so actively. Listening is not just being polite -- there
are many reasons why you should listen, especially in a negotiation. Showing respect
and interest will get them to give you more information, and in a negotiation
information really is power.
First, just shut up and listen

The first stage of listening is, basically, to listen without interruption. The only
interaction you have with them is active listening methods that encourage them to talk.
You can pause them to paraphrase back what you have heard and you can ask them for
clarification, but keep such interruptions to a minimum.
This can be a difficult period, especially when you are longing to respond to some of the
things they are saying. But hold your horses -- if you dive off into a debate, you will
miss what may well be very useful information.
Then probe for understanding

When they have made their case, you can then ask deeper questions to probe for further
information. If they have left out areas that you might have expected them to cover, it
may be because they are not comfortable talking about this.
Sustain a gentle approach of interest, curiosity and general inquiry. If you make it sound
like an audit or inquisition, then they may well stop talking. Your goal is to make it easy
for them to tell you more about their situation.

Understand the person

Think about the person with whom you are negotiating. Listen to the inner person,
discovering their beliefs, values, preferences and schemas. Find out what power they
have and how they might use it.
I can see that you do not take risks lightly...
Find what they really want

Understand how they prefer to satisfy their needs. Identify their interests and goals that
underlie the positions they are taking. When you know what is driving them, you will
have many alternative routes to satisfying them.
It looks like it's really important for you that you move before the new school term.

Argue

Disciplines > Negotiation > The eight-stage negotiation process > Argue
Erode their position | Strengthen your argument | See also
The process
stages: Prepare - Open - Argue - Explore - Signal - Package - Close - Sustain

In the argument stage, the serious exchange of views begins. This can be uncomfortable
as the goal is to strengthen your own position whilst weakening the other person's
position.
Note that in a collaborative negotiation, the argument may be gentle and polite to the
point where it does not seem like argument. Nevertheless, the concerns may still apply.
Erode their position

Respond to the positions and claims of their opening statements and

subsequent arguments, pointing out the limitations, falsehoods and irrelevancies.
Depending on your approach, your attack on their position may be aggressive, rational,
empathetic or apologetic. Overall, you are seeking to refute their argument, and the way
you do this will set the tone for the rest of the negotiation.
Note that erosion of their position is effective only when they feel less certain or that
they have less to bargain with. Simply asserting that they are wrong may only serve to
annoy them and make them more determined.

Minimize benefits to you

If they are claiming that something they have is of value to you, you can show how
what is on offer is not that important or you can get it elsewhere. This is relatively easy
to do as only you determine the value of what you might get.
Sorry, sir. There is little call for these at the moment.
I don't really care about how it looks. I just want something to transport the family.
Weaken their truth

When they make assertions, question them more closely. Change or challenge
probabilities. Show how things they assert as always true are only sometimes (and
perhaps infrequently) true. Probe for the evidence behind asserted truths. Test the
reasoning they are using, then use what you discover to undermine what they are
proposing as unquestionable truth.
How do you know that? Have you attended every meeting this year?
The train may be more reliable than it was, but it is still late sometimes.
Manage their needs

When they tell of the things that they want from the negotiation and you would find it
difficult to give them this, show how they cannot possibly get these, or otherwise reduce
what they will ask for. Show how requirements are not legitimate. Indicate how they can
get what they want elsewhere. Hint that what they want is not yours to give.
I know you're seeking a bargain, but I am not allowed to discount the price.
There's no way you're going to get delivery today.
Remember also that their needs are what drive them, and if you believe that you can
satisfy those needs with reasonable economy, then you may escalate these needs, telling
them how important they are, increasing their desperation to satisfy them. You can
exchange satisfaction of their needs for satisfaction of yours.
You're absolutely right. It is very important for you to reduce your hours.
Of course you want a decent car, sir. How could you hold your head up otherwise?
Strengthen your argument

As a counterpoint to reducing their power, you should be increasing the legitimacy and
force of your own argument, showing how it is right and proper that you get what you
require.

Maximize the benefits for them

Hint at what they are going to get out of the deal. Get them thinking positively about
your ideas. Push their thinking out beyond having done the deal so they see how good it
will be after agreement is reached.
If you get rid of this today you'll have much better space here.
Going to bed now will make you feel much better in the morning.
Strengthen your truth

Where you have stated something as true in your opening argument, add rationality
and cause. Use clear forms of reasoning that show how you are speaking the whole
truth, and that anything else is falsehood. Demonstrate objective evidence that proves
your case. Show your impartiality by considering the (weakened) arguments against
your case.
I need the extra resource to complete the project on time, as this plan shows.
I asked finance to check the numbers and they do add up right.
Legitimize your needs

Show how your needs are allowed both in the formal, legitimate sense (as appropriate)
and also that they conform with social rules. Demonstrate due diligence in the research
you have done.
I have spoken with Bill and Ted and they both said this was the right thing to do.
I have checked with several sites on the internet to ensure a fair price.
Repel their attacks

When they try to erode your position with various tactics, respond firmly to these
attempts. Show how you know what they are doing. Turn the tactics around so they
repel themselves. Turn attacks into compliments.
You're right, it seems useless. But when you look at it from the customer's viewpoint...
What is ridiculous is the price I'll accept. But only for today.
Explore

Disciplines > Negotiation > The eight-stage negotiation process > Propose
Discover areas of agreement and difference | Explore for ways to reach agreement | Feel
your way forward | See also

The process
stages: Prepare - Open - Argue - Explore - Signal - Package - Close - Sustain

So far, no agreements have been made, and early positioning may have made the way
forward difficult to see. Having established what you each want, however, you can now
move towards one another, seeking a way forward.
It is generally a mistake to go fast during a negotiation and taking time to explore can
pay back significantly later. Exploration not only gains you more information about the
other person and their needs, it also builds the relationship between you, making it easy
to reach agreement.
Note that in a collaborative negotiation there may be limited arguing and significant
exploring. Exploration both requires and builds a degree of trust which, in
a competitive context, may come more from the respect gained by showing one's teeth
in earlier stages.
Discover areas of agreement and difference

In many negotiations it is surprising how much both parties can agree. This may not
appear to be true at first, when areas of difference are often amplified and so obscure
similarities.
Find areas of similarity

Particularly when you are far apart, a good first step in getting together is to find those
things where you agree with the other person. Finding agreement with the other person
demonstrates similarity and hence creates bonding with them. This may also be done
during earlier stages.
Similarities need not be just around the negotiation. If you both have families, like the
same kind of music or have been to the same place on holiday, then you can use such
similarities as a bridge across which you can connect with the other person.
Do you have children? ... Yes, mine are teenagers, too. Tough, isn't it!
Find areas of agreement

When you are negotiating, the focus on what you want as opposed to what they want
can make it seem like you are miles apart, when in fact you may be quite near to an
equitable solution.
Finding areas of agreement helps to shrink the areas where you have to negotiate. By
saying 'we agree on this and that', you can find the specific areas where negotiation is
needed.

Well, at least we both want the children to do well at school -- the question seems to be
more about what we should do about it.
A good place to find agreement is in higher goals and social values. Few people will
frame themselves as 'bad'. You may also find areas where neither of you are interested.
In effect, these are also agreements -- at least that they are not disagreements.
Let's look at the big picture: we both want the company to succeed, don't we?
Find areas of difference

When you know where you agree, then finding where you really disagree is easier. The
fact that you agree makes it easier to work together and accept areas of difference.
An effective way to enable others to accept differences is to accept the person, even
though you do not agree with what they want. At the very least, you can accept that they
have the right to have different views and wants to you.
A common source of difference is that is not always clear is that people are driven by
fundamentally different goals.
It looks like you want to reduce costs, whilst I need to ensure high quality.
Explore ways to reach agreement

Before you start bargaining it may well be helpful to explore with the other person the
process by which you may reach agreement.
Fair process

Although this is overkill in some situations, in others it is crucial to establish fair

process before you start hammering out the details. If the other person feels that you are
being fair, then they are more likely to agree with your suggestions as to how to
proceed.
Fair criteria

In order to reach fair decisions, it is usually a good approach to find fair criteria by
which equitable decisions can be made.
Look to outcomes

It can be useful to start at the end, by discussing what a complete negotiation might be
like. This may include discussions of progress and emotions. If the relationship is
important, it can be useful to explicitly exclude it from the negotiation.
I want to ensure that if we agree, then we both feel good about the outcome.
If we reach agreement today, we will not have a complete contract, but we will be ready
to hammer out the final details next time.

Feel your way forward

When you start the more substantive parts of the negotiation, a continued sensitivity to
the other person and how close they are to making decisions is a very useful skill.
Moving forward is often like a soft martial art: you sense where the other person is and
flow with and around them.
Seek their variables

Find the variables that they may trade with you and match them to your own variables.
If you can help them see the many options open to them, then you can help them meet
many of their needs whilst encouraging them to trade with you.
Would you be open to other modes of travel?
So, it's not the amount, but how fast you can get it that is a problem.
Manage your information

Rather than telling them everything at once, deal in information as well as substance.
Release information in order to receive information from them. Be aware of how they
may use what you tell them to their advantage.
Sorry, I can't tell you all of my plans right now but I can give you a high-level overview.
Information can be used to persuade as well just as inform. You can use social norms,
for example, to nudge them in the right direction.
I need the holiday as it is my wife's birthday and I want to take her out.
Keep the goal clear, but the route flexible

When you come up against resistance, it may be possible to find a way forward that is
less costly to you. Always know where you want to go, but be ready to find alternatives
ways to get there. Not fighting is also conceding and you may be able to use this as a
trade.
I know that you don't like flying so if I book the train will you start a day
earlier?
Signal

Disciplines > Negotiation > The eight-stage negotiation process > Signal
Show readiness to move | Wait for their signal | Move towards concession | See also
The process
stages: Prepare - Open - Argue - Explore - Signal - Package - Close - Sustain

Signaling is a relatively short phase of activity in which (usually) both parties prepare to
move from their initial position. After early positions and explorations, signaling is a
conciliatory move that indicates a willingness to negotiate.
Show readiness to move

A signal is a subtle indicator to the other person that you may be willing to negotiate.
This is seldom done openly as this would contradict the opening and argument.
Signaling is not making a verbal statement and effectively saves face, providing an
excuse to subsequently move from your original position (or to backtrack if the other
person is not ready to collaborate).
Qualify statements

Add qualifiers that indicate how you might just be persuaded to do something that you
would not normally do, or that you may agree to something other than what you
originally wanted.
I might be persuaded, but I'd have to think first.
I don't normally buy things on the same day.
Indicate possibility

Use words that indicate possibility, opening out the potential for a different future that
you may have painted in your opening statement.
I wonder if there is a way we can agree this?
There may be a way I could stay longer tomorrow.
Use open body language

Open body language sends even more subtle signals of readiness, with indications of
welcome (such as open arms) and relaxed, smiling face.
Body signaling can be enhanced by starting with closed body language and then moving
to an open position at the same time that you use verbal signaling. Use gestures that
move in time with your signals. Match the other person's movements to show empathy.
Wait for their signal

When you have signaled to the other person, the next step is to wait for them to signal in
return.

Watch their non-verbal response to your signal

Watch their face when you signal. Are there signs of hope appearing? Do they seem to
have recognized that you have gone from arguing your case towards moving towards
them.
Also watch their body language. When you signal, does their stance change? When you
move from matching their body language to a more open position, do they follow you?
Hear the signals

Listen for their verbal signals. Hear the tone of voice that they use. Is it more relaxed?
Are they using qualifiers and indicating possibility?
Do not concede

If they do not signal, it can be tempting to try something more overt, such as conceding
on something. It can seem that they are blind to signals and if you move to concession,
then they will get this signal and concede in return. But what you have actually done by
this is to show that if you make a move and they do not reciprocate, then you will give
something more. This is simply encouragement for them to wait for more concessions.
Perhaps I could reduce the price a bit.
...
Well, ok then, how about if I knocked 10% off?
...
20%?
Do not reward intransigence with concession. If they do not signal (and maybe they do
lack the subtlety to recognize signals), then first try signaling again. If this does not
succeed, be more explicit: ask whether they are ready to make some trades. If they say
no, then you can probe for reasons why. If they refuse, then you may start to deploy
your walk-away.
Move towards concession

When you have got a signal indicating they might also be prepared to negotiate, then
there may be a steady or even more rapid movement towards offering concessions
or packaging.
Respond to their signals

When they signal in return (or maybe they signaled first), respond with open body
language and responding with a further encouraging signal. Show that you approve of
their movement by rewarding them with more attention and acceptance.
Frame togetherness

Start to frame the negotiation as a joint problem-solving situation, positioning the

subsequent activity as working together to find an equitable solution.

I think we're beginning to see eye-to-eye. All we need to do now is find

some way of bridging the difference. I'm sure we can reach a good
conclusion today.
Package

Disciplines > Negotiation > The eight-stage negotiation process > Package
Identify agreeable trades | Make conditional proposals | Build complete packages | See
also
The process
stages: Prepare - Open - Argue - Explore - Signal - Package - Close - Sustain

In this stage, the goal is to build potential solutions. The final agreement is not yet being
hammered out and you are still dealing in possibilities. By sustaining an atmosphere of
openness, you make it possible for both you and them to consider alternatives
exchanges without feeling obliged to complete the exchange.
Identify agreeable trades

In putting together potential agreements, start by looking for things that you can
exchange and where they might concede to you.
Trade in variables

When looking for things to exchange, find the variables of the things in which you are
dealing. If you are talking about action, consider when and where it will occur. If you
are talking about money, consider who pays what to who, when and how often. If you
are dealing in physical items, consider size, quantity, weight and other attributes.
Use other Kipling questions to find more variables. When the negotiation gets stuck, ask
questions to discover variables, which are almost invariably there. Variables can also
include additional features and items, such as the optional extras that a car salesperson
might add to the package.
Use elegant negotiables

Your elegant negotiables are those things that you have that you do not value very
highly, but the other person finds particularly attractive. They are easy for you to give
away but are valued by the other person.
They, too have things that they will give away easily but which you value. Do not
assume that just because you want something that they will not give it away without
demanding something significant in return.

Help them think

Use the Columbo technique and Socratic questioning to draw them out. Help them
understand variables and elegant negotiables.
Support them in problem-solving, clarifying the problem on which you are working
together, identifying causes and why things have happened, finding focus for resolution
and creatively identifying possible solutions.
Make conditional proposals

When discussing alternatives and offering concessions, always link what you are
offering to something that you want. You are thus dealing not in concessions but in
exchanges.
If you...then I...

Note the difference in effect between asking 'If I...will you..?' and saying 'If you...then
I...'.
When you say 'If I...', you put the thought of you giving something into the other
person's head, on which they may gain some form of closure and expectation even
before you reach the 'will you'. Saying 'will you' also invites a negative response.
If I give you more money, will you work harder?
Saying 'If you...' puts the thought of the action into the person's head. The 'If' moderates
this with a promise of something in return. The whole sentence is a statement, rather
than a question, which does not offer the chance of refusal. Overall, it is much stronger.
If you work harder then I will give you more money.
Keep things open

You are not yet at the point of final agreement, so remember that nothing is certain until
the ink is dry. Beware of the personal-closure trap, whereby your assumption that an
agreement has been made can lead you into later problems.
Know what you really want, keeping your eye on your interests. Be consistently firm
about these, whilst being open to alternative ways of achieving them.
Keep the trading open, which may include discussing multiple contradictory exchanges
as options that may be taken up. If you have many such options, then you will be able to
build more interlinked exchange packages.
If the other side suggests something, do not reject it out of hand. Discuss it and point out
shortcomings. Then find ways, if you can, of using this idea in an actual trade.
Generally seek to avoid outright refusals, keeping things open and loose until you start
to converge on specific packages.

Build complete packages

Packages are complete sets of trades, put together into a coherent packages that may be
agreed as a whole.
Build more complex trades

After you have identified several smaller trades, you can start building up towards more
complex exchanges. These may include addition of further depth to the existing trade or
may add additional elements.
In an industrial relations negotiation, the basic trade of increase in working hours in
exchange for higher pay is augmented with detail of what work will be done and rest
periods to be included.
In a domestic situation, the basic agreement of paying a child for doing housework is
elaborated with specific amounts being paid for specific jobs.
Assemble trades into packages

Trades can be subsequently built into larger packages that satisfy the interests of both
sides in as equitable a way as possible. This can be done incrementally, by adding
smaller trades into an increasingly large package. It can also be done as a jigsaw,
assembling already-complex trades that are quite substantial in their own right.
In the industrial relations negotiation, different agreements are made for people in
different jobs and then assembled into a larger package.
In the domestic situation, the parent asks for additional jobs to be done, linking them to
other rewards such as staying up late.
In building packages, see these from their viewpoint as well as yours. See how they
form a complete solution to their situation, addressing their interests and appearing as
a fair exchange.
Move steadily towards closure, tweaking what appears to be the final
package with a few last exchanges and sweeteners as appropriate.
Close

Disciplines > Negotiation > The eight-stage negotiation process > Close
Move to closure | Agree the details | Confirm the agreement | See also
The process
stages: Prepare - Open - Argue - Explore - Signal - Package - Close - Sustain

Move to closure

As your packaging reaches a complete solution, you can move towards the idea of
closing on a final deal.
Signal readiness to close

Show your own readiness by using signals to indicate that you want to reach agreement.
Use words like 'right' and 'ok'. Use ready body language that aligns with your words.
Watch their response, and if they signal in return, move further towards closure.
Ok then, it looks like we've a pretty good exchange here.
This is good. I think I can go with this.
Attempt closure

When things seem ready, you can use a trial close to nudge the other person closer to
agreement.
Right, then, are we agreed?
Shall we sign, now?
If they do not seem ready, probe for reasons and return to packaging or handle
objections as appropriate.
Move steadily and surely to close

Do not try to rush the close. It can be tempting when closure seems so near to jump to
the end. Whilst hurrying is a known method, it can also lead to the other person backing
away.
Agree the details

When they are ready to complete the deal, make sure that the door, once closed, is
unlikely to be re-opened.
Summarize the exchange

A good thing to do at closure is to summarize what you believe has actually been
agreed. This assures that the other person also agrees and that there is a common
understanding of who will do or give what.
So I will keep Mike off your back whilst you complete the design, but we'll need to
ensure Cynthia has final say, although I'll make sure she's in a good mood first.

Handle final objections and doubts

The realization of impending closure can cause people to panic in case they have
forgotten something. This may occur as sudden appearance of objections and other
reasons why they might not want to complete the deal. You can use objection-handling
techniques to manage such situations.
If you want to be certain of their full agreement, watch their body language here. Any
doubts will show in how they move and particularly their tone of voice. If you suspect
doubt, tell them what you see and ask if they have any remaining concerns. Use of this
is highly variable as, depending on the negotiation, uncovering doubts may be very
important or something to be avoided.
You look doubtful. Are you sure you want to do this now?
Handle last-minute tricks

Tricky tactics such as the quivering quill may be used just before the close as the other
person attempts to squeeze a few more drops of blood out of you. Handle
opposition such as this with professional aplomb, showing that you are immune to
deception or coercion.
Confirm the agreement

The final step of closure is to confirm the agreement and sign on the dotted line. 'It's not
over until the fat lady sings' is a common saying. In negotiation, it is not over until the
ink is dry and the exchange has irrevocably been made.
Shake hands

Although you may not literally shake hands, it can be a very effective thing to do at the
point of agreement. It symbolizes the closure and is such a powerful social symbol in
many different cultures that the other side will think twice about backing out.
Just offering your hand can be such a strong trigger that the other person will
automatically shake your hand without thinking. This can act as a forced close, but
beware of later ramifications if they feel coerced.
Agree what you have agreed

Even when you have summarized what you have agreed and shaken hands, it is
surprising what the other person may think what they have offered or what they will get.
a confirmation step that is often helpful is to put into writing what you have agreed.
This may be an email, a letter or a formal contract, depending on the situation and the
value of what is being exchanged. Even when negotiating with your children, writing
down the commitment and pinning on the wall can be surprisingly effective.
Sign the contract

The final stage in many negotiations is taking the irreversible step of legal commitment
where you sign the contract or hand over the money. You must be absolutely sure when

you take this binding step, as must the other person. If it is a big deal, then you may
want your lawyer or buyer to go through the fine detail before signing.
If you have hurried the previous stages, the other person may still back out
at this step, but if you have closed solidly and professionally, they will have
no reason in their mind not to sign on the dotted line.

Sustain
Disciplines > Negotiation > The eight-stage negotiation process > Sustain
Sustain their commitment | Keep your promises | Renegotiate as necessary | See also
The process
stages: Prepare - Open - Argue - Explore - Signal - Package - Close - Sustain

When the deal is closed and seems to be complete, the end may not yet be in sight.
Many negotiations have a future element, where the main agreement is for future action.
'There's many a slip twixt cup and lip', as they say, and an earlier commitment might not
be delivered as promised.
Sustaining commitment is thus about making sure that people stay closed and that what
was agreed in the Close stage stays agreed and gets delivered as promised.

Sustain their commitment

When commitments were made in the excitement and pressure of the negotiation, they
may look a little less attractive in the cold light of day. Particularly if there is a longer
delay until the promises are completed, the situation may change and the negotiated
agreement may move from being rather attractive to being rather unattractive. And
sometimes commitment just wanes, all by itself. Understandingstrong and weak
commitment is thus important.
There are many techniques for sustaining commitment, such as:

Burning bridges: Ensure there is no way back.

Evidence stream: Show them time and again that the change is happening.

Golden handcuffs: Keep key people with delayed rewards.

Involvement: Give them an important role.

Reward alignment: Align rewards with desired behaviors.

Rites of passage: Use formal rituals to confirm change.

Keep your promises

You, too have made promises in the negotiation, which you must scrupulously keep. If
you break promises, you will likely cause betrayal effects and lose any commitment.
Remember Kano's needs: deliver basic needs solidly, performance needs carefully, and
then add icing to the cake with some excitement needs. These need not (and should not)
be over the top. The formula is 'delight = expectation + 1'. If you deliver just a little
more than is expected, you can create a very happy and loyal customer. 'Under-promise
and over-deliver' is an effective motto.

Renegotiate as necessary
If the situation changes and the agreement is really not worth keeping in its current
form, then rather than pull out without saying anything, it is better to go and talk to the
other party.
Where possible and appropriate, re-negotiate the deal, sealing commitment in a newer,
more appropriate agreement. If the other person also benefits from this, they will be
doubly committed to the new arrangements.

Three-Stage Negotiation
Disciplines > Negotiation > Three-Stage Negotiation
The process stages: Open - Bargain - Close

The Three-stage negotiation process is a quick and easy method of reaching agreement
in the many different short situations you may find yourself in where the eight-stage
negotiation process is too complex a process for you.
Typical situations where a short negotiation is used includes domestic requests and retail
purchases.

The three stages are simply:

Open: Say what you want

Bargain: Hammer out the deal

Close: Agree and exchange

Open
Disciplines > Negotiation > Three-Stage Negotiation > Open
Request | Explain | Offer | Example | See also
The process stages: Open - Bargain - Close

Request
Say what you want from the other person. Keep your description clear and
unambiguous. Make it clear whether you want them to do something, allow you to do
something, agree with something, just listento you, tell you something, and so on.

Explain
It is often useful to explain why you want what you asked. This both helps the other
person decide exactly what to give you and also can act to persuade them.
When the request is difficult to make, it can be preferable to justify the request
beforehand, showing that you have a legitimate need. Early explanation of the problem
you are trying to solve is also useful if you are not very clear yourself exactly what is
needed.

Offer
Tell them what you will do in exchange for them fulfilling your request. If they are
doing you a favor, you can still say how grateful you will be.
Sometimes the offer is to not do something -- for example when you make a threat to do
something if they do not comply with your request.

Example
Request: Can you please go to bed now, with no complaints.
Explain: You've got school in the morning, and you need your rest.
Offer: I don't want to get cross again.

Bargain
Disciplines > Negotiation > Three-Stage Negotiation > Bargain
Probe | Signal | Trade | Example | See also
The process stages: Open - Bargain - Close

In bargaining, you are seeking to find an agreeable exchange. This is done with probes
and signals before the actual trade is done.

Probe
Listen to their response to your request, including any counter-requests that they make.
Hear any resistance that they offer (this can tell you a great deal about them).
Probe for details of what they want, why they want it, and why they may not want to
comply with your request.
If they initiated the negotiation, then you might arrive at the negotiation at this stage,
with no chance to open. If this is so, you should still listen and probe as necessary. Do
not move on to trading until you are ready.

Signal
Show that you are ready to negotiate by sending signals that you might change your
request or agree to some alternative arrangement. You can then wait for a signal back
from them or, if it seems appropriate, go straight to a trade.

Trade
Put together things that you want with things that they want and offer these as a possible
package for the other person to agree. If it looks like you are close to agreement, then
move to closure.

Use trades to handle objections. Offer something in exchange for them withdrawing
their reasons for not agreeing with you.

Example
Probe: Why do you need to stay up? How long do you want to stay up?
Signal: Your bedtime should be ten o'clock, you know.
Trade: You can stay up another 30 minutes, but I want you up and out of bed by seven
o'clock in the morning! OK?

Close
Disciplines > Negotiation > Three-Stage Negotiation > Close
Propose | Agree | Exchange | Example | See also
The process stages: Open - Bargain - Close

Propose
Make a proposal for the exchange, summarizing what you expect from the other and
what you will give them in return (if anything). Include everything that you believe is
necessary and sufficient to achieve an agreement.
Use closing techniques and other negotiation tactics as appropriate. Watch out for what
the other person is doing in this area and resist any tricks or handle opposition as
needed.

Agree
Check to make sure the other person understands the deal and is ready to make the
exchange. Summarize the agreement as necessary. Be clear about whether the deal is
reversible (for example in a shop, can you take the goods back?
Handle opposition as needed, including appropriate use of objection-handling
techniques.
Write down what has been agreed as necessary, for example in an email. Get what
written confirmation you need and delay the exchange if you need to check the details
with somebody else.

Exchange
Complete the deal by making any exchanges as agreed. If the other side has said that
they will do something then they should do it.
Ensure you get receipts and other proof of exchange as necessary, particularly if these
are needed to reverse the agreement or claim later benefits, such as warranty returns.
As necessary, you can follow up later to ensure that they have completed all the things
that they said that they would do.
It is often a nice thing to do to offer a little extra reward, such as thanks or praise for
completing their commitment.

Example
Propose: If I bring you a cup of lemon tea, will you go to bed now?
Agree: Right. You'll be in bed in ten minutes, when I'll bring the tea. OK?
Exchange: Here's the tea. Good to see you're tucked up well.

Negotiation activities
Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation activities

There are a number of specific activities that you may be doing before and during a
negotiation. These are given below:

Location Management: Many ways of getting the best place to negotiate.

Researching the Other Side: Finding out who they are and how they will react.

Finding Variables: Seeking the many things that you can exchange.

Finding Fair Criteria: Agreeing on how to agree.

Building Rapport: Connecting with them.

Creating a Constructive Negotiation Climate: Setting a good climate of trust and

focus.

Guiding Decisions: Helping them decide what you want.

Handling Opposition: When the other side gets negative.

Identifying WEB Requirements: Three preparations.

Isolating the Issues: Finding the real problem.

Behavior Labeling: Saying what you will do.

Prioritizing: Deciding what is more (and less) important.

Developing Your Walk-away: Be ready to walk away with nothing.

Deploying Your Walk-away: Steadily walking towards the door.

Researching the Other Side

Disciplines > Negotiation > Activities > Researching the Other Side
Drivers | Outcomes | Strategies | .See also

Understanding the other side and what they may want and do can be a difficult and long
task. When the negotiation is significant, it is worth spending the time required to dig
into what they might want and do.
This may be done both before the negotiation, during the preparation, and also during
the actual negotiation itself, where you may test and revise your theories about them.
Note also that anything you might ask of the other side you should also know about
yourself (and vice versa).
Drivers

Before the people on the other side even start to consider the negotiation, they have a
significant layers of drivers that motivate them. Although you may not be able to
understand all of these, it is worth seeking to understand the
Personal drivers

There are a number of deep drivers that motivate people. You can discover these by
asking questions such as:

What are the fundamental beliefs, schemas and values by which they
understand and judge the world?

What are the effects of national and organizational culture?

What are their individual preferences and personality factors?

Consider their Emotional Intelligence and tendencies

to emotional argument.

What are their organizational and personal goals?

Organizational drivers

The organization may also have a number of forces acting on it that you may discover
by asking pertinent questions.

What is the basic organizational culture?

What are the dynamics of growth, stability or decline in their

marketplace?

What is the nature of competition for them?

What has their market been like historically that may lead to current
behaviors?

What are their organizational vision, mission, strategy and goals?

You can also research significantly into all parts of the organization. A well-prepared
negotiator will surprise the other side with knowledge of their company.
Outcomes

The outcomes are the results of the negotiation that the other side might want. You may
know this and you may think you know it and be wrong.
There are four types of outcome that may be sought from you:

Material: They may want physical things that you have.

Information: They may want knowledge that you hold or control.

Action: They may want you to do something for them.

Agreement: They may seek to get you to agree or otherwise change

your mind about something.

Strategies

You may also consider what approaches they may use to various stages in the
negotiation.
When you understand the organization and the people, you may be able to guess at
some of these strategies, especially if you or a colleague have dealt with them before.
Persuasion strategy

Consider the general strategies that they may use to persuade you. For example:

Will they be generally collaborative or competitive?

When putting forward ideas, how will they make them seem attractive
to you?

How will they likely respond to your positions and offers?

Concession strategy

An important thing to understand is how they will concede.

Will this be slowly and with significant argument between each

concession?

Will they cave into pressure and concede in large amounts?

Is there something special that can be exchanged for a large

concession?

It is also useful to identify their zone of agreement and hence the range across which
they may concede.
Closing strategy
How might they seek to close the agreement? Will they be direct or
deceptive? Will they seek to coerce or collaborate? How will you respond to
their methods? Will they object to the closing methods that you use?
Finding Variables

Disciplines > Negotiation > Activities > Finding Variables

Variables vs. absolutes | Identifying variables | See also

Variables vs. absolutes

In negotiation, one of the biggest traps is to think in absolutes, that you will succeed or
win, that you want A and not B, that the other person is good or bad. When an exchange

is being hammered out, the more things you can change, the more options you have and
the greater the chance of finding an acceptable exchange.
The secret of this in in finding and working with the variables.
Continuous and discrete

Variables can be continuous, such as temperature or change in discrete steps, such as

people. Discrete steps can be large, such as houses or small, such as with money. You
can find continuous and discrete variables by asking 'How much?' or 'How many?'.
Identifying variables
Units of measurement

Variables are those things that can be changed along multiple dimensions, each of which
may have a different unit of measurement.
For example, when talking about with price, the underlying unit of measurement is
money. Other units of measurement can be added, with variables such as the time taken
to pay, how it is paid (cash or other means) and so on.
Key variables

To identify key negotiation variables, ask 'What are the things that are important to me
here?'. For example, when buying a car you might include color, price, mileage,
cleanliness, damage and so on. You can look at what is being negotiated and ask
generally what can vary about these things. For example, the car may have variables in
the number of owners, the wear on the tires, the completeness of service history and so
on. Look also for variable that are not as obvious, such as the prestige of the car and the
likelihood of it being stolen or damaged when on your driveway.
Variables can include:

Material goods (money, cars, computers, ...)

Information (reports, knowledge, ...)

Emotions (friendship, respect, ...)

Authority (approval, support, access, ...)

Effort (time, expertise, ...)

Prioritize

It is useful then to prioritize variables -- for example how important is damage to you?
Is a small scratch acceptable? Also consider how these will affect other variables, for
example if there is crash damage, how would that affect your valuation of the car?

The other person's variables

Remember that the other person also has variables, that they may or may
not have identified and prioritized. If they have not, then you may be able to
facilitate this process during the negotiation to your (and maybe their)
advantage. Include emotional factors as well as more substantive ones, for
example consider the attachment that the person has to the item in
question, their need to sell it (have they already bought a replacement?),
their need for money (do they appear affluent) and so on.
Finding Fair Criteria

Disciplines > Negotiation > Activities > Finding Fair Criteria

What makes things fair | Ways to find fair criteria | See also

A key part of reaching an agreeable outcome is to ensure that both parties conclude that
the result is fair, and a good way to establish this is to identify decision criteria that are
clearly fair.
When there is any dispute, this is usually about decisions that appear unfair. Going back
to the criteria used and finding new and objective criteria is often an effective way
forward.
What makes things fair

Although fairness is something that each person may define, there are sufficient social
rules around the subject that fairness can usually be agreed.
Objectiveness

The problem with one person saying what is fair in a negotiation is that they have a
stake in the outcome. This means that any single person having the final say about
something that affects both parties may be viewed by the other person as unfair.
The best way to find fairness is thus outside of the individuals in the negotiation, in a
person or publication that is trusted by both parties.
Equality

When both people have an equal say in the process, then each person cannot claim that
the other person is grabbing control.
An important aspect of equality in negotiation is the right to say no. Each person has the
right to refuse any offer and to leave the table at any time.

Fairness also comes through mutual respect. If you accept the other person then they are
more likely to accept you. Acceptance and respect does not mean you have to agree with
them -- the key is respect them as a human, with equal rights to all others.
Ways to find fair criteria

Fair criteria for making decisions are not always easy to identify. Here are several
categories in which they may be found.
Laws, regulations and standards

Where there are regulations set by others, this provides a framework that you can use to
show what is acceptable or not. Such regulations may include:

National legislation, such as employment law.

Company regulations, such as for handling and storage of materials.

Company policies, such as for employee equality.

Industry standards, such as ISO9000.

Social norms

As well as formal and documented criteria there are also many socially accepted rules
for what it fair.
Note that social rules may vary significantly across cultures, even within the same
country, company or even family. For example a street gang member has a different
view of violence to a parent. Negotiation in different countries can vary in norm, for
example in the use of insults and deception.
Where cultures are different, a discussion of fair play may be useful. Where they have
less polite norms, you should first be aware of these and may also decide to play the
game by their rules.
Available publications

There are a lot of useful articles in magazines and journals on everything from the
performance of cars to romantic affairs. These may be used as criteria when you are
discussing what is fair, what is normal and what is totally unacceptable.
Some publications have a major purpose in providing fairness, for example in the price
guides that you get for everything from cars to cameras to antiques.
It can be very helpful in negotiations to have first read the publication beforehand, and
then have it with you, so you can pull it out and set the standard for fair criteria.

Opinions of respected others

Other people can be used in a number of different roles. Ury (2000) describes ten
different roles that others can take, including mediation, arbitration and others. They key
is that when you do not find it easy to accept or trust what the other person might say or
do, then engaging someone else who you both trust can be an effective alternative.
This third party is effectively a 'trust broker' who can do anything from
giving expert opinion on goods being bought or sold, to acting as a gobetween when relationships break down but the negotiation must continue.
In many of these situations they may be used to define or facilitate
agreement for fair criteria.

Creating a Constructive Negotiation

Climate
Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation activities > Creating a Constructive
Negotiation Climate
Concerned | Collaborative | Brisk | Focused | See also

A constructive climate has four main attributes that you can deliberately work on to
build a situation where you can successfully work with others towards an agreeable
conclusion.

Concerned
A basis of all negotiation is trust, and is particularly important in
constructive, collaborative negotiation. And perhaps the most under-rated yet powerful
way to trust is by showing active care and concern for the other person and their
interests.
Concern starts with greetings, showing a genuine interest in the person. It continues
during the negotiation, seeking to understand and sympathize with their needs and
constraints. It does not mean that you become overly concessionary, giving in just
because the other person seems to need something more.

Collaborative
Collaborative negotiation means working with the other person rather than against them.
It means being constructive, seeking to build rather than destroy. This is in contrast
with competitive methods that work on a zero sum, win-lose model. When you work

collaboratively with others, they are more likely to work collaboratively with you, both
now and in the future.

Brisk
Just because the negotiation is collaborative it does not mean discussions can drift or
delays be allowed to slow progress to a crawl. Always seek to keep things moving at a
steady pace, although without using this as a pressure technique.
Keep things brisk by breaking things down into bite-sized chunks and making note of
each success as it is achieved. This gives a shared sense of progress that feels good and
create a desire to keep up the string of good feelings.

Focused
If you are moving briskly in the wrong direction then you will quickly get nowhere. It is
always important to keep your eye on the goal and move steadily in that direction. This
does not mean you cannot be social (which, done well, can be very helpful in creating
rapport).
To achieve focus, agree the overall purpose and specific goals of the meeting up-front,
then notice when the conversation is drifting and firmly but gently bring things back on
topic.

Guiding Decisions
Disciplines > Negotiation > Activities > Guiding Decisions
Decision comparisons | Managing standards | See also

As the negotiation moves forward, if you can shape how decisions are made, then you
can affect their outcomes. It hence makes sense to guide the other person through their
process of deciding.

Decision comparisons
We make many decisions by making contrasting comparisons between two items. In this
way we actually decide something is 'better' rather than 'good' (and even when we say
'good' we are still actually making some internal comparison).
Understanding how decisions are being made means understanding this comparison. If
you can see what is being compared then you may be able to affect the outcome of the
decision.

Managing comparisons
If you can manage the comparisons that people make you can guide their decisions.
People compare against ideals or standards, so if you can identify and change the
standards that they use, you can change how they evaluate things.
Decisions also use criteria to evaluate options. Another way to gain collaboration is to
focus on fair criteria by which everyone will agree.

Assertions and fallacies

Decisions can also often be guided by making assertions of fact. Whenever you say
something, the other person has to assess whether your statement is true or false. One of
the most common ways of doing this is to consider how confident you appear to be in
making the statement. One of the basics of assertion is to speak with confidence. Look
them in the eye. Speak clearly and steadily.
Fallacies are assertions that may appear to be true but are, in fact, false. Many of us use
fallacies on a daily basis without realizing that there are holes in our arguments.
Handling Opposition

Disciplines > Negotiation > Activities > Handling Opposition

Understanding real opposition | Managing negative tactics | Cranking the tension | See
also

When you meet opposition during a negotiation, what do you do? The first step is to
understand whether the person is using deliberate tactics to trip you up or whether they
have a genuine and reasonable reason to disagree with you.
Understanding real opposition

Before assuming the other person is opposing you for unreasonable reasons, it is worth
taking a moment or two to get a better view of the situation.
Stand back

A good first step when you meet opposition is to stand back and look at what is
happening. Are you the cause of their opposition? Are they reacting to something you
said? Maybe you have offended them in some way.

Notice also how you are viewing them. Are you framing them to yourself as an 'enemy'
or 'bad guy' in some way? Do you see them as someone to overcome? How you think
about them will affect your words and body language.
Stand in their shoes

To understand the other person better, it can be very illuminating to see things from their
point of view. Take on the mantle of their beliefs, values and preferences and see how
the world looks. Understand how their goals are driving to do what they are doing. See
what other influences are affecting them.
I can see how important it is for you that you get home early today.
Step to their side

A most disarming approach is to reframe the negotiation not as a competition but as a

collaborative problem-solving exercise. Using the words 'we', 'us' and 'our' makes 'you'
and 'me' irrelevant. We are a social species and the offer of working with someone
rather than against them can be a tempting offer in many situations.
What we need to do is figure out what we must do today, then we can take a look at how
tomorrow will affect each of us.
Depersonalize the problem

Talking about 'the problem' turns it into a concrete 'thing' that you can figuratively put in
front of you (especially if you draw or write about it). Making it a thing stops it from
belonging to one person or another and turns it into something separate.
How can we make sure that the work gets done in time?
Creating a joint problem also supplants individual wants and positions. By including
their needs and your needs into the same problem, you bring the negotiators together.
Managing negative tactics

When they start using tactics, the first step is to see what they are doing and then you
can act to defuse them. When you show the other person that you have caught them in
the act of using socially doubtful methods, you may shame them into more collaborative
working.
Go around blocks

When they refuse to negotiate, rather than meeting them head on in pointless argument,
find ways of going around the blocks they place in your way. When they see that you
can get around their obstinacy, many people will remove the block and negotiate more
cooperatively rather than be left trying to fight with nothing.
Well, if you are not able to change my settings then, perhaps I could talk to your
supervisor about it now.

Expose tricks

When they use deceptive methods, show that you can see what they are doing. Name
the game. Show that you have a full understanding of deceptive methods. When you do
not use them yourself, even though you understand them, you are taking a higher moral
position.
Are you trying to throw me a red herring? It's a neat trick but I can see what you are
doing. It will be more effective if we work together on this rather than playing games.
Resist coercion

When they use bully-boy tactics on you, show your courage and stand up to them. Most
bullies are also cowards and will back down when confronted.
You can threaten me with leaving, but I will not be persuaded by such methods. I would
rather you stay, but to use that as a weapon is unacceptable.
Cranking the tension

Whilst getting closer to the other person and defusing negative tactics, you may also
want to crank up the tension that will drive them into more collaborative behavior.
Use easy agreement

The first step is to go for agreement. Find those things that they will accept without
argument. Get them saying 'yes' with a yes-set of questions with which they can easily
agree. Find easy 'no-brainer' trades that are hard to refuse. Guide their decisions, making
it clear for them how advantageous it is to agree with you.
Do you care about your family? Do you want them to be safe in a storm? Would a
refuge shelter like this be a safe place in a storm?
There's no need to sign up yet -- we've a trial system you can use free for a month.
Use difficult disagreement

If they do not take the carrots that you offer them, the next step is to show that you can
use a stick. A sadly large number of people have beliefs about others that assume a 'dog
eat dog' combative world, and the only way to earn their respect is to demonstrate
strength. You may have already done this in your opening and argument, but trying to be
collaborative and using easy agreement may lead to them reverting to dominant
behavior.
Show them consequences of not collaborating with you. Use a forced choice, whereby
only one option is acceptable for them. Use steadily more coercive methods (within
acceptable social norms) to get them to negotiate with you.
If you don't let him go, then what do you think he will do to you?

We can go to the opera , a rock concert or my parents.

Steadily expose your walk-away alternative

The final step is to steadily expose and deploy your walk-away alternative. When the
other person sees that you are prepared to back out and that you will not be hurt by this
action, then they must face the consequences for them (which you can also expose).
This can be very concerning for them if their walk-away is worse than yours (which it
very likely will be, if you are well-prepared.
You know, I was thinking of offering this to Sam.
I know that Sam would be interested in taking this assignment.
Well, if you can't afford the time, Sam will get the work. I've already worked
out how he can offload his current activities.

Identifying WEB Requirements

Disciplines > Negotiation > Activities > Identifying WEB Requirements
Walk-away | Expectation | Best-case | See also

When you are planning for your negotiation, you need to consider three positions on the
scale of what you want. These helpfully, spell the acronym WEB, to help you remember
these. This will also give you the range of deals you may want to consider in the
negotiation (Note: this is very close, but not identical, to the principle of Needs, Wants
and Likes).
In doing this, understand the variables that you may have to consider in the deal, such as
money, time, quality and hassle.

Walk-away
First, decide the minimum you will accept from the other side, after which you will
walk away from the negotiation, abandoning the deal. Write this down and review it to
ensure you are comfortable with this.
You can also at this time start developing your walk-away actions so you can be
comfortable with walking away if you do not get your walk-away requirements.

Expectation

Now consider what is reasonable, and which you will be happy to get out of the
negotiation. Include in this both what you will receive and what you will be prepared to
give for this.
A useful way of creating a reasonable expectation is to look at what has been done in
the past. For example if you are buying or selling a home, look at sale prices (not sticker
prices) of similar properties.

Best-case
Finally consider the best case of what you might get, for example if the person selling a
house you want to buy is very keen to sell soon, then you could expect to get a good
discount on their price.
There are two dangers in seeking best cases. First, you can be over-optimistic and
expect everything for nothing. The reverse is that your best case is actually worse than
you could actually get. The idea is that you would normally start the negotiation at your
best case. If they immediately say yes, you may wonder if you could have got more.
Isolate the Issues

Disciplines > Negotiation > Activities > Isolate the Issues

...from the people | ...from one another | ...from non-issues | See also

In negotiation, the area under negotiation is often confused and complex. If you can
isolate the real issues, then you can address them coolly and effectively.
...from the people

Fisher and Ury (1981) said 'Separate the people from the problem', as they noted how
people on both sides of a negotiation become personally attached to the issues in
question and hence are psychologically dealing in parts of themselves. To give way on
an issue to which you have attached your identity is to lose a part of who you are. This
hurts, and naturally leads to irrational resistance and aggressive, competitive
negotiation.
Objectifying

A way to separate the issues from the people is to objectify them, turning them into
distinct things that can be treated separately. English, as a genderless language, is
helpful in this, as you can talk about an issue as 'it', which is clearly non-human.

Sculpting

Another technique is to stand to the side of the person and gesture towards an empty
space in front of you both, literally 'carving' the issue out of thin air. You can also use
visual language and metaphor to create an image of what being described.
Looking at the size of this, it appears that we will need to carve it up and work on the
most important pieces first. Which seem the weightiest parts to you?
...from one another

Issues are often mixed up together in a complex and unclear morass. What seems like
one big and knotty issue can turn out to be several simpler issues. If you can separate
out the individual issues, then you can work on them as individual items. When
separating out issues, keep asking questions such as:

What is behind this?

What is the purpose that is being served?

What are the timescales and other variables that are difficult?

How can parts of this be separated out so they can be handled by

themselves?

Working on a big, messy issue can take a long time to get any result. Working on
smaller issues can get results earlier and give both you and the other side an
encouraging indication that progress is being made.
Can I check something? It seems like we are talking about both price and timescales. If
we could discuss the price and then worry about how and when it will be paid, I think
we could make some useful progress, don't you?
...from non-issues

Some things in negotiation appear to be issues, yet on closer inspection are not as
important or difficult or controversial as they first seemed.
Start with agreement

A helpful way of separating issues from non-issues is to start by finding areas in which
you agree with the other person. This is also a very good trust-building exercise, as you
are effectively saying 'look how similar we are'.
So we both need to get this done today, and resource is an issue. It seems
the most important thing is who owns the final product. Does this sound
right to you?

Behavior Labeling
Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation activities > Behavior Labeling
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description
Say what you are going to do before you do it. You can also describe how you want
them to behave.
Describe a single activity or, if you can, detail the whole process that you will use.
Ask the person if this makes sense to them. Deal with any objections they have, then do
what you said you would do.
If they object later on in the proceedings, explain how your are doing what was agreed.

Example
I am going to ask you about your product features.
This is how I want to work. First I will describe our need, then you show how you will
meet the need, then we consider pricing. Does this make sense?

Discussion
When you say what you are about to do and then do it, this shows that you are a reliable
person and hence increases trust.
Asking if something 'makes sense' effectively works to gain agreement. If they can
make sense of what you are saying, there is an implied agreement that it also makes
sense to implement it.
Saying what you are about to do or talking about process slows things down a little,
which can be useful to give you some thinking space.
Discussing and agreeing process creates a sense of fairness, which makes it
subsequently more difficult for the other person to back out of any agreed actions.

Prioritizing

Disciplines > Negotiation > Activities > Prioritizing

Pairwise comparison | Prioritization criteria | Prioritizing as influence | See also

There are many choices in negotiation, and a key activity is deciding what is more
important than what else.

Pairwise comparison
We decide on importance by comparing and contrasting things. Pairwise comparison
simply takes two things at a time and comparing them, for example as in the swap-sort.
Comparing just two things at one time focuses attention and makes choices easier.
This is useful in negotiation both for yourself (if you want to focus, only compare two
things) and to get the other person to focus (provide them with something desirable and
something undesirable).

Prioritization criteria
What is often forgotten in prioritizing is that, whilst two items may be compared against
one another there are criteria that are being used. Thus, if you are choosing one holiday
over another, you may be using criteria such as cost, convenience and so on.
If you can understand and control the criteria being used, you can significantly influence
the prioritization and hence choices that are being made. It is, however important that
the criteria are seen as beingfair. This is something that you must both be aware of and
also have the opportunity to control. Criteria may be based on standards, which also
may be understood and changed to control the priorities and hence decisions.
Where there is more than one criterion, the criteria themselves have a priority order.
Thus, there are criteria for the criteria. If you can identify this underlying criterion, you
can get to the root driver. For example for going on holiday, the root criterion may be
'pleasure value', a return-on-investment measure of value.

Prioritizing as influence
When you work alongside another person, helping them prioritize is a subtle step along
the way to changing their mind. Although an agreement has not yet been reached, if
they have decided that one thing is more important than another thing, then the less
important item can be dropped.
When two items have been prioritized, the next step can be to increase the gap between
them. Once the other person has made the decision that A is better than B, then they will
be subject to a confirmation bias, whereby they will seek to confirm their decision.

They are particularly susceptible now to suggestion that A is much better than B, and
that B can be hence be completely ignored.

Prioritization errors
There are many errors of judgment that people make when deciding and prioritizing.
This gives both traps that you might fall into and also many opportunities that you can
take. A related area is logicalfallacies, where what seems to be correct is not actually so.
When you understand these areas, you can also influence how people decide and
prioritize.

Developing Your Walk-away

Disciplines > Negotiation > Activities > Developing Your Walk-away
Contemplate failure | Find alternatives | Explore and prioritize | Develop the
walkaway | See also

What happens if you do not reach agreement in a negotiation? The answer is that both
parties leave the table with nothing. What happens next depends on what you have
ready in your pocket. The walk-away alternative can prove to be one of your most
powerful tools. But you have to have it ready -- you have no time to do this in the
negotiation.

Contemplate failure
When you are going to be negotiating for something, whether it is a night out or a
house, first think about the possibility of being unsuccessful in the negotiation. Put
yourself into the negotiating situation and imagine reaching an impasse and
subsequently either you or the other person decides that agreement will not be reached
and terminates the discussion.
This in itself is a good exercise, as it readies you emotionally for the possibility of not
reaching a satisfactory conclusion. It also gives you a sense of walking away from the
negotiation and stimulation to think about what would happen next.

Find alternatives
The next step is to find possible things that you could do if you the negotiation is
unsuccessful. Start by being creative -- look further afield and contemplate all sorts of
possibilities.

For example, if you are negotiating a house, your options range from not moving to
giving up your job and going to live somewhere else (although buying another house
nearby is probably your first alternative).

Explore and prioritize

Choose a limited set of alternatives that you would be prepared to contemplate. Explore
these further, for example by discussing them with your constituency. For example, if
you are considering buying a house further afield, you might ask your family if they are
prepared to live elsewhere.
In doing this, reduce the list to a realistic few alternatives, typically one to three, that
you will have time and other resources to develop.

Develop the walk-away

Now spend time on your walk-away alternative(s), developing them to the state where
you could implement them at the drop of a hat. If you are buying a house and
considering living elsewhere, then not only should you identify areas you would live,
but also take actions such as investigating schools, visiting houses for sale and even
getting an offer accepted.
Now, if you do not succeed in the negotiation, you can happily walk away to something
that, although maybe not as perfect as the desired outcome, is something that is
perfectly acceptable.

Deploying Your Walk-away

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation activities > Deploying Your Walk-away
Hint at its existence | Show that you have it | Show you are prepared to use it | Give a
last chance | Walk away | See also

When you have developed your walk-away alternative, the next question is how you
will use it in practice.
The most important thing to remember is that walking away is a last-ditch action and
the main purpose of having your walk-away is to help keep the other person negotiating.
It also defends you, preventing them from using walk-away as a threat to gain
concessions.

Hint at its existence

Very often, the other person will not know that you have a walk-away. They may well
not have one themselves (many do not) and have not even thought about it. Just a hint, a
small sniff, that you have an alternative to reaching agreement may well alarm them
enough to consider your real offer.
A way to hint is to indicate that if agreement is not reached then this is not the end of the
world for you. Thus if you say "I would rather reach agreement.", the word 'rather'
indicates that there is an alternative. 'Rather than what?' is the thought that is implanted
in their mind.
You can also show that you have at least been looking at alternatives. Thus you might
say "You know, I've been looking around and this whole area is really nice." In saying
so, you hint that you might have seen other places you like.

Show that you have it

If, after hinting that you have a walk-away, the other person still does not act in the way
you want, you can make the walk-away more visible. Showing that you have actually
put effort into developing an alternative indicates that you are serious and are not
bluffing when you hinted at alternatives.
You can show that you have a walk-away alternative in a number of smaller revealing
steps, each time giving the person the chance to collaborate more and accept your offer.
Thus you could say a succession of things such as:
I was looking around at other houses and saw several I liked.
I have found another house that I particularly liked.
The people at the other house have reduced their price for me.

Show you are prepared to use it

If the other person still is not ready to negotiate collaboratively, even after you have
shown that you can walk away from the table without losing too much, then you may
need to show that you are prepared to do this.
First say that you are ready to use the alternative. Express regret but also show
determination.
You know I don't have to do this, but if we can't agree then I'm going to look again at
the other houses.
Ask if they really want this to happen. Remind them of the benefits of staying with you.
Do you want to give up the chance of agreeing this today? I have the funds approved
and the surveys all done. All we need is to move a little and you'll have the deal sewn
up.

Ask them what they will do if you walk away (it is surprising, even at this stage, how
little people may have considered this fully.
Do you really want to go back to the beginning, trying to find someone else? Do you
want someone else getting enthusiastic then backing out?

Give a last chance

Keep trying to get them to stay at the negotiation. Although your walkaway is good,
don't forget that this deal is (presumably) better.
Send non-verbal signals that you are not going to give in. Send termination signals.
Start packing up. Put your papers together. Stand up.
Give verbal signals too.
Well, we've done our best. I guess it looks like we're going to go elsewhere.
Are you sure? This is the last chance before we go...

Walk away
Finally, when nothing else works, you may just have to walk away.
Do this with dignity and grace, never with anger or bad grace. Express sorrow that
agreement was not reached and wish them well (they may yet call you back). Then
leave.
Depending on the situation, you might like to wait a few days before actually deploying
your walkaway, just in case they call you back. Set a deadline on this and don't extend it
or you'll be waiting hopefully for too long.

Location management
Disciplines > Negotiation > Activities > Location management

The place where you hold the negotiation can have a significant effect on the
proceedings of the negotiation. Our immediate environment effects how we feel, and
how we feel affects what we think, decide and do. The wise negotiator thus pays
particular attention to all elements of the negotiation environment.

Negotiation Geography: Town or country for best effect.

The Building for the Negotiation: Company, hotel, restaurant, home...

The Negotiation Room: Finding the right room to negotiate.

Layout of the Negotiation Room: Creating the right atmosphere.

Negotiation Room Seating: Shuffling seating for best effect.

Negotiation Geography

Disciplines > Negotiation > Activities > Location Management > Negotiation
Geography
Home or away | Town or country | The journey | See also

When you are setting up a negotiation, the whereabouts in the country may not be your
first thought, but the larger context can have a significant effect on the proceedings.
Where you are in the country plays sets the broader context of the feel of the place,
whether it is inner-city or outback countryside.
Town or country

One of the main geographic choices depends on the degree of urbanization (or not) that
you want to utilize or avoid.
High-rise

A high-rise environment, such as a city center, has energy and bustle that speeds people
up. In some cities and places it can also cause fear. Depending on the emotions you wish
to create, this may be good or bad.
Low-rise

In smaller towns and suburbs, the environment can be friendlier and more relaxed. This
setting can make the person feel at home.
No-rise

Out in the countryside or even in city parks, the greenery and sounds of nature
contribute to feelings of calm. By the sea, the gentle rocking of the waves and splashing
on the rocks makes it a popular destination for holidaymakers. If you are near the sea,
you can also use it to relax the other party.

If you want to slow the other person down, for example, go for a walk with them. Sit on
a park bench. Use the metaphor of nature to support your argument. For example, you
could point to the birds and trees and talk about freedom and growth.
Home or away

Negotiating in a home environment has different effect from going elsewhere.

Home

We have a sense of geographic home: thus I may feel home is a building, a town, a
country. This often depends on the other party. If negotiating with foreigners, anywhere
in the country may feel like home, whilst negotiating with the car sales person down the
road, the sales lot may feel like a foreign country.
Home for you may not be home for the other person. When we are not at home, we are
not as relaxed. So if you want them to be tense, take them away from home, whilst if
you want them relaxed, go onto their territory.
Away

When you get away from home you are also getting away from all the cues and triggers
the that prompt familiar behavior. Away can be refreshing and delightful, going into
luxurious or beautiful surroundings that may seduce you into feeling good about
conceding all kinds of things. Away can also be strange and frightening, that can scare
you into giving way where you would not otherwise.
The journey

When the other person has to travel to the negotiation place, even if they are moving
within a single building, consider the journey that they will take to get to their
destination and the effect it will have on them.
Will they travel through ghettoes or leafy lanes? Will they be whisked in the comfort of
a limousine or have to grind through heavy traffic? How will they park? What is the
approach to the building like? What about inside the building, walking to the room?
Their whole journey to their negotiation destination is going to have an
effect on them, so manage this as well.

The Building for the Negotiation

Disciplines > Negotiation > Activities > Location Management > The Building for the
Negotiation
Company | Hotel | Restaurant | Home | See also

After you have settled on the geography for the negotiation, the next choice is the
building in which the negotiation will take place. Here are just a few of the places you
can meet.

Company
Company buildings are often convenient and may offer good general accommodation,
but are invariably 'your place or mine', with the accompanying effects of defence,
discomfort and so on. Many negotiations are best carried out on neutral territory, at least
from one person's point of view and certainly when you want to make it
a collaborative experience.

Hotel
Hotels are often a useful alternative as they provide meeting rooms and as much service
as you care to pay for. They also are available anywhere, including in the countryside.
You can also choose different styles of hotel, from old-world leather-and-wood comfort
to new-world efficiency and whiteboards. Again, make deliberate choice to suit your
purpose.

Restaurant
Restaurants provide a particularly useful environment for negotiation as food and wine
relaxes and distracts people, lulling them into a comfortable place where you can coax
them in the direction you want them to go.
If you are paying the bill, then going to a restaurant creates an exchange dynamic,
where they feel obliged to give you something back after you have given them a nice
meal.
Do remember to make the meal appropriate and fitting in with their culture. Too cheap
(Sam's Caff) and you imply they are not worth much. Too expensive (the Ritz) and you
make them feel coerced (against which they rebel). Also remember to check whether
they are vegetarian or have dietary constraints -- and pick an appropriate place.

Home
You can even take the person into a home environment. Invite them to your place for a
barbecue or evening meal. Stop by with them
Going home shows you to be a human -- just like them. Giving them your food makes
them feel a part of the family -- with the obligation of family members.
Be careful, of course, that you match your home to their thoughts. Taking a 50-year-old
single man into a house full of chaotic children can be a recipe for failure.

The Negotiation Room

Disciplines > Negotiation > Activities > Location management > The Negotiation
Room
Light | Space | Communication space | Dcor | Climate | See also

The room in which you negotiate is visible during the negotiation, so becomes
particularly important. Pick it carefully and go there beforehand to ensure it is
effectively set up.
Also remember the experience they gain when walking to the room. A stroll through a
clean and efficient-looking office sets a different mood from walking through a noisy
and dirty factory.

Light
Light has a clear effect on people. Daylight is best for keeping them awake and fresh.
Windows on two sides of the room will dispel shadows, allowing you to use natural
light only. In particularly sunny climes, too much sunlight can be a bad thing, and
window blinds may be necessary.
Where light is electric, tungsten lighting gives a warmer glow than the cold of efficient
fluorescent lights. Colored shading of lights also can be used to control the hue.
Light can be directed, for example with spotlights for direct lighting and uplighters and
shades for indirect diffusion of light. Spots may be useful for working tables and diffuse
light for the background.

Space
The raw space in which you hold the negotiation can act to relax or press in on the
negotiators. Generally, more space is better, although too much space can be
agoraphobic or otherwise uncomfortable. Remember that many negotiations have
elements of confidentiality about them and the room should thus feel private.
When there are several people in the negotiation and when they are sitting around a
table, remember that they need space to get up and not be squashed as they find their
place.
Space alone does not completely set the feel of the place and a room that is small and
with lower ceilings can be either cosy or claustrophobic, depending on other factors
such as light and dcor.

Communication space
Sometimes having a flipchart or whiteboard where ideas can be penned and impromptu
presentations made can be useful. As appropriate, a computer, projector and screen may
also be important tools to have at hand.
Sometimes even just empty space where people can stand, for example when having
coffee, is a useful addition -- it is in these moments when they are relaxing when many
are most susceptible to suggestion.

Dcor
The colors of the walls have an effect on proceedings. White is cold and hard. Blues and
greens are cool and natural. Reds and yellows are warm. Paintings and photographs on
the wall create a more homely, relaxed environment.
Floors have a subtle effect, particularly in the amount of 'bounce' they give. Softer,
thicker carpets are more relaxing. Hard tile floors jar the body and create echo when
people speak (as do hard walls and ceilings). Wood floors are a nice compromise, giving
the relaxation effect of natural materials.

Climate
Also remember the climate of a room. If it is hot and humid, people will become
uncomfortable. This is usually undesirable, but sometime can be useful, for example if
you want to keep the negotiation short!
Control of climate, for example through a HVAC (Heating, Ventilating and Air
Conditioning) system can be useful. Remember to check and set this in plenty of time
beforehand. In more primitive rooms, opening the window may be your only
alternative.

Layout of the Negotiation Room

Disciplines > Negotiation > Activities > Location management > Layout of the
Negotiation Room
Tables | Chairs | Refreshment | Other furniture | See also

The layout of the room in which you are holding the negotiation will affect how the
negotiation proceeds.

Tables
Tables are barriers between people (as are the arms of a chair) and hence act to separate.
People often feel safer with a table in front of them as they 'hide behind' it. Tables also
hide the legs, which can give significant body language signals (in particular showing
tension) when the person is consciously controlling their arms and head.
Many rooms have tables in the centre, with chairs around it. Think about the shape of
the table being used in such circumstances. Round tables are 'fair'. Long tables have a
place for a 'chairperson'. Square tables have corners you can sit across.
An alternative for informal environment is small tables at the side of chairs. These give
a place to put things without obstructing body language.

Chairs
Chairs may be informal arm-chairs or formal 'table' chairs. Informal chairs relax you
and let you sit back. For intimate discussions, a sofa removes barriers between you and
the other person and allows touching (as appropriate). Formal chairs sit you more
upright, are easier to move and are more likely to make you lean forward.
Have enough chairs for everyone to sit, but get rid of many extras (unless you want to
create a particular effect).

Refreshment
Drinks and food may be at hand, to allow for breaks and keeping people comfortable.
An alternative is to have food and/or drinks outside. This gives reason for getting out of
the room. Food smells can be distracting and best kept out of the room.

Other furniture
Other furniture, such as cupboards and bookshelves can make the room seem more
homely. They can also hold reference material, should that be needed.

Negotiation Room Seating

Disciplines > Negotiation > Activities > Location Management > Negotiation Room
Seating
Opposite | Angled | Side-by-side | See also

The positioning of the seats (or how you stand) during a negotiation will affect the
proceedings as much as anything.

Opposite = confrontation
When you are seated opposite the other person, face-to-face, you are using a
confrontational setting. This may be good for formal boss-subordinate situations or
where you want to dominate the other person (particularly if you are higher or in a
bigger, more comfortable chair).
Sitting across a desk provides the classic confrontational setting. It can be accentuated
by having the desk at the back of the room, such that the person coming in must
approach the 'throne' and has no choice of seating.

Angled = open conversation

The most common body position for conversation is with torsos angled, often at 90
degrees to one another. This avoids the face-to-face confrontational element whilst also
allow looking at the other person's face.
Sitting across a corner of a table or with chairs angled provides for this friendly
positioning.

Side-by-side = collaboration
An even more collaborative seating position is in a side-by-side arrangement. This is
particularly useful if you want to work together on something in front of you.
This may be sitting at a table with paper or a computer. It may also be standing up at a
whiteboard or flipchart. The key theme is to engage them in an activity that makes them
feel at one with you.

Building Rapport
Techniques > Conversation techniques > Building Rapport

'Rapport' is 'a feeling of sympathetic understanding', where two people feel

a bond between one another, such that they will more easily trust one another.

Active Care: Don't wait to be asked.

Co-location: Just be nearby.

Create Empathy: Trigger their concern for you.

Encouraging: Getting them to speak.

Empathetic Language: To connect with them.

Holding Gaze: eye-to-eye attraction.

Listening: A powerful method of creating a bond.

Mirroring: Direct copying of their actions.

Matching: Indirect copying of actions.

Open Honesty: Exposing your own vulnerability.

Paraphrasing: Rephrasing in your own words.

Parroting: Simple repetition of what they say.

Passive Care: Do no harm.

Reflecting Verbal Style: Use their overall modes of speech.

Reflecting Words: Echo individual words they say.

Be Reliable: Deliver on your promises.

Seek Advice: Rather than opinion.

Synchrony: Two people as one.

Synergizing: Combine ideas for an even better idea.

Use Their Name: Show you know them.

Negotiation Tactics

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Tactics

In negotiation, there are many tactics that you may meet or use. They can be fair, foul or
something in between, depending on the competitive or collaborative style of the people
involved and the seriousness of the outcomes.

All I've Got: Limit apparent availability.

Auction: Set sellers or buyers against one another.

Bad Publicity: Indicate bad publicity of not agreeing.

Behavior Labeling: Saying what you will do.

Better Offer: indicate a better offer from the competition.

Better Than That: Just say 'You'll have to do better than that...'.

Biased Choice: Offering choices that already include your biases.

Big Fish: Show you're the big fish and they could get eaten.

Blackmail: Threaten negative consequences.

Bluff: Assert things that are not true.

Breaking it Off: Walking away from the negotiation.

Bribery: Do that and I'll give you this.

Brooklyn Optician: price or negotiate each item.

Call Girl: Ask to be paid up front.

Cards on the Table: State your case, clearly and completely.

Change the Negotiator: New person can reset the rules.

Changing Standards: Change the benchmarks of good and bad.

Check the Facts: Bring up new information you have found.

Control the Agenda: And hence what is discussed.

Credentials: Show how clever you are.

Deadlines: Push them up against the wall of time.

Delays: Buying time and building tension.

Divide and Conquer: Get them arguing with one another.

Doomsday: paint an overly black picture.

Double Agent: Get one of their people on your side.

Dry Well: Show you've nothing left to exchange.

Empty Pockets: Say you can't afford it, don't have it, etc.

Empty Promises: Make promises that you know you will not keep.

Escalating Demand: the more you get the more you require.

Expanding the Pie: Ensuring there's more for everyone.

Fair Criteria: Set decisions criteria such that is is perceived as fair.

False Deadline: Time limitation on their action.

Faking: Letting them believe something about you that is not true.

Fame: Appeal to their need for esteem from others.

Flattery: Make them look good and then ask for concession.

Flip a Coin: Suggest random chance.

Food Control: Control what and when they eat and drink.

Forced Choice: Subtly nudging them toward your choice.

Funny Money: Financial games, percentages, increments, etc.

Fragmentation: Breaking big things into lots of little things.

Go For A Walk: Take time out to change.

Good Guy/Bad Guy: Hurt and rescue by people.

Highball: Sellers--start high and you can always go down.

Hire an Expert: Get an expert negotiator or subject expert on your

team.

Incremental Conversion: Persuade one person at a time. Then use

them as allies.

Interim Trade: Make an exchange during negotiation that will not get
into the final contract.

Invoke Rules: Bring up standards they should follow.

It'll be Alright on the Night: Promise future success.

Lawyer: Use survey results, facts, logic, leading question.

Leaking: Let them find out 'secret' information.

Linking: Connect benefit and cost, strong and weak.

Log-rolling: Concede on low-priority items.

Lowball: Buyers--start low and you can always go up.

Make a Mountain out of a Molehill: Amplify small things.

Misleading Information: Lead them up the wrong path.

New Issue: Introduce a new key issue during the negotiation.

New player: Another person who wants what you have appears on the
scene.

Nibbling: constant adding of small requirements.

No Authority: refuse to agree because you are not allowed to.

Non-negotiable: Things that cannot be negotiated.

Not Happy: Say you're not happy.

Overwhelm: Cover them in requests or information.

Padding: Make unimportant things 'essential' then concede them.

Phasing: Offer to phase in/out the unpleasant bits.

Plant: A 'neutral' person who is really working for you.

Play Dumb: Act stupid to avoid clever stuff.

Price Not Negotiable: So focus on other things.

Quivering Quill: ask for concession just before signing.

Red Herring: leave a false trail.

Russian Front: Two alternatives, one intimidating.

Reducing Choice: Offering a limited set of options.

Rollercoastering: Taking them on an up and down ride.

See You in Court: Threatening to go to a higher or public forum.

Shotgun: Refusal to continue until a concession is gained.

Side Payments: Add a cash balance.

Slicing: Break one deal down into multiple smaller deals.

Split the Difference: Offer to agree on a half-way position.

Suggest Facilitation: Get a third party involved.

Take a Break: Step out, change the flow.

Take It or Leave It: Give only one option.

Trial Balloon: Suggest a final solution and see if they bite.

Understanding, Not Agreement: Say you understand but don't agree.

Undiscussable: Things that cannot even be discussed.

War: Threaten extreme action.

Widows and Orphans: show the effect on the weak and innocent.

Wince: Repeat price loudly, then silence.

The Zone Defense: Individuals each have areas of responsibility.

All I've Got

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > All I've Got
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When buying something, say that you only have a limited sum of money. Plead poverty.
Let your body sag. Look sad.
If your are buying with cash, show them the money (prepare your wallet or pocket
beforehand, hiding other money in another pocket or elsewhere). Look surprised that
you do not have enough.

If the money is elsewhere, say the offer is all you are able to spend. Say this is all that
you have to spend on this item. Say your partner will not allow you to spend more.
Example

Look. All I've got is 27.32. Will you take this? I've not got any more.
Oh dear. I've only got a 10. Is that enough?
Sorry, I'll get into trouble if I spend more than 25.
Discussion

Showing you have limited money demonstrates a real ceiling on what you can pay, as
opposed to what you might be persuaded to pay. This makes this tactic very much a
'final offer' and which may hence persuade the other side to take the offer. The
demonstration of poverty is also a plea for sympathy, suggesting that the other person
should feel sorry for you and accept your offer because this is a 'good' thing to do.
There is also an underlying suggestion that not only is this all you have in
cash today, but that this is all the money you have, and that you are
offering them everything you have in the world. For them to give you what
you want when they also have more than you shows an imbalance that they
can help redress by accepting your offer.
Auction

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Auction

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When many parties want the same thing, set them against one another.
Bring them all together and let them know that only one will get what they want.
This can be used to make both sellers and buyers compete.
Example

A normal auction is one in which bidders offer increasing prices until nobody else
makes an offer.

A Dutch Auction is one in which an initially high price is lowered until the first bid,
which secured the deal.
Discussion

When people know that they may lose out on something, then they will want it even
more.
We are naturally competitive animals, and when faced with others who want
the same thing, the goal can move from possession to simply winning the
competition. This is what happens in auctions when two people start bidding
against one another and go way beyond the item's true value.
Bad Publicity

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Tactics > Bad Publicity

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Point out that, if the other person gets what they are asking for, then they will be
criticized by others.
Show how knowledge of their actions will spread to a wide range of people.
Indicate that the people who will know and criticize are the people who the other person
particularly respects.
Example

If your parents find out about that they will not be happy.
Well, we could do that, but I don't think that the neighbors would be very pleased.
You know that this is something that the newspapers would love to cover? I don't think
you'd look very good if that's all you did.
Discussion
It is surprising how important the opinions and esteem of others about us is.
In particular we fear criticism by others which may impact our social status.
We hence often base our decisions on social desirability as much as logic or
the substantive value of what we are seeking.

Behavior Labeling

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation activities > Behavior Labeling

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Say what you are going to do before you do it. You can also describe how you want
them to behave.
Describe a single activity or, if you can, detail the whole process that you will use.
Ask the person if this makes sense to them. Deal with any objections they have, then do
what you said you would do.
If they object later on in the proceedings, explain how your are doing what was agreed.
Example

I am going to ask you about your product features.

This is how I want to work. First I will describe our need, then you show how you will
meet the need, then we consider pricing. Does this make sense?
Discussion

When you say what you are about to do and then do it, this shows that you are a reliable
person and hence increases trust.
Asking if something 'makes sense' effectively works to gain agreement. If they can
make sense of what you are saying, there is an implied agreement that it also makes
sense to implement it.
Saying what you are about to do or talking about process slows things down a little,
which can be useful to give you some thinking space.
Discussing and agreeing process creates a sense of fairness, which makes it
subsequently more difficult for the other person to back out of any agreed
actions.
Better Offer

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Better Offer

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When the other person makes an offer, say that you have already received a better offer
from somebody else.
If they ask what that offer is, then you may or may not choose to tell them. If you do,
then you have the opportunity to set a limit that the other person knows that they cannot
exceed.
Example

Sorry, I've already had a better offer that.

I was offered twice that price only last week.
Discussion

A better offer from elsewhere is a walk-away alternative that you can deploy at any
time. The other person does not know whether you actually do have a better offer or
whether you are bluffing. The problem for them is that if they call your bluff then you
might actually have such an offer.
If you actually do have a better offer, you are indeed in a stronger position if
you do need to conclude the deal. As a part of developing your walk-away,
you would have also better understood the overall situation and built your
own confidence -- which alone is worth the effort of looking elsewhere
beforehand.
Better Than That

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Better Than That
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When the other person makes an offer, say 'You'll have to do better than that!', or
something similar, such as:

I'm not happy with that.

That's not good enough.

That is insufficient.

I can't accept that.

You can accompany this with a saddened, shocked or disgusted look.

Then be quiet and wait for them to do better.
Example

A person buying a car asks for the price. The sales person says it. The buyer raises an
eyebrow and mutters 'You'll have to do better than that.' and looks, appraisingly at the
sales person.
Oh, come one. I'm not a fool. You'll have to do better than that.
Discussion

When you say 'You'll have to do better than that', you are actually implying that you
know that the other person is trying to deceive you, for example with an exorbitantly
high price.
Having been 'found out' (although you actually may not know what a fair price is), this
puts them under social pressure to conform to norms of decency and fair pricing.
This method also demonstrates that you have higher standards and
expectations although you do not name these. A reason for this is that if you
provide a counter-offer, they may work towards but will never exceed it. Just
by stating unhappiness, you may be able to elicit an offer that is even better
than you had hoped for.
Biased Choice

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Biased Choice

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Offer the other person a set of choices, but bias the set of choices towards those things
that you want and away from the things that you do not want.

Ways of doing this:

Offer them a set of options such that any choice they make will be
acceptable to you.

Remove and do not mention the things that you particularly do not
want.

Paint your choice in glowing words (and others in dull shades).

Create a forced choice that utilizes their natural biases.

Example

We could go to that really nice new restaurant or maybe back to Tony's (though I hear
their chef just left).
Well, going to Winchester, Salisbury or Bath all sound like safe choices.
You could study accountancy, law or medicine. The choice is yours.
Discussion

We all have natural biases and preferences but often do not realize that we have them.
These biases appear in our choices, including when we are shortlisting options for other
people to choose.
In a negotiation, we can deliberately add bias towards those things we want. When
you reduce choice in negotiations, you can eliminate those things that you do not want
and focus on the things you do want.
Bias is often not noticed by other people unless they are looking for it. Noticing is more
likely in a 'professional' negotiation but may well go unnoticed in less formal situations.
When playing to their biases, it can help if you first understand
their preferences, so you can customize what you offer them.
Big Fish

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Big Fish

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Act as if you are Big Fish who can swallow whole any small fry at a whim. Cast the
other person as a small fry.
Show how you you are Big Fish. Act as if you can do whatever you like. Wave money
around. Arrive in a big fast car. Dress expensively. Name-drop.
Talk confidently. Act confidently, as if you are lord of all you survey. You can even
appear arrogant, but beware of overdoing this. The idea is to make the other person feel
small in your presence, not to annoy them.
Example

A businessperson in talks about working with another company talks expansively about
other deals and plans for the future that include several acquisitions.
A real estate agent arrives late at a house that he is selling in a new BMW. The buyer,
partly put off and partly impressed the way the agent talks so nicely, is drawn into the
web...
A young woman walks confidently into a bar and calls to the barman, slightly
impatiently, giving her order without waiting to be asked. She is served before many
others.
Discussion

By acting big and important, you are standing on a pedestal, inviting the other person to
admire and look up to you and seeking to please you.
By acting superior to them, you are inviting them to act inferior to you, conceding to
your wishes.
A danger with this method is that the other person may see themself as a
bigger fish and so turn the situation into personal conflict. It is hence
important when using a confronting method like this to assess the other
person first to determine the likelihood that they will be suitably influenced.
Blackmail

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Blackmail

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Find something that the other person does not want to happen and say that it will
happen if they do not do as you ask. You can note that you may make it happen or may
not prevent it from happening.
This can include:

Things from their past that, if revealed, would embarrass them or

otherwise cause them trouble.

Things you can do that will cause them problems.

Other harm that may befall them or their friends which you could act
to reduce.

How you will feel if they act in particular ways.

A common form of blackmail is 'emotional blackmail', where the principle is to say 'If
you don't do as I say then I will be upset'.
Example

If you don't give me that book I'll tell your mother.

If you want to be considered for promotion, I'd suggest you do as I ask without all those
questions.
I've found that you've been sleeping with another woman. It would be a shame if your
wife found out. Now I'd like you to do a few things for me...
Discussion

Blackmail is generally considered to be bad and socially unacceptable, yet it happens in

subtle ways in many relationships and situations. It is easy for those who have some
form of lever to use the power this gives in a direct and threatening way. Blackmail can
also be subtle, with hints of negative consequences rather than direct threats.
Blackmail is different to bribery in that it is often negative, suggesting that the person
will be harmed if they do not do as requested, as opposed to positive benefits they will
gain that bribery suggests. Blackmail is a threat while bribery is an offer. Blackmail
sometimes follows bribery, where once a person has accepted a bribe they are
blackmailed with the threat that their acceptance might be revealed.
Emotional blackmail is common in relationships where 'Do as I say or I'll be angry' is
used by parents, partners and others as a quick and harsh way to get what they want.
Usually, a better longer term result is gained by more thoughtful and considerate
approaches.

Blackmail is often an indication of a lack of skill in

persuasion. Unable to change the other person's mind, the
blackmailer resorts to this heavy-handed method. They
typically get around the ethical dilemma by convincing
themselves that this approach is 'necessary'.

Bluff

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Bluff

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Tell the other person something that will impress them and get what you want, even
though it is not true.
Act confidently. Do not hesitate or otherwise indicate that you are lying.
When selling, say that you have already had a good offer, or that someone else is
arriving soon.
When buying, say that you know you can get the item much cheaper elsewhere (and ask
them to match the price).
When asking someone to do something, say that you can easily get another person to do
it.
Take small truths and exaggerate them. Talk of dire consequences should you not get
what you want.
And so on.
Example

Well, I like this place but I've just had an offer of a similar house at a much lower price.
Yes, Dad, I've done my school work. Can I go out now?
If I don't get the day off work I'll lose my apartment and have nowhere to live!

Discussion

Bluffs work when the other person believes what is said and feels that they must act or
concede in order to achieve goals.
Bluffing is of course a dangerous game, as the other person may call your bluff. If you
are found out, then you will be suspected for a long time into the future and will hence
most likely fail in attempted other negotiations.
Breaking it Off

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Breaking it Off

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Threaten to break off the negotiation, citing some arbitrary reason such as a lack of
progress or the unreasonableness of the other person.
You can also threaten to break off relationships. This can be particularly effective when
you have a relationship with the other person that is important to them.
Do this in a dramatic way. You can even rant and rave and storm out (hopefully, they
will call out to stop you or run after you).
Example

Right! That's it. I'm off.

I'm sorry. If you will not move then I can't continue.
I'm sick up to here with your intransigence and bloody-mindedness! If you can be like
that, then so can I! Goodbye.
Discussion

When people do not have a walk-away alternative, which many do not, then threatening
to leave makes them face up to the possibility of getting nothing. The contrast between a
solution that includes them making concessions and a solution that contains nothing can
result in the thought of making concessions around something that is more acceptable.
If you have a walkaway alternative, then you can use this approach more effectively.
The danger if you do not is that the other person may call your bluff.

When relationships are involved, the issue then becomes a lot more social. Ostracizing
is a punishment that is feared by many and the threat of becoming a social pariah is
enough to make many people cave in.
Bribery

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Bribery

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Offer financial or other incentives to persuade people to give you what you want. The
most common incentive is money, but you can also offer goods, access, information,
attention, etc. Find out what they value most through careful conversation.
Be very careful when considering bribery, especially when it can get you into trouble.
Example

If you help me clean the house I'll give you $5.

What might it take to let me into your beautiful country? Let me show you a picture of
my wife here in my wallet.
Looks nice, huh? ... Oh, yes this could be a gift to you.
Discussion

In is easy to dismiss bribery as wrong, bad or dangerous, and indeed it can be. Yet it is
surprisingly common and sometimes necessary when the other person expects to be
offered a bribe. Bribery and corruption are endemic in a number of countries and
cultures, including with government, local and company officials. If you want to travel
or do business there, then you may face the moral dilemma as to whether or not you will
abide by this custom.
Bribery often happens by disguised means which would allow either party to deny that
it exists. Gift-giving is a common ritual that suggests reciprocal help. Incentives may be
put on display or left behind, such as placing money on a table and not saying what it is
for.

Bribery may not be seen as such, for example where parents offer their children rewards
for behaving well or where financial incentives and bonuses are used to encourage work
performance.
A danger of bribery is that it is an extrinsic motivator that can actually de-motivate or
corrupt people, making them focus on the bribe rather than deeper and more social
reasons for collaboration. It also givespower to the person being bribed as they may
expose or punish your act of attempted corruption. Others who know about the bribe
may even attempt blackmail to prevent them from blowing the whistle.
Brooklyn Optician

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Brooklyn Optician

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Break everything down into small packages and then negotiate them one at a time. If
you are selling things, price them individually.
Focus first on selling or negotiating the main item. Then show that extra parts are
needed. Avoid talking about the total cost until you have agreed each item.
Example

The computer, sir, will cost three hundred. You'll take that -- good. Will you be needing a
keyboard with that -- only twenty. And we've a good deal on an optical mouse...
Will you take the kids to school -- thanks. Whilst you're out, can you get some things for
me.
A restaurant prices its main course without any vegetables, which are each priced
separately.
Discussion

The name of this tactic comes from a (probably politically incorrect) archetype of an
optician who sells you a pair of glasses one lens at a time.
When people are buying something or otherwise getting something in a negotiation,
they will start with a rough price in mind. When they see the offered price, they will be
impressed by the contrast and will rapidly reach closure on it. Once closed, they will

unwilling (or maybe unable) to re-open the negotiation. They are thus trapped, and are
forced to pay the extra amount for the other items that they now need.
Call Girl

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Call Girl

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Demand payment up-front, particularly where you are offering something cannot be
taken back if they do not fulfil their part of the deal.
Where any exchange is taking place, get the other side to go first.
Example

I've got to buy a lot of materials so I really need to be paid before I begin.
Tell me your name, then I'll tell you mine.
Discussion

Prostitutes work in a shady environment where they have very low trust of their clients
who may 'do a runner' or argue about the price after the deed is done. There are many
other situations where up-front trust is needed that the other person will later fulfil their
side of the deal.
In an exchange, getting the other person to go first makes it safe for you. It also creates
a little anxiety as the other person then has to hope you will complete your part of the
bargain. When you do, you will have built a certain amount of trust, on which you can
call at a later date.
Cards on the Table

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Cards on the Table
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Tell the other side exactly what you want, or otherwise give them information that they
did not know before.
Explain why you are doing this, for example is because you trust them, because you
want a good relationship or because you are in a hurry.
Example

Look, I'll put my cards on the table. What I really want is...
I think I can trust you. The full story of why I need the ticket is that...
Sorry, the truth of the matter is that Mike says I have to do this.
Discussion

In card games, putting your cards on the table is showing others exactly what you have.
When a person 'puts their cards on the table' they are asking the other person to believe
them. By using such a gesture and also talking about why they are doing it, they are
asking the other person to accept that they are being trustworthy.
By showing trustworthiness in one area, such as giving unexpected information, you are
implying that you are trustworthy in other areas, for example later when you are
negotiating the price.
Change the Negotiator

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Change the Negotiator
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Change the person who is doing the negotiation for your side. Explain that the previous
negotiator has been called away.
The new negotiator then goes over all the decisions and agreements with a fine-toothed
comb, weeding out all the exchanges that he or she does not like. Or maybe starts
rebuilding a relationship that has turned sour.
In fact, the new negotiator can, if they choose, start the negotiation from scratch.

Example

I'm sorry, to do this properly we have to start from the beginning.

Hmm. Before we continue I'd like to review what has been agreed so far.
I hear things got rather heated yesterday. Can we start afresh?
Discussion

Negotiations and exchanges are often considered to be done at the personal level, even
though one person may be negotiating on behalf of and entire corporation. Changing the
negotiator can be very much like starting over again.
Particularly when the negotiation is stuck or not going to plan, a new person can bring
new ideas to the table.
When relationships have soured, a new person can apologize for the previous person or
otherwise renew the relationship.
Changing the Standard

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Changing the Standard
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description
Find the standard

A trick with negotiation is to understand the comparisons that are being made in
people's heads. What are the benchmarks against which people are deciding? What are
their actual or constructed standards?
To find the standard, ask them about their ideals. Get them to describe their best
experiences or perfect ideals. Be enthusiastic and they will tell you more. Another way
is to ask for company policies in the areas of interest.
Change the standard

If you can change the comparison standard by which they judge all others, you can
make what you are offering look wonderful or what they are offering look bad.
You can change the entire standard or just one part of it.

Example

Could you describe your perfect house?

...
Imagine a beautiful little house in the country with roses around the door... (change the
standard)
You know, wooden windows are considered rather old fashioned now. (change an
element)
Tell me about the best holiday you have had.
...
You've not seen the Maldives, have you? Let me show you a picture of paradise...
Discussion

We make many decisions by using contrasting comparisons between two items. To

decide whether something is good or bad, we fix one of these as a standard (which can
be a standard for bad things as well as good).
Comparisons may be against fixed standards or ideals. For example, if I am buying a
house, I may have an actual house in mind I have seen against which I compare all
others. Alternatively, I may have built one mentally, perhaps as a composite of desirable
elements I have seen.
Check the Facts

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Check the Facts
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Bring out some actual data to confirm your point, discrediting the other person's facts or
even discrediting the person's character.
Challenge the truth of what is being presented as fact. Question sources. Attack cited
authorities. Criticize research methods.
Add new information that disproves that which has previously been taken as fact.
Add emotion to your statement, for example being shocked that the other person has
done something reprehensible. Highlight their guilt in some way.

Research well beforehand to allow you to drop such killer comments into the
conversation. The higher the stakes, the more time you should spend on digging for
powerful information.
Example

Hmm. Let's just check the facts about that.

If I look at what you have actually done, I can't say I'm impressed.
Well, I actually went to see myself and I found that it has not been completed. Why are
you claiming that it is completed when it has not?
Discussion

Facts act as unchallengeable evidence, in the manner of a courtroom, and are far more
powerful at persuading than wants or opinions.
Bringing up facts that the other person does not know about or which they think you do
not know will surprise them and cause the uncertainty of confusion which you can use
to change aspects of the negotiation.
If you can make them feel shame, then they may concede to you as an act of contrition.
Control the Agenda

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Control the Agenda
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you are holding a meeting in which negotiation may take place, you can control
what is being discussed by deciding what will and will not be on the agenda.
The order of things on the agenda also is important: Carefully consider about how
people will thinking and feeling at each point during the meeting. It is often best to put
items where you want attention near the beginning (an innocuous item first can be
helpful as a warm up). When you do not want people to think too much, put the item
near the end.
You can also control the meeting whilst it is running, particularly if you are chairing it,
by encouraging talk about an item or closing it down quickly. Items you do not like at

the end of the agenda can be squeezed or pushed off by allowing more time for earlier
topics.
When you are not running the meeting, you still have certain control of the agenda,
especially if the person running the meeting is relatively lax about what is discussed.
You can request that certain items be added, you can control where they are on the
agenda (for example by saying you have to leave early you can get items in at the
beginning of the meeting). You can bring up new items in the meeting as 'Any Other
Business (AOB). You can also control the agenda during the meeting by what you say
and what you propose.
Example

In a salary-decision meeting, a manager makes sure his people are discussed first and
then talks a lot about how good they are. There is less time then for discussing other
people. His people get the best pay rises.
In a meeting to select a new supplier, a manager ensures that the supplier she prefers is
on second and that only four suppliers are discussed.
In a high school parents meeting, one person brings up the controversial subject of
sports fees right at the end. The result is that sub-committee is set up and they are
elected to chair it.
Discussion

Meetings are quite public decision environments. If a person makes a commitment

there, it is difficult for them to retract it (particularly if it is minuted). Meetings are also
social environments and group pressure can be brought to bear on individuals.
When you control what is being discussed, you can control what is decided and agreed
(or at least have a greater influence over this).
Meetings do vary in formality, from meetings that are run with strict control and
detailed minutes to a relatively loose discussion. You can control both of these but need
different approaches.
The chairperson of a meeting has particular power in deciding who speaks and how long
things are discussed. Where appropriate, you may need to spend time getting them
onside beforehand or otherwise knowing how you will control them.
Do remember that many meetings are not actually decision bodies but largely ratify
what has been discussed in more private meetings beforehand.
Credentials

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Credentials

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Show how you are qualified to say the things you will say.
Put your qualifications on your business card.
Talk about your experience. Show how you have practiced what you preach.
Name-drop. Show how you are friends with the rich, famous and influential.
If appropriate, compare their credentials with yours.
Example

When I was talking with the CEO the other day, he though my ideas for new products
were, as usual, quite outstanding.
You know, I've been doing projects like this for twenty years, and I've always found that
building the plan with all stakeholders an essential activity.
I have a Ph.D. in the subject. What about you?
Discussion

In negotiation you are often selling yourself as well as the idea that you want to get
across to the other person. If they believe in you, then they are more likely to believe in
your ideas, particularly if your credentials are in a related area.
When we know that another person is well-qualified in one area, we may assume that
they are generally intelligent and able to pronounce on things in completely unrelated
areas. Thus, for example, a doctorate in anthropology will be seen first as a doctorate.
The letters 'Ph.D.' after your name will often impress others and prevent them from
questioning what you assert.
Demonstrating how you are qualified or experienced lets the other person know that
what you say is true. In a collaborative situation, this will build the relationship and
create confidence. In a competitive situation, it effectively says 'I know more than you.
What I say is true and what you say is false.'

Deadlines

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Deadlines

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Set a deadline by which the other person has to decide or act. Make it clear that this is
an absolute time by which they must do what you want them to do.
As the deadline approaches, increase the emotional tension, talking more about what
will happen if the deadline is missed. This may be specific and threatening actions or
vague and disturbing hints.
Use things which cannot be challenged, such as contract completion dates, demands
made by senior people and so on.
Example

I must have your answer before we leave today.

I am talking to Steve later. He will want to know what we have agreed.
The product will be released at the end of the week. If you can't deliver by Thursday, it
will be too late.
Discussion

A deadline creates tension through the scarcity of time that it gives and the imagined
consequences of not reaching the deadline.
Hurrying people up reduces the time they have for reflection and considered thought. If
you can occupy them with worries about what may happen if the deadline is not met,
then they will spend less time thinking of objections and counter-arguments to your
suggestions.
Deadlines can easily be challenged, but it is surprising how often they are not
questioned.
Delays

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Delays

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Use time to stretch out the negotiation, especially at critical moments.

When you feel you are being pressured or hurried, take a break or otherwise put off
making any decisions until you have thought things through.
When the other person is constrained by deadlines, delay right up to the wire.
Dangle something under their noses that makes them salivate and then do not talk about
it until later.
Example

Excuse me, I just need to go the to the bathroom.

Well, we could look at the things you want. But it's time to stop for today.
John will be very unhappy if this does not happen. I think I will call him in later.
Discussion

Introducing delays can be helpful for you to regroup and rethink.

When you have increased tension of some sort in the other person, whether it is desire
for something you may give them or some negative consequence of not agreeing, then a
delay can serve to heighten that tension as they focus on the good and bad possibilities.
The tension of delay is increased with uncertainty, when the other person
cannot predict what will happen.
Divide and Conquer

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Divide and Conquer
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Cause confusion in the enemy camp. Get them at each other's throats so they pay less
attention to fighting you. A way to do this is by paying more attention to one person or
one group in a broad field of others, or by sowing false information.
Initially put more effort into persuading the more sympathetic person. Then when you
have convinced them of your argument, work together with them to persuade others.
You may also have to put in effort to keep them apart, particularly if those who are
strongly opposing you are also working on the sympathizers.
When they are arguing amongst themselves, propose solutions that the key people will
accept and which will support their internal negotiations.
Example

A side member of a negotiating team spends time with some of the younger members of
the other side whilst the main negotiations are going on elsewhere. In their discussions,
they touch on how the ideas from these bright young people are being ignored by their
superiors.
A negotiator and a colleague 'privately' talk about how one person on the other side is
more successful than another. They know that they are being overheard and their talk is
designed for the listener.
A negotiator hints in an aside to the other person how one solution will allow them to
win some of their internal battles.
Discussion

It is common that negotiating team members have different views and that some are
more hard-line while others are more moderate. The members will have different
motivations, including their desires to be on good terms with you and to conclude the
negotiation sooner or later. If you can understand these (watch body language, listen to
words, etc) then you can test your assessment in breaks and other times where you may
talk privately with them.
If you can get the other side to take their eye off the substantive ball then you can
consequently gain control of the proceedings. When others disagree with one another,
then one may well take your side in order to win points against their internal opponents.
When there are two other people, such as a married couple, then views may be quite
different. Watch for the dominant partner then direct innocent questions at the quieter
one to test their views and also to see how the dominant partner reacts.
In team negotiations, people with non-direct roles such as note-takers may be
approached to test their roles and their ability to influence others.

This, of course, is a hazardous strategy which can backfire if they discover what you are
doing. To succeed, it must be executed with great care and finesse.
Doomsday

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Doomsday

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Paint an overly black picture. Describe the outcome of any suggestion in negative terms.
Be pessimistic and gloomy.
When they make a suggestion, suck through your teeth and describe how bad this is.
When you are describing your own situation, show how badly-off you are and how you
cannot afford what the other person is asking.
Of course, you describe only the things you do not want in this negative way.
Against this, you can describe the things you want as a ray of light that relieves the
gloom of alternative solutions.
Example

I suppose we could go out, but it looks like rain and the car is having problems.
It's a nice house, but it needs decorating, the area is going downhill and it's a long way
to drive to work.
It may look like a good investment now, but the markets may go down next year.
Discussion

Painting something black often is playing with percentages, suggesting that something
that has a real probability of X actually has a probability of Y. Where things are
uncertain, then it is easy to argue the percentage points.
Against this pessimistic description, an optimistic alternative provides a
welcome contrast.
Double Agent

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Double Agent

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Persuade someone on the other side of the table to act on your behalf.
Get them to provide useful inside information to you that will help your negotiations.
Give them information and materials to help them persuade their colleagues to your
point of view.
Protect their position, ensuring that they do not get into trouble for their views and
actions.
Example

A computer salesperson convinces the IT department of the need to upgrade their

systems. Now all they need to do is to also convince the purchasing, finance and general
managers.
A man wants to buy a particular new house and enlists the help of the selling agent in
persuading his family of the benefits of the house and the area.
A car sales person speaks privately to a customer's partner to get them to provide useful
information about the customer.
Discussion

This situation legitimately occurs when a person on the other side genuinely is
persuaded and seeks to help others on their side also see the benefits of the deal.
In a less salubrious variant, deliberate actions are taken to blackmail or bribe the target
person, or otherwise subvert an individual to your cause.
Beware of double agents on your side. Watch for people who seem over-zealous in
taking up the cause of the other side.
Dry Well

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Dry Well

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When the other person demands more from you, say that 'the well is dry' and that you
do not have anything else to give.
Plead poverty or other constraint on your ability to exchange more than you have
already offered.
Example

Sorry, I can't afford any more.

I'd like to increase my offer, but I'm afraid I've come to the end of my resources.
Discussion

When you show that you have no more to give, the other person cannot demand more
without inferring that you are lying.
If they still refuse to agree to a deal, then this puts you in a difficult position of possibly
showing that you were not telling the truth. One way around this is to find
other variables to use.
Empty Pockets

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Empty Pockets

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When the other person makes a demand on you, say that you cannot afford it, you have
not got it, cannot do it, or otherwise are unable to give them what they want.
Show that it is a lack of ability, not lack of desire, that leads you to refuse them.
Example

Sorry, that's just too much. I really cannot afford that on my salary.

I'd love to help, but I don't know much about that.

If I had it, I'd give it to you.
Discussion

Showing that you cannot fulfil a request is a good way of refusing, as the other person
then cannot persist.
Pleading poverty may also get you sympathy and give reason for the other
person to ask less of you. Empty Promises

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Empty Promises

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Make promises that you know that you will not have to keep.
Or make what sounds like a promise by adding a qualifier (e.g. 'could') or by making the
statement vague.
Use this to get things moving when the negotiation is stuck and the item being requested
seems relatively minor.
Example

I don't see why I can't come back some time.

I guess I could spend extra time with you.
Why not? I'm sure I can find the time.
Discussion

When the other person is fixated on getting something, particularly if it is minor, then
they may well be more trapped by the wanting rather than really want it. Suggesting that
you will give it to them gives them closure for now and lets you move on with the rest
of the negotiation.
This works better for things that will be delivered at an uncertain time in the future.
When asked, you can then delay delivery. If pressed, you may actually have to deliver.

As any deceptive method, this holds the danger that it will cause betrayal response.
Escalating Demand

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Escalating Demand

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Ask for something from the other person. When you have gained this, ask for something
else, even larger. Then something bigger still, and so on until they refuse (then take the
biggest offer).
This may be done in exchange for nothing, just asking for concessions (and perhaps
rewarding only with thanks or other non-substantial exchange). It may also be done
when the other person asks for something from you (so you increase the demands on
them).
Example

Can I go out with my friends Dad? Can I have money for the cinema? And we're going
to the Pizza House afterwards...
Can I come in? Can I stay the night?
Will you do this extra work? And keep going until it's done?
Discussion

When you ask for something from another person, and they comply, as Ben
Franklin knew, they have to justify it to themselves, for example by concluding that you
are a nice person and they wanted to give it to you all along. This frames you as a friend
who can ask for other things. A small concession thus creates bonding and also the
obligations of friendship.
Expanding the Pie

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Expanding the Pie
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Change the frame of the negotiation from a zero-sum, win-lose game to a win-win
scenario where both sides can benefit more by working together on mutual benefits.
Use 'we' language rather than 'you' and 'I'. Frame the situation as a joint problem where
you both want to succeed and that you can both get more by working together.
Example

Two business competitors on an industry standards committee agree to settle differences

and promote the standard as this will help increase the number of total customers,
thereby giving each a greater market value.
A husband and wife who are negotiating about holidays and the ability to take time off
work reframe the situation as 'getting away together' and end up with a decision that
when one goes away on business the other will go along too.
Discussion

In many negotiations there is an assumption that it is win-lose, such that every gain that
one person makes leads to the other person losing an equal amount.
In a worst-case scenario (which is surprisingly common), the negotiation turns to
conflict and it all becomes becomes personal. The sense of fair play (or even getting
what I need) then goes out of the window as each player seeks to harm the other before
they get harmed themself.
'Zero sum' is a limiting perception and it is often possible for both people to gain,
especially if they collaborate.
'Expanding the Pie' comes from the metaphor where people are negotiating about a
single pie, such that where one person gets more of the pie it is clear that the other
person gets less. If both parties work together to get a bigger pie, then both can have
more with the same percentage division.
Fair Criteria

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Fair Criteria

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When decisions are being made, be deliberate about finding and selecting criteria that
the other person can accept as being fair.
You can deliberately engage the other person in a search for fair criteria, asking them
'what is fair'. You can also bring along something that is, by definition, fair.
A good way of ensuring criteria are fair is by seeking the advice of an expert and clearly
impartial third party.
You can also reject criteria that the other person is using on the grounds that it is not
fair.
In a worst case, you can also use third parties such as mediators or arbitrators to resolve
negotiation breakdown.
Example

Now, how can we be sure that we each get a fair share?

I've brought along Parker's Price guide -- it gives industry-standard prices.
Let's ask the minister what he thinks...
Discussion

We have a basic need for fairness, and feel a loss of control when others may be unfair
without our knowing. In negotiations in particular, we fear that others will try to deceive
us by using comparisons and criteria which are not fair.
Fairness can be asserted, but it is best if it is agreed by both people. This also implies
that any one person has right of veto.
Engaging the other person in the search for fairness is itself an act of fairness and will
help to engender trust.
External standards are difficult to argue against and can include price guides, industrial
standards, company policy and even social norms.
False Deadline

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > False Deadline

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Say that something must be done by a certain deadline or else the deal is off.
Make the deadline in the near future and such that the other person will panic.
Explain how, due to circumstances beyond your control, if agreement is not reached
within this short timescale, you will be unable to find a satisfactory conclusion.
Show them what will happen if the deadline is not met.
Example

The project milestone is next week. If this report is not ready by then, it will slip at least
a month and it will be your responsibility.
Prices go up at the end of the week, sir. You haven't got long.
If you're not in bed by ten, you will not wake up in time tomorrow.
Discussion

Constraining the time in which people have to make a decision forces them to consider
the other side of the deadline and what would happen if it is not met.
When there is some action to be completed, the other person will be focused on all the
things that have to be done between now and the deadline.
Hurrying people, especially if it panics them, has the effect of reducing the rational and
reflective thought that they put into the process and thus makes them more likely to
agree with you.
Faking

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Faking

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Dress well and pretend to be affluent. Or dress down and pretend to be poor.

Mention qualifications that you do not have. Talk about experiences that you have not
had.
Name-drop about people you have not met. Mention your membership of exclusive
clubs.
Or otherwise pretend to be someone you are not.
Example

When I was working on my doctorate, I proved that this is the hardest substance with
the required flexibility coefficient.
I was talking with Brad at the Oscars ceremony and he said that celebrity interest in
these is going up.
No, I've been doing this for ten years and I can tell you that would cost a mint and take
at least a year to get going.
Discussion

Credibility is often very important in negotiation, for example when you need to be seen
to be expert about something you are selling or buying. Faking credentials or experience
gives you that credibility.
Many of us would like to be famous and linking your name to someone famous gets you
some of that fame, perhaps making the other person a bit envious and wanting to be like
you. Similarly, faking affluence or other desirable attribute can help.
When you are buying something, the reverse may be true and it might be more effective
to plead poverty.
Be careful and subtle with name-dropping and other ostentation as it can easily seem
like status-grabbing boasting. As ever with deception, if you get caught out, you can
expect disproportionate punishment.
Fame

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Fame

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Show how something you are offering will make the other person famous or otherwise
more highly regarded by other people.
Show how, if they agree with you, they will gain the esteem of others.
Do make sure the others who will admire the person are those who the person
would like to admire them.
Fame does not have to be national in scope -- just the admiration of a few peers (or even
a complete stranger) is remarkably desirable.
You can also use the reverse effect: showing how not complying will reduce how much
the person will be admired.
Example

I know this is extra work, but the CEO really appreciates how much you are helping her.
If you let me stay out tonight, I'll tell my friends what a great Dad you are.
People who let down their comrades around here are not well liked, I can tell you.
Everyone is looking at you! Speak a little quieter.
Discussion

One of our most fundamental needs is for a sense of identity, which we typically gain
through our interactions with others. What others think about us, even those we don't
know, is surprisingly important to us. Fame, as well as fortune, is highly desirable.
This makes a person's sense of identity a negotiable, which you can effectively offer to
boost in exchange for something you want.
Fame is also a variable. The more people people who like you, the better you feel. This
is amplified if the people who like you are themselves famous, as you acquire reflected
glory.
Flattery

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Flattery

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Make the other person look good. Tell them how clever, intelligent, attractive (etc) they
are.
Be impressed by what they have done. Listen attentively. Ask them to tell you more.
Use romantic body language as appropriate, or otherwise ensure your body aligns with
your words.
Example

That was amazing! How did you do that?

You seem young to be in such a senior position. You must be very good at this.
You look absolutely fantastic. Can I be your slave?
Discussion

Flattery makes the other person feel good about themselves and, by association, you. It
creates a bond with them and offers them higher status and a boost to their sense
of identity.
Flattery also creates a sense of exchange, where the other person will want to repay your
kindness to them. When you act like a friend, it puts them into a position where they
will want to act as a friend to you.
Flip a Coin

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Flip a Coin

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

If you cannot agree, suggest rolling dice or flipping a coin to decide who gets a disputed
resource.
You can also suggest this if the other person is gaining an advantage over you or where
they are being obstructive.
This is a good method to use when it seems that you have a less than 50% chance of
getting what you want through normal negotiation. It is also useful when the discussion

is about who should have a single item, where one person getting it means the other
person gets nothing (or a lesser item).
If they are suspicious, you can let them flip the coin. If they do so, ensure the coin falls
to the floor rather than being caught (where tricky peek-and-flip methods can be used).
Example

Look, we're getting nowhere. Let's just toss a coin to see who gets it.
If you can guess which hand I've got it in, then you can have it, otherwise I keep it. Ok?.
Discussion

This is a suggestion of using random chance to decide, and while it may seem
unsophisticated it is actually very fair when the reasons for each person wanting
something are both valid.
Tossing a coin has the advantage of being a quick and clear method, which makes it
useful when you are in a hurry and where getting the disputed item or not is not a
critical issue.
The simplicity of the method makes it useful with children and friends, where a quick,
fair decision is important to keep things going and to preserve a relationship that may be
strained by regular protracted negotiations.
The idea of fairness is important as this is what persuades. It moves discussion from
what each should have to what is fair in terms of the process of deciding. The unwritten
assumption behind it is that each person has an equal right to the item in dispute,
although this is not always the case (a point that may be deliberately overlooked).
Food Control

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Food Control

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Control what is eaten and what people drink in order to subvert and weaken their minds
and bodies, reducing their ability to make good decisions.

Make food and drink a reward. Link breaks to agreements. Hold off until you have got
what you want. A related reversal is to request or demand food breaks for yourself in
order to disrupt their tactics.
Other variants include:

Ply them with caffeine drinks to get them agitated.

Take lunch late, so they become hungry and less able to concentrate.

Give them stodgy, heavy food that will make them sleepy.

For yourself, consume less, choosing lighter food and less stimulating drinks, but do
occasionally have something sweet in order to keep you energized and focused.
In general, always consider the effect of different food and drink on the body and brain,
using these to your advantage.
Example

Would you like some more coffee? Or perhaps a Coke then?

Sorry it's getting late. Let's just agree this then go eat.
Would you like some water? Sorry we have no snacks.
Discussion

The brain is a delicate system that is driven by the chemicals in the blood. Any change
in blood chemistry hence can upset the working of the brain and mind, including
reducing our ability to make sound decisions. As we think with the brain, we may well
not notice this change, which stops us holding back when decision-making ability is
impaired.
Food and drink can speed us up with stimulants such as coffee, stopping us pausing to
reflect. Food also slows us down as blood is diverted to the digestive system. Without
the right balance of chemicals, we also lose ability and slow down to conserve energy
(hence that post-meal doziness).
The effects of caffeine and alcohol are well-known, yet many will still indulge, as much
out of politeness to an offer of food as natural craving. There are also many lesserknown effects, such as the way lowered glucose in blood reduces will-power and
decision sense.
Water can be the safest drink but, with the lack of nutrients, it is insufficient if there is
no other sustenance for a long time.

Forced Choice

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Forced Choice

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When offering a set of options, make it easy for them to choose the one you want them
to choose and hard for them to choose the ones you do not want them to choose.
Methods you can use for this include:

Offer the thing you want them to take either first or last.

Make the thing you want them to take memorable (and other things
not memorable).

Make the thing you want them to choose more desirable.

Make the choice you want them to make easier.

Create contrast to highlight and polarize the desirable and

undesirable.

Use words and part-words that sound something like what you want
them to choose.

Offer things that may normally be acceptable but which you know are
unacceptable to the the person (leaving the obvious choice...).

Example

Do you want this one, the other one or that one. (using emphasis and primacy).
You can have a brown one, a blue one, a bright yellow shiny one, a grey one or a purple
one (emphasis memorable).
There's suet pudding, chocolate ice-cream or heavy fudge cake. (desirability)
This house is far away, that house is expensive and the other house is a real
bargain and it's nearby. (contrast and desirability)
We could get a rat, a snake or a dog. Which would you prefer?

I like that hat. Now shall we get a dog or a cat. (repeating 'at' emphasizes 'cat')
Discussion

One of the tricks that magicians use in doing card tricks is known as 'forcing', where
they get the target person to pick the card they want them to pick, while the target
person thinks that they have made the selection without external influence.
Choosing the first or last thing offered utilizes the primacy effect or recency
effect. Contrast makes things stand out. Making things more noticeable may also
use emphasis of some kind. This also helps make them easier to remember.
You can also push the option toward the person in some way or weakly try to take it
away and let them jealously grab it back.
Funny Money

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Funny Money

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Use financial talk to make things sound better than they are or to emphasize real value.
When you are selling, offer financial arrangements that makes it appear the price is
lower than it actually is. Spread the cost over time. Use complex investment options.
Hide future costs.
When you are buying, offer to pay by different means, for example by paying in kind,
offering goods and services rather than cash.
Play with risk and valuations of it. Deal in future value. Consider depreciation. Make
payments non-linear, for example with early low payment and (later higher payment).
Talk about savings and opportunity. Discuss tax avoidance. Hint at the effects of
inflation. Show how they really can afford it.
Example

Well, we can double down the future reversal and save you at least 29% for you next 12
months of payment.

Hmm. Well if inflation is at 5% and base rate increase by two points per month, then
we'll be able to double your income and avoid the setup charge for the third year.
Well, sir, I know you have said you can't afford it, but if I can show you a way that you
could manage the payments, would you like to drive away in this wonderful vehicle
today?
Discussion

Most people become quickly lost when financial arrangements start be discussed. All
they want to know is what they have to pay, in particularly in the short term. It is thus
easy to bamboozle them with relatively simple (or even fake) financial wording.
Various financial services, from investments to pensions have surprised investors by
losing their money, when they have been told that they 'couldn't lose'.
Fragmentation

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Fragmentation

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Break down what is being negotiated up into small pieces and negotiate for each one.
When the other person seeks to get something from you, break it down and talk about
each item as if it is really important. Go into detail about the benefits that it gives (even
if these are the same benefits as other items).
You can also apply the same approach when describing the down-side of what they are
offering. Break down the big bad things into lots of bad things.
When you have a hierarchy of things, you can make them seem like even more by
talking not only about the bottom-level 'child' items, but also the 'parent' items at each
level of the tree.
Make a big thing about each item, negotiating hard for something in exchange for each
one.
You can even fragment time, breaking up the things done into small segments of activity
that together seem like a longer time.

Example

You have been so naughty. You've broken your tractor, you've scratched your best toy
car and you've broken your new toy that you got last week.
This is a great computer. It's got Windows XY, that includes SquidgyOffice Word,
SquidgyOffice Spreadsheet, SquidgyOffice Data and SquidgyOffice Presentation, as
well as a whole host of utility programs such as...
Now, if I cancel my meetings and come home on time, I want you to ensure everything
else is ready. I could bring some wine -- can you make sure dinner is made?
Discussion

When we want to assess size, we often use the size heuristic, whereby we mistake
quantity for a more important measure of size. This gives the negotiator a method of
making something that is actually quite small seem really quite big.
By breaking down a large item you have more negotiables. In this way, you can turn a
small opportunity into a larger advantage.
Go For A Walk

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Go For A Walk

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When things are getting tough or you have reached deadlock, go for a simple walk with
the other side.
Go outside the negotiation zone. Preferably walk in the park, the countryside or other
green spaces. If you are in the concrete jungle of a big city, then the streets will have to
do.
Walk side by side and talk, maybe just about them and their lives. Talk about your
humanity too. Listen to them and then see if they can listen to you.
When you have re-established a connection with them, bring up the subject of
negotiation. Ask them what they think can be done about it. Pose possibilities.
Example

A sales team presenting to a large company seem to be getting nowhere as the company
is focusing just on price. The sales lead person suggests going for a walk in the park
nearby. A few key people go out and the sales person ensures an equal balance of
people from either side. They just talk about the world. Tempers cool. Some apologies
are made. Feeling better about one another, they return to the negotiating table and
achieve a more equitable solution.
Discussion

The context of a negotiation can force a competitive or defensive attitude. If we are on

my territory, for example, then I feel dominant and you may feel like an intruder who
must either submit or attack. Even if the territory is neutral, then it can quickly become
associated with negative or aggressive feelings.
Getting away from this context gives space to return to humanity, to pause, take breath
and re-ground yourself. And also to help the other side do this too.
Walking side by side helps too. This is a position of equals. You are not facing each
others as competitors. Eye contact is broken. You are shoulder-to-shoulder and may
touch without giving a sense of invading their space.
It is better with pairs of people walking together as this gives an equality. When there
are three, the person in the middle either has a dominant position (choosing who to
speak to) or may be bombarded from those either side.
Good Guy/Bad Guy

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Good Guy/Bad Guy
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

One person acts in an aggressive and pushy way, making unreasonable demands and
requiring compliance.
The other person then acts in a kind and friendly way, asking nicely -- and getting
compliance.
The good guy (or gal, of course) may apologize for the bad guy, or plead for compliance
because the bad guy is being horrible to the good guy too.

You can even do it as one person: be unpleasant and then apologize (you are under such
stress) and ask nicely for what you want.
Example

A husband and wife go out to buy some hi-fi speakers. He acts in an aggressive and
dominant way, complaining about the price and the sales person's 'condescending'
manner. She takes the sales person aside and apologizes for her husband and whispers
a price at which she thinks he will buy.
A senior manager makes a presentation in an unpleasant and aggressive way,
demanding that tough goals are met. A liked line manager meets with her people
afterwards and says that if the goals are not met then she will be punished.
Discussion

This is a classic implementation of the Hurt and Rescue principle, which is a core
element of many persuasion methods. The bad guy acts to cause discomfort and tension,
after which the good guy offers escape and closure.
This is often seen on TV in the good cop, bad cop routine that is often seen in police
dramas. It can also be a subconscious pattern for parents, where one parent tries to
impose discipline by demanding compliance after which the other seems to get it easily
by gentle request.
What the good guy says often gives the target person an excuse to comply, allowing
them to rationalize their action and retain dignity. Sometimes the person complies with
the good guy as an act of revenge to 'teach the bad guy manners'.
Gender can make a difference here. While each can play either role, it plays to
tendencies and stereotypes if the controlling 'bad guy' is a man and the nurturing 'good
guy' is a woman.
Highball

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Highball

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

This is a tactic for sellers, where you make your first offer as high possible without
completely putting off the customer.

This can be helped by determining what constitutes a reasonable range of prices, so do

your research beforehand to find the buyer's zone of acceptability, then start at, or even
above, the top of their range.
Be careful about asking the other person what they will offer, as their first bid anchors
the discussion, quite possibly on the low side (although if they seem particularly keen to
settle, asking them might give you a pleasant surprise).
Example

A child who wants a parent to fund a night out starts by asking for about three times as
much as they really want.
When selling goods, a market trader starts with a high price. He then reduces the price
without being bargained with, using excuses about being kind, needing to sell
everything today and so on.
An estate agent takes buyers to houses that they cannot afford. This, however, raises
their desires and the house they eventually buy is more expensive than they had
anticipated.
Discussion

Where you start sets expectations for the other person. When you start high, you can
always go down. When you start low, you can never go up.
Starting high creates an anchor for the other person, whereby they may well assume that
this is in a reasonable range. If their counter-bid is also high, then you will end up with a
high price. Even if they are above what you expected, do not settle immediately -- at
best split the difference and you may be able to nudge them even higher.
A high start may well take longer to reach resolution, giving you more opportunity to
find out more about the other person and to build effective tension.
If the other person starts low, then it may be socially difficult for you to counter with a
high bid, although this can actually be a good move. Responding to a low bid with a
high bid indicates that you know they are low and may be seeking
If the other person counters with a low bid (or starts to walk away), this may be a signal
that they know what you are doing. Hold your nerve! If you collapse your position, they
may well take advantage and seek to pull you even further down.
Be careful about starting too high, as this may cause a betrayal response whereby they
leave without further ado, ignoring anything you may say. Extreme positions outside of
a range that may be considered fair can also be damaging to relationships (which may
be important).

The difference between your start position and your end position is a signal to the other
person about how much you have conceded to them. A significant difference will make
them believe they have got a bargain (a view you can encourage with sighs and
supporting words).
Hire an Expert

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Hire an Expert

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

If the stakes are high, do not try to do it all yourself. Get in the professionals.
Hire a subject expert to give you advice on the substance of the deal.
Hire an expert negotiator to do the actual deal.
Discuss things with them beforehand so they know what you really want. Decide how
you will work together. Options include:

They act fully as your agent, doing all negotiation themselves.

They sit in negotiations with you and are engaged in the discussions.

They sit in negotiations but mainly as an observer.

They do not attend negotiations but provide coaching and

suggestions for you beforehand.

During the negotiation, watch for signals from them. Also take breaks during the
negotiation to confer with them about what you might be really getting and the costs
and real value involved.
Example

I am buying a second-hand car, so take along a mechanic to thoroughly examine the car
before I start negotiating and also to give advice on such as cost of repairs.
An entrepreneur is selling her company. She hires a professional negotiator to do the
negotiation and a lawyer to check details of the contract.
Before selling an antique, I talk to an auctioneer friend.

Discussion

Experts are not usually cheap. You can expect to pay top prices for a top-class expert in
the field.
The basic reason for hiring an expert is that, although they are expensive, they will save
or make you much more money than they cost, or at very least reduce the risk of being
deceived.
Negotiators will often take a percentage of the sale price that they get for you (or, if
buying, a cut of what they save). Remember that a good negotiator may also negotiate
with you for their percentage!
Incremental Conversion

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Incremental Conversion

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you are seeking to convince a group of people, rather than trying to convert them
all at once, pick them off one at a time.
Focus on the individual, finding their separate needs. Then seek ways of satisfying these
needs.
Listen to many different people, putting together the jigsaw of understanding to get the
bigger picture of their organization.
If you are using team negotiation, match people up one-on-one with the task of wooing
over those on the other side.
When you have converted individual people, then you can also use them as allies,
getting them to subvert and convert others.
Example

A negotiation team 'shares out' the people on the other side and get.
A negotiator uses breaks to catch people in informal situations, build trust and nudge
them towards conversion.

A sales person makes an ally of the technical expert in the company and feeds them with
material to help them do internal selling.
Discussion

Incremental conversion uses a 'divide and conquer' approach and helps break
down group effects in the other side, for example where they may cluster around a polar
position even when individually they are more open to persuasion.
It also allows for individual one-on-one relationships to be built that develop trust and
hence move overall towards agreement.
Interim trade

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Interim trade

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you are stuck in a negotiation because something is wanted by the other side but
which you do not want to give (or are unable to obtain), indicate that they will be able to
get what they want, in order to get them moving.
Then, later, remove or otherwise minimize that thing which was 'conceded'. For
example:

Try ignoring it in the final agreement.

Claim to have misunderstood the original request.

Give less that what might have been originally expected.

Reinterpret the commitment and give something else.

Negotiate the point away in a trade for something else.

Include the item in the agreement, but just do not deliver it.

Example

Yes, I'm sure I can get that for you. I'll look into it when I get back home (where you call
back and apologize that it just isn't possible now).

Of course -- let's include it in the final agreement (where it gets conveniently forgotten).
I don't see why not. Now, let's move on to the main agenda. (later -- oh, I'm sorry, I
thought you meant...)
Discussion

Sometimes people get stuck on a demand that actually is not that important. They
become personally invested in it to the point where they feel they will lose face if they
concede. Your concession on this point thus lets them move on to the next topic. If the
point was not really important, then they will not notice or object to its later removal or
minimization.
When there are a lot of sub-items in the negotiated item, for example a construction
contract then you can often quietly drop in convenient things without them being
noticed.
Invoke Rules

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Invoke Rules

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Invoke rules that require certain behavior, by you or by them.

Rules can be any requirement that points to how a person should act. This includes:

How: Procedures for negotiating, deciding and reaching agreement.

What: Things that are allowed or required as items for exchange.

Sources of rules that may be applied includes:

National laws.

Industry standards.

Company policies (yours or theirs).

Social norms (politeness, ethics, etc.)

When invoking standards, it can help avoid resistance if they are brought
up incrementally.
If they deny that the rules exist or otherwise try to ignore them, you can threaten to
escalate to the rule-makers, such as the CEO of their company.
Example

Sorry, I couldn't do that without involving our finance people. They have to be involved
in all changes to payments. Shall I get them in tomorrow?
Does it conform to ISO1347? Our customers will require this.
Is it your policy to sell sub-standard goods? Does your company have service
standards? What do they say about customer satisfaction? Is it your first priority? Yes?
So why are you acting as if it is a low priority?
Discussion

Using rules is a powerful method as it provides an external source for required behavior
that you can use to excuse what you 'must' do or require from them.
Your rules

When you use rules that apply to you, you constrain what you can do by saying you are
not allowed to do things or must follow certain procedures. When negotiating for a
company or client, then you can be regulated by their requirements. When negotiating
for yourself, you can still reference a partner or use social norms or national laws.
For example:

Not engaging in bribery or other inducements.

Have to check with others before agreeing.

Payment must be up-front or by a certain method.

Need to check wording of contract with lawyer.

Cannot give discount beyond certain level.

Their rules

It is surprising how often people do not know the rules that govern them, and so easily
stray outside the boundaries of what is strictly permissible. If you can learn their
policies and know other rules, then you have a powerful tool with which to influence
them.

Using their rules is particularly powerful in everyday situations where you are an
individual dealing with a company. The basic principle is to invoke their company
policies that they are not following. This is quite common. People who set up policies
are often detached from the front line and tend to be rather idealistic, leading to
customer policies that strongly favor customers. Then CEOs sign the rules, which
means failure to comply with the rules is a PR disaster-in-waiting for the CEO.
It'll be Alright on the Night

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > It'll be Alright on the Night
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Paint the deal with a big brush, using grand descriptions and gestures. Gloss over
details, saying that there will be no problems with these or that they can be sorted out
later.
Be positive and enthusiastic, with a 'can do' approach. If the ask you about details
dismiss their concerns, perhaps showing slight disappointment at their lack of
confidence in you.
Example

Don't worry, we'll sort out all that stuff once we get going.
This will be a brilliant project and I'm sure we'll get all kinds of things done. You've just
got to have faith. It's negativity that would kill it, not lack of ability.
That's a great thought and I'd like you to hold the question for now. Let's agree on the
deal and we'll sweat the small stuff later.
Discussion

Many people do not like conflict and will readily agree to procrastination or otherwise
avoid disagreement. This technique appeals to that avoidance tendency.
'It'll be alright on the night' is a classic show-business comment, where dress-rehearsal
disasters are common and readiness for opening night may be questioned. It effectively
dismisses challenges as unnecessarily negative, sweeping problems under the carpet,
assuming they can be dealt with at a later date.

Leaking

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Leaking

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Let misleading information 'leak' out from your side.

Let them overhear you talking about particular (but false) needs or strategies that you
have.
Leave documents on the table that they might read or copy.
Let something 'slip out' during conversation.
Have a person on your side 'sympathetically' tell them something.
Example

In a negotiation I have my papers flat on the table with a highlighted section that can
be easily read upside down.
We have a corridor conversation near where they are having coffee -- we get excited
and voices get raised...
Discussion

When people receive 'leaked' information, it can be very exciting for them as they
believe they have a significant advantage over you. They will also be more likely to
believe that it is true as it does not come from official channels.
This may well lead them to focus largely on the leak areas -- and consequently avoid
other areas (where perhaps you do not want them to go).
When the leak proves eventually to be false (if they ever find out this), then they are
unable to complain, for to do so would be to admit deceptive and possibly criminal
behavior.
Linking

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Linking

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you are building agreements, link items together, building a web of commitment.
Use the word 'if...' a lot. Say 'If you...then I...'.
In particular link the things they want with the things that you want.
Link in consequences as well. Use words such as 'otherwise'.
Also link in things that are not wanted. Make agreements conditional upon things being
achieved. If they fail to deliver, then you can choose to call the whole deal off.
You can link weak issues with strong ones, making it conditional that gaining the main
item means also gaining a number of other smaller items.
Example

In a performance-related agreement with staff, a pay rise is agreed to be given only if

employee productivity increases to a given level.
If you give me a 25% discount, then I will buy today, with cash, otherwise I might come
back next week with a credit card.
I will only go where you want if I can bring my mother. If you go where I want, then we
can go alone, just the two of us.
Governments will add small items to larger bills, such that as the main item gets voted
into law, a few small but very useful extras get towed along as well.
Discussion

Linking shows cause and effect, answering the question 'why' and allowing the other
person to predict.
Linking is also associative, connecting things together by rule of meaning or general
connective thought process. Associative connections are not necessarily causal, even if
they appear so.

Linking shows them the route to what they want, linking benefit and method. By
highlighting their needs, they may be so focused on these that your needs seem less
significant.
Linking strong and weak items, the contrast between them makes the weak item seem
insignificant and so it gets a free ride.
Log-rolling

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Log-rolling

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Make a range of requests, some of which are less important as well as those which are
critical for you. When pressed or making an exchange, concede on items which are
lower priority in order to get those which are higher priority.
You can also help the other side find the best value for them. Ideally, each person gives
things that is less value for them but is higher value for the other person.
Example

A person buying a car says that low cost and high performance are both important.
When offered a lower performance car they use their stated priorities to help reduce the
price.
In a contract negotiation, the buyer tries to put in a number of strict sections about
timescales and product features. Later, they concede on some of the features a little but
keep the timescale which is more important.
Discussion

Negotiations often include concessions and exchanges as the players seek to find
agreement. In order to exchange you have to have something give away. If all you have
is things that are important to you, then you will lose out in any exchange. If, however,
you have items that you would like but which are less important, you can gain by
exchanging low value items for high value items.
The best way of doing this is to have items that are lf lower priority for you but which
are higher priority for the other party. Such low-for-high exchanges are often
called elegant negotiables (or 'elegant variables').

Lowball

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Lowball

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

This is a method for buyers, where you start your bidding particularly low.
When negotiating a price on something, for example, it can help to know what
constitutes a reasonable range of prices, so do your research beforehand to find
the seller's zone of acceptability, then start at, or even below the bottom of their range.
This may be justified with an argument about why you are offering so little.
Be careful about starting out asking the other person what their price is, as this will
anchor the discussion (and their expectations) at a higher price.
Example

My son wants to stay out late, coming back at 3am. I start by saying that I want him
back at 10pm. We settle on midnight.
Sorry, sir, there's no call for these thing nowadays. It's damaged, too. The best I can
offer is...
A car dealer phones around personal adverts of individual selling cars, making very
low offers. If they are not immediately rejected, they follow up to see how low a price
they can get.
Discussion

Where you start sets expectations for the other person. When you start low, you can
always go up. When you start high, you can never go down.
Starting low creates an anchor for the other person, whereby they may well assume that
this is in a reasonable range. If their counter-bid is lower than you expected, then you
will end up with a good price. Even if they are below what you expected, do not settle
immediately -- at best split the difference and you may be able to nudge them even
higher.
A low start may well take longer to reach resolution, giving you more opportunity to
find out more about the other person and to build effective tension.

If the other person counters with a highball (or starts to walk away), this may be a signal
that they know what you are doing. Hold your nerve! If you collapse your position, they
may well take advantage and seek to pull you even further down.
Be careful about starting too low, as this may cause a betrayal response whereby they
leave without further ado, ignoring anything you may say. Extreme positions outside of
a range that may be considered fair can also be damaging to relationships (which may
be important).
The difference between your start position and your end position is a signal to the other
person about how much you have conceded to them. A significant difference will make
them believe they have got a bargain (a view you can encourage with sighs and
supporting words).
Make a Mountain out of a Molehill

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Make a Mountain out of a Molehill
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Take a small issue and make it a big issue. Take things personally. Be surprised. Become
upset. Raise your voice. Talk a lot about the issue and the problems it will
cause. Amplify and exaggerate.
If you are buying something look for blemishes or scratches and say it is damaged
goods. Become upset about a casual comment. Be insulted by a price that is too high or
an offer that is too low. Accuse them of being too fussy, too casual, etc.
Example

Look at this scratch! It's like second-hand goods and will cost a lot to fix, and even then
just won't be the same!
Oh no! The box is damaged. I wanted it for a gift, too. This deserves a big discount.
What did you call me? How dare you! I have never been so insulted in all my life!!
Discussion

Making a fuss over something distracts attention away from other things that you may
want to avoid. It also takes up time, giving less time for the other person to find
problems and negotiate a better deal for themselves.
When you become upset about something you shift the focus from the negotiation to
yourself, with an implied requirement that you must be calmed down before the
negotiation proper can continue. This also establishes you as a fussy person and
dissuades the other person from doing anything that might upset you further. They may
also seek to conclude the negotiation quicker by giving you more concessions or
accepting a more favorable price.
Misleading Information

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Misleading Information

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Tell them things that will distract them, hurry them up, or otherwise provide information
that will help your cause.
You can do this directly or indirectly, for example through other other people.
Misinformation may also be passed to them by playing on their dishonesty, for example
by leaving papers behind that they peek at when you leave the room.
Make sure the information is credible. If they do not believe it then they will at best
ignore it and at worst feel disgusted and seek to punish you.
Example

At an industry meeting with a competitor, a market manager exposes a flyer for a new
product that makes it appear the company has made a technological breakthrough. This
encourages the competitor to collaborate on industry standards.
In wartime, a country plants a dead officer with 'secret plans' in a pocket, where the
enemy will discover it.
A child tells his parents he has tidied his room in order that he may be allowed out to
play.
Discussion

Misinformation is an opposite of information. Information lets you make good

decisions. Misinformation encourages you to make bad decisions.
Misinformation is often lying, although its users will seldom describe it as such. It seeks
to distract or inform others in ways that will affect their decisions or make them more
open to requests. Misinformation can be true, but is selective in what is communicated
such that the other person will come to desired conclusions.
If we believe the source of information then we will likely accept the information as
true. This is also helped if the information itself makes sense. Misinformers must hence
take care to manage both their own credibility and that of the information they provide.
Misinformation is often subtle exaggeration, such as when a job applicant claims they
achieved more than they really did. Misinformation may also be a large and complex lie
that needs other support, such as corroborating evidence on websites. The web in
general can be problematic when misinforming as it offers so much information that
may contradict the misinformation provided.
Misinformation is deceptive and may present a moral dilemma. If discovered, even at a
later date, it creates the risk of damaging the relationship and leading to punishing
recriminations by the other party.
Misinformation is a classic wartime activity which seeks to confuse and misdirect the
enemy. It was used to very significant effect during World War 2.

New Issue

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > New Issue

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Bring up a new issue in the middle of the negotiation.

Use this when things are getting sticky and you need to get them
thinking about something else.

Use it when you think you have conceded too much and they are
getting more than their fair share.

Use it to cause delays when you need time to think or take other
action.

You can later drop the issue as appropriate (perhaps negotiating this for another
concession).
Example

I've just had a call from the boss -- he now needs to do this in half the time.
I've been looking at the design and I think we'll need an extra safety system.
...You know, I know I added this, but I think we may be able to do without it...
Discussion

When the other side is struggling to handle the complexities of the negotiation, adding
extra things can overload them, thus creating pressure for them to make concessions in
order to reduce the pressure.
When the other side is having things too easy, a new issue can cause them to pause,
breaking the flow of their progress.
Adding the issue late into the session will make it less likely that they will respond by
pulling out.

New Player

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > New Player

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When a negotiation that is taking a number of meetings is getting stuck or things are
turning for the worse (for you), bring a new person from your side to the table.
Add a new member or change a person in a negotiation team.
Change the person doing the negotiation.
Bring in a subject expert to give advice.

Bring in an observer to watch body language and add a fresh eye.

Example

I am getting nowhere in persuading my son, so I ask my wife to talk with him.

A person is unsuccessful at asking the boss for a raise, so they bring in their trade union
representative.
A buying team wants to shake up a negotiation with a sales team and so changes several
members of its team.
Discussion

As negotiations progress, relationships start to build between the two sides. This creates
an inter-group social pattern of which the other side can be taken advantage, for
example by incremental conversion. Changing your team make-up breaks this pattern
and allows you to remove any suspect people.
A new person on your team will disrupt and distract the other side as they seek to figure
out what this person is like and what part they will play.
A new negotiator is often able to sweep away commitments made by the previous
negotiator.
A new expert can help you challenge claims from the other side, identify that which has
not been mentioned. They can counter arguments or create your own new arguments.
Nibbling

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Nibbling

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Ask for small things, one at a time. Get agreement on each.

Frame the request as being very easy for the other person to give. Be appreciative when
they give. Reward them with kind words and thanks.
You can leave a delay between each one. You can also ask a short sequence of nibbles
and then give it a rest before asking for more.

This can be particularly effective near the end of the negotiation, when the other person
is seeking to reach a final agreement. It can also work near the beginning, to get the ball
rolling.
Example

Oh, just one more thing -- it's not much really -- could I have one more seat?
Can I have that table there? And please send the waiter over immediately. I also want
water for everyone, now.
This window system is just what I want. The stained glass is included, of course?...The
hardwood surrounds as well, I know?
Discussion

In the way that a rabbit nibble at a lettuce leaf with small bites, so also is 'nibbling' a
way of getting a lot.
Asking for a small thing makes it seem mean for the other person to refuse. It can also
make them feel good by giving you something that seems small to them and makes you
so happy.
At the start of the negotiation, getting a small concession sets the tone of the negotiation
(that you get something for nothing).
When the other person believes the deal has been agreed (or nearly agreed), then they
will give in on a small detail very easily.
No Authority

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > No Authority

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Refuse to give in on items based on the fact that you have not been given authority to do
what is being requested by the other person.
You can, if you wish, offer to take the request back to that authority for consideration
(and, at the next meeting, tell them that the request has been turned down).

You can name the authority, particularly if the person named is known and has a high
position.
Example

Sorry, I only have the authority to spend up to a thousand.

I'll have to ask your mother about that.
I'd love to give you that, but I don't think I'd get away with it.
Discussion

When you claim that you do not have authority to make a decision, then this effectively
prevents the other person from disputing your decision, as the authority person is not
there.
If you use the name of a person in particularly high authority, then you gain by proxy a
certain amount of that authority, and can make more demands than you might otherwise.
Claiming no authority can cause problems when the other person asks to deal with the
person in authority. For this, you will have to be able say no (you do have authority for
this!).
Non-negotiable

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Non-negotiable

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Make one or more items that you need or want to be things on which you will not
concede at all.
When the other person tries to bargain with you on a non-negotiable, state that you are
not prepared to negotiate on this thing. If they persist, just use a broken record response.
You can distract them from any persistence by offering a concession on something else.
Example

I'm sorry, I cannot include the carpets. They were my parents.

I must have four wheel drive. That's a nice car, but I must have four wheel drive.
Sorry, son, homework comes first. It may be your best friend's party, but you can't go
until homework is done -- to my satisfaction, too.
Discussion

When the other person believes that you are not going to concede on a particular item,
then they have the choice of terminating the negotiation or giving in on that point.
Unless they have a walk-away alternative, then the thought of terminating relationship
will not be a good option for them.
Not Happy

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Not Happy

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Say you are not happy and then wait for the other person to improve their offer. Do not
ask for something specific -- let them decide.
Shake your head and look sad, annoyed or distressed. Frown. Purse your lips.
Send body language signals to reinforce your unhappy state.
Do not be woolly, weakening your statement with softening qualifiers like 'I can't say
I'm happy' or 'I'm not that happy'.
When they do make an improved offer, say you are still not happy.
When they have run out of offers, you can ask for one more thing and then say you'll be
happy with this.
Example

You know, your company let me down and I'm really not happy at all.
I'm not happy with that...I'm still not happy...If you can add the whole package then I'll
be happy.
Discussion

There is a social rule that says you should not be unkind to others, and an indicator of
this is that they are unhappy. Declaring your unhappiness invokes this rule and
encourages the other person to improve their offer.
Being unhappy also hints that you may back out or escalate. This provides a second line
of pressure on the other person to work hard to get you happy again.
Not saying what you want has two effects. If you ask for something, it looks like you
are playing a game to get more. When you say you are not happy, you are not asking.
Also, you may well be surprised when they give you more than you expected or wanted.
This is a useful method to use when you have received poor customer service, where
representative often have a clear directive that customers should be happy and also have
lot of scope to ensure this.
Overwhelm

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Overwhelm

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Give the other side so much information that they become overwhelmed and unable to
cope.
When they ask for details about your company, give them sheafs of history, financial
analyses, market information.
When they ask you for information verbally, go on at great length, talking about all the
exceptions and variations in the area they are asking about.
Snow them under with a blizzard of information. Hide the needle that they are seeking
in a haystack of irrelevant data.
You can also overwhelm them with requests. Keep asking for information. Probe for
more and more answers.
Example

You wanted to see our customer results for the SB04 product line. I've had my secretary
send you all the customer results we have. I'm sure it's in there somewhere.

School numbers? Yes, well there's 2000 special educational units, 24 of those with
under-fives, six within this in this very city...then there's the educational units in
hospitals, of course, I don't know if you want to include these but they are sometimes
important...
How many are you looking for? What type? What variant? Which year?
We want to see all your financial records for the past ten years, including divisional
results and internal analyses.
Discussion

When you snow another person you cannot be accused of being unhelpful or failing to
comply with their requests.
This is also an opportunity to show them how busy you are, how much work you do and
how really complex and difficult it really is.
Padding

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Padding

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Add in requirements to your initial position that you do not really need. Then later,
when you need to concede in order to get something you want, give away this 'padding'.
Do not do this lightly. Act in the same way as if you were conceding something you
really want.
You can pad on any variables or individual items or even some combination.
Be ready to justify why you want these things. Beware of including what you cannot
reasonably justify.
Example

I must have this done by the end of the week...well, ok, I'll accept it next Friday if you
include a full specification.

My wife said it must be red...Well, I'll take the green one, but only if you include the full
insurance package. I guess I'll have to think about what to say to Jean...
I need a meeting room for twenty people...Well, I guess I'll have to stop Jim and Mary
from coming. Coffee is included in that price, isn't it?
Discussion

Your initial position is often taken as what you really want, and that its entire contents
are at least very desirable to you. When you concede from this, then is is assumed that
you are giving away something that you would rather have.
In order to work, padding has to be credible. If it is suspected that you are deliberately
padding then all of your requirements will be suspect and open to challenge.
Phasing

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Phasing

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you are introducing something that is unpalatable or unpleasant in some way,
offer to phase it in over time.
The reverse may also be done: phasing out something that is desirable.
Sometimes you can do this in one go. Announce it at one point and then delay the
introduction.
Example

A salesperson makes an offer to phase payments over time in return for signing the deal
today.
A change manager phases in difficult changes over time, whilst phasing out some of the
benefits that can no longer be afforded.
A government announces a tax increase, but defers it for six months. This results in a
muted response from the general public.
Discussion

When something painful happens, there is a double blow in the pain of the
announcement and the pain of it actually happening. If the occurrence is delayed, then
by the time the event occurs the people involved will have adjusted and be emotionally
ready for the event.
Phasing a thing over time makes the pain more frequent, but also more tolerable each
time. This may range from financial pain (whereby the person simply could not afford it
in a single go) to emotional pain, where the pain of loss (for example) can be
particularly upsetting.
Plant

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Plant

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Have another person upset the applecart by saying something controversial or otherwise
putting the other person off their stride. For example:

Criticizing the other person's argument.

Introducing a new consideration that changes the whole situation.

Asking irrelevant questions.

Talking for a long time.

Using contradictory or negative body language.

This person can be someone on your side who acts like a 'loose cannon' or may be an
apparently neutral bystander.
Be careful that the plant is not so annoying that they completely dissuade the other
person from wanting to negotiate with you. Also, of course, make sure that the other
person does not guess that the plant is acting deliberately. For this reason, the plant is
often played by someone who is naturally a bit geeky or otherwise has less gentile
social skills.
Example

When telling my son to go to bed, my daughter makes a comment about it being childish
to argue against this request (which I asked her to say beforehand, knowing how the
argument would proceed).
In a team negotiation, a person on one side brought in as a subject expert keeps talking
about things that are not relevant, wandering off-topic when they are talking. They do
this particularly when the other side is getting into awkward territory.
A primed bystander looks shocked at the other side's position. They shake their head
and frown at many of the things that people on the other side say.
Discussion

A 'plant' is a person who is deliberately 'planted' into a situation for a particular purpose.
A Plant is also a Belbin's team role, where the person is creative and comes up with
good ideas, but may well not be focused achieving closure on the best answer (and thus,
in teams, needs to be controlled).
Play Dumb

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Play Dumb

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Act stupid. Ask dumb questions. Be a bit confused. Do not show how smart you are.
When they talk about things, apologize for not quite understanding and ask them to
explain various details again. Frame your requests as if they had just occurred to you.
Be impressed at their ideas.
While not actually being stupid in annoying them or agreeing to things that
disadvantage you, be vague and give the impression of being their intellectual inferior.
Example

That sounds amazing. I don't know how you thought of that.

Um, sorrry, I didn't get that bit about finance stuff. Could you explain it more simply,
please?

Ooh. How about this. Maybe you could bring a spare in case the first goes wrong. I
think that would help avoid contract failure. Is that right?
Discussion

When people think you are smart, they will be on their guard and will avoid giving
things away. They also may resent being made to feel relatively unintelligent. When
people feel superior, they feel safe and so relax. They become less guarded and may let
slip important pieces of information.
Appearing less intelligent while not giving things away is a delicate balancing trick.
Much can be done to help this by using simple language, acting unsure and praising the
other person. Listening intently and agreeing to as much as possible also helps them feel
good.
To get what you want, you may leave your proposals until later, when
you have gathered much useful inform action. Another approach is to
casually get agreement on small items then change the subject and
keep flattering them.

Price Not Negotiable

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Price Not Negotiable
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Do not negotiate on price. Seek to negotiate on other variables such as delivery time,
quality, service and so on.
As a way of preserving the standard 'book' price, you may be able to offer discounts, for
example for higher quantities or immediate orders.
Example

Sorry, I cannot change the price. However, I can throw in an extra year's insurance at
no extra cost.
The unit price is fixed but we may be able to agree a good bulk discount for you.

I know they are expensive. These are premium goods built by skilled craftspeople. They
will last you for many years.
Discussion

Many buyers think first and last about price, yet this immediately harms your profit.
Reducing your price is a tacit admission that you have charged too much and can make
them less trusting.
When price is mentioned, especially if this is early in the negotiation, it is an
opportunity to show exactly what they are getting for their money. Only consider price
changes as a last option and seek to ask for something in return.

Quivering Quill

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Quivering Quill

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Wait until you are just about to sign the deal and then pause. You may even have the pen
in your hand (the 'quivering quill'). Look at the other person and ask for some extra
concession. It may even be something quite significant.
Example

Mmm. Before I sign, I want one more thing to be included in this. If you give me an
upgrade to the next model for the same price, then the deal is yours today.
Whoops. I forgot to ask. I can bring the children as well, can't I?
Oh yes, before I go, you will ask Bill, won't you?
Discussion

When the deal is just about to close, then the other person may well have already
emotionally closed and assumed that the deal is complete. The thought of you pulling
out is thus so painful for them that they will make significant concessions just to get the
agreement complete (and the pain of re-opening relieved).
Red Herring

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Red Herring

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Lay a false trail that the other person will follow.

Make sure the trail goes away from the things you do not want them to discover.
If you want them to waste time, make the trail long.
If you want them to expend effort, make the trail difficult to follow (but with enough
interesting clues to keep them sniffing.
You can highlight 'problems' which turn out not to be problems (after a degree of
examination).
Be careful to retain credibility, for example by referencing the trail through other
people.
Example

A company shows some interesting, but minor problems to an auditor, distracting them
from the really serious issues that may be found elsewhere.
There might be a problem with the paintwork, let's look...No! The paintwork is, in fact,
perfect.
Discussion

Laying a false trail leads people away from areas that you do not want them to see. To
do this, the trail must be of sufficient interest that the other person misses any clues to
other areas.
Red herrings are particularly useful when the activity is time-bound -- that is, time spent
following the red herring is time that can not be spent in other areas.
Talking about problems that are not really problems has effects beyond distraction. For
example, it may show you in a positive light as willing to highlight issues that may
count against you. Also, the relief that problems are not problems creates a sense of
closure that easily becomes agreement to the deal.

If the other person realizes that it is a deliberate red herring, they may be very unhappy
about this, so it should either be cloaked carefully or you must be protected from any
anger.
Russian Front

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Russian Front

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Offer them something that they will never choose. Dress it up so that it seems more
reasonable (at least that it is reasonable that you might offer it to them).
Make it seem inevitable. Show how it is going to happen. Paint the picture of pain.
Then offer them the alternative that you really want them to choose.
Example

Well, I do hear they need people with your talents down in Sewage Maintenance, and
there are openings there -- the last guy ended up in hospital. Though I've also got
contacts in reception -- would you like me to ask them?
You can go to bed now ... or you can clean up this mess.
Uh oh. You've done it now. Michael will not like that. And he's coming down in ten
minutes. Tell you what: there is something I can do...
Discussion

One of the things that many German soldiers feared in the second world war was being
sent to the Russian front, where you were as likely to die from the cold as from a
Russian bullet (and the Russians were pretty mad at being invaded, just as they were
when Napoleon tried the same trick).
Offering something that is clearly undesirable creates panic and discomfort. This causes
people anxious to get away from this -- to the point where they are looking more at what
they are avoiding than what they are getting instead.
This is an application of the Hurt and Rescue principle and also the Contrast principle.
The Russian front provides the pain, against which any alternative sounds wonderful.

Reducing Choice

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Reducing Choice

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Reduce the choices that the other person has to a limited number -- two or three is often
good. Four or five may be ok but can be too much. Ten is way too many.
In offering choices, you can of course provide biased choice, making the things you
want the best or only things that they choose.
Avoid offering too many choices at once. Too many options will either lead to confusion
or happy mulling over all the options (but no decision).
You can get through many options by revealing new choices or descending a
hierarchical tree of choices.
Example

We can visit your family next week or the week after -- I'm away for a while
then. (limited choice)
Do you want fries with that?...and salad?...green or mixed? ...what dressing would you
like?... (revealing choice)
Do you want a large or small car?...is is for family or just you?...how many
doors?... (hierarchical choice)
Discussion

When you reduce choice in negotiations, you can eliminate those things that you do not
want and focus on the things you do want.
If you give a person no choice, they will feel as if you are controlling them. If you give
them too much choice, they will be confused. Judging vs. perceiving preferences will
affect choice, as perceivers prefer more options (so give them more).
See You in Court

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > See You in Court
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Threaten to take the whole thing to a higher authority or some public forum.
Suggest that some third party be brought in to mediate or arbitrate.
You can accompany this with either cool rationality or emotion and drama. Each will
have a different effect.
Example

Right! I'm telling Mum on you!

If we can't agree here, then we'll need to involve the whole team in the decision.
That is just too much. I think we should ask Michael what he thinks.
Hmm. I think I am going to have to get the Union involved.
Discussion

In court, control is taken away from the negotiators, with a judge or jury making the
decisions. If you believe you are more likely to win the case in this kind of
environment, then moving to this will gain you advantage. If the other person knows
this, then the threat of doing this will get them to concede more.
Court is a very public place where people's dirty washing gets aired. The thought of this
loss of face can be very persuasive in getting people to think again about the agreements
they are making.
Shotgun

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Shotgun

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Refuse to continue until a concession is gained.

Make it clear that nothing is going to happen until they give in on a single, named item.
Example

I let you use the car yesterday. I'm not doing that again until you clear up your room.
I want a much better discount...Sorry, I'm not interested in talking about add-ons or
finance deals until we agree the discount.
Discussion

Use this method particularly when you have conceded to the other person, but they have
not given enough back in return.
Generally, people concede in turn. When you have the upper hand in that the other
person wants what you have more than you want what they have, then you may be able
to demand several concessions before you concede on one thing.
Side Payments

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Side Payments

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When what one side wants is more than what the other side wants, balance the
difference with a cash payment.
This will need a valuation of the items being exchanged. An independent agent may be
used for this or it can just be included in the negotiation.
Example

In a house exchange, where an older couple are swapping their big house with a young
family who have a smaller bungalow, the difference in value is negotiated and the
family pay this in cash.
Look, I'll give you this Honda and five hundred extra for your Ford, which I know is a
bit newer.
Discussion

Where the negotiation is not about buying something, there is often an unspoken
assumption that the exchange is goods-for-goods or some other non-financial
interaction. Bringing in a compensatory balance can help to make things more
acceptable.
The same principle can be used in other ways, for example where a sales person 'throws
in' additional products to make their price more tempting.
Slicing

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Slicing

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Slice a larger deal up into a number of smaller complete deals.

Build smaller packages on which you can gain agreement.
You can take out the items that are difficult to agree and agree on the things on which
you can get a good agreement. The difficult items may then be negotiated one at a time.
Gain clear agreement on each one before moving on to the next, possibly at another
time.
Example

Right, so you'll spend tomorrow digging the hole. Let's get back together when that's
complete.
Look, we are not agreeing on the location, so let's first agree on the timescales.
If we sign the contract as is, we can add a contract variation later.
Discussion

Slicing allows you to gain agreement in a situation where there may be a sticking point
over which agreement cannot yet be gained.
Sometimes slicing a deal up just into two parts can be very helpful in achieving focus.

By breaking down the negotiation into lots of smaller negotiations, you may be able to
get more for your money.
Split the Difference

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Split the Difference
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you have offered one amount (often, but not necessarily, money) and the other
person has named another amount, then offer to 'split the difference', to agree on a price
that is half-way between what you want and what the other person wants.
Example

It's lower than I really wanted, but I'd be prepared to split the difference.
You are offering 200. I want 300. For a quick sale, I'll accept 250.
Discussion

Splitting the difference, agreeing a solution that is half-way between two positions,
appears to be fair, and hence can be difficult to refuse.
The trick with this is to maneuver the situation such that a half-way position is actually
still a very agreeable solution for you.
Suggest Facilitation

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Suggest Facilitation

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When there is an impasse and you are unable to agree, suggest getting a third party in to
help unstick things and facilitate the process.

Suggest someone who will be good at this (and who will likely be more sympathetic to
your cause). Oppose people they suggest.
You can also suggest arbitration, where a third party makes decisions that you and the
other person are unable to agree.
Example

We're going round in circles. Let's call in Sue to facilitate the process. she's good at
keeping things moving.
Listen, we're not going to agree here. Why don't we put the arguments to Jim and let
him choose.
I think we are losing our way here. Let's get Sam to help out.
Discussion

Support from third parties can be effective if both parties trust this intermediary, so the
person must be chosen wth care. If you suggest someone they suspect will be biased
towards you, they will not easily agree.
The suggestion of a third party can just change the argument to who is the most duitable
person. Note that a facilitator must not only be neutral, they must also have the
considerable skills to help both parties come to an agreement.
As a good facilitator will bring fairness to the proceedings, suggesting facilitation can
be a good move if the other person is being deceptive, unfair or otherwise seems to have
ained an advantage.. Making this suggestion can make the other party worried about the
re-balancing effect and so give you more concessions.
Bringing in someone else may seem likely to slow things down. Suggesting facilitation
can hence act as a threat when the other person is in a hurry.
Take a Break

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Take a Break

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you're unsure and need to check things out, looking up facts or calling other
people, take a break. You can also use the break as a disruption tactic, breaking up their
flow, especially when things are going well for them. Another reason to take a break is
where you think you are being pressured.
Breaks can range from seconds to days. Pausing within the discussion can give you vital
seconds to gather your thoughts and reflect on suggestions. Refreshment breaks give
time to talk with others and look up detail. Overnight gives even more time. You may
also want to go back to your people and discuss the situation.
Example

Hang on, just let me think for a moment about that.

Excuse me, could you direct me to the bathroom?
Hmm. I have heard some interesting things today and want to step back to reflect. Let's
meet again next week.
Discussion

We often pressure ourselves into quick agreement or allow others to pressure us. In
most cases, especially if we are buying and there is no real urgency, we can step back at
any time to collect our thoughts and make cooler decisions.
The human brain is very clever at making decisions based on large amounts of uncertain
data, but is prone to many decision errors and traps, especially when stressed. By giving
it time to reflect it can be much more accurate.
Breaks as disruption work when they interrupt flows of thinking and speaking. When
you return you can also use this to rewind and go back to a former stage.
Take It or Leave It

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Take It or Leave It

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you make an offer to the other person, say 'Take it or leave it'.

Leave a long pause after this, just looking expectantly at them (or maybe leaving them
to stew for a while by themselves).
Show that if they leave it, then this is not important to you, for example
by demonstrating your walk-away beforehand, or by acting in a casual manner.
Example

That's all I've got. Take it or leave it.

That's the best offer I can make. I've done as much as I can for you now, so you're going
to have to take it or leave it.
Well, you can take it now, or you can leave it forever. If you don't take it, I really think
you'll regret that decision for a long time.
Discussion

Saying 'take it or leave it' is a form of Alternative Close, that offers two choices, but
where one is intended as being unacceptable, thus forcing the actual choice.
If the other person has a walk-away alternative, then leaving it may be a very real
option, so be careful about using this method in such circumstances (for example by
making sure your walk-away is better).
Trial Balloon

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Trial Balloon

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Suggest a final solution and see if the other side bites. Float out an idea and see if they
run with it or away from it. Explore possibilities that will lead to closure.
For example:

Ask 'what if?' and wait for 'how?'

Use 'If I...will you...'

Use 'Let's...' and see if they agree.

Say 'Are you ready to agree now?'

Example

How about going to the restaurant tonight?

If we can agree on the final numbers, are you ready to sign today?
Right. We've agreed on the date and price. Is that it?
Discussion

It is easy to assume that the other person will not accept an idea or is not ready for
closure. The fear of their refusal can thus prevent you from exploring or trying
something out.
All you need to do to use a trial balloon is to add some form of qualifier or otherwise
ask questions that will lead them to consider moving forward with you.
Understanding, Not Agreement

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Understanding, Not Agreement
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you have said yes to something, later deny that this was agreement. Say either
that you said 'yes' to indicate that you understood or that the agreement was a temporary
understanding, not a contract.
This may be done during a protracted negotiation, forcing a return to earlier negotiation.
It may also be used in everyday life where you feel you were manipulated into an
agreement or where going back on what was agreed gains more benefit than the anger
and recrimination that it may trigger.
Example

When I said 'yes' I meant 'I understand' not 'I agree'. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
You know what we spoke about was just an understanding. I think we need to talk more
about it.

I feel I've been tricked. The agreement was based on an understanding that has turned
out to be wrong, which makes the whole thing null and void.
Discussion

There are a number of cultures in which saying 'yes' does not indicate a binding
agreement, for example it may be said to save face and avoid the embarrassment of
conflict. Real commitment here is gained by allowing time for reflection and the
involvement of others in the discussion and decision.
In other cultures where governmental and judicial corruption is rife, even legal
agreements may be worth little. In such places, agreement is based on social agreement
and handshake, and even then much work needs to be done in support of the
relationship to ensure commitments are completed.
Even in more familiar cultures people go back on agreements and seek to avoid legal
redress. This underlines the nature of human agreement and commitment, which may be
tested when we feel that expectations have not been met. A sad example of this is in the
number of relationship break-ups and acrimonious divorces.
If you are unsure whether the other person is agreeing or just understanding, ask them.
Check that when they say yes they are making a firm commitment. You may need to
rephrase this in several ways to be sure. Also take time to explain that you are doing this
because such a misunderstanding has caused problems in the past.
Undiscussable

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Undiscussable

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Make a subject that is particularly embarrassing undiscussable. If the other person

brings it up, refuse to talk about it.
This can be applied to individual negotiables also.
Distract them by moving quickly on to a separate and different subject -- preferably one
that they will find interesting.
If they persist, a way to prevent them continuing is to give some detail that embarrasses
them into giving up.

Example

Sorry, I don't talk about my private life. Would you like to hear about what happened at
the party last week?
No, it has to be green...I just want green, ok!!
I can't be at the meeting tomorrow because it's my grandmother's funeral. Ok? Happy
now??
Discussion

Making something undiscussable puts it off the agenda. A flat refusal is often enough,
especially if it is repeated as a broken record.
This is a typical method that is used for things that are particularly embarrassing. In
groups, it is not uncommon for people to have unspoken agreements that 'I will not talk
about your failings if you do not talk about mine'. When a new member enters the
group, they quickly learn what not to talk about.
The 'Emperor's New Clothes' is a parable that shows how even obvious things become
undiscussable.
Widows and Orphans

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Widows and Orphans
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Get the sympathy vote by showing how you are helping those less fortunate than
yourself.
Alternatively, show how what the other person is suggesting will hurt those innocents.
Play to the crowd: Add some drama. If there are others there, play to them as well.
Example

Nice idea, but have you thought about the effect it will have on the children??
I thought that as we go to London, we could stop off to see my father. He is rather
unwell and would be cheered up by the visit.

Excuse me Mike, do you agree with Sally? She wants to get rid of Jennifer, who is, as
we all know, a struggling single parent.
A woman begging takes a child with her.
Discussion

Using the 'widows and orphans' approach is an appeal to the values of the other person,
in particular the broad social moral which says that we should not harm those who
are weaker than ourselves.
In normal use, this is a highly effective value for creating social cohesion and support
for the needy. In negotiation, it can be a coercive and effective bind.
The Wince

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > The Wince

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When they name their price or what they want in exchange for what you are offering,
visibly wince.
Look startled and shocked. Look at them in disbelief.
Say nothing, as if you are shocked into silence. And then wait for them to make another
offer.
If they say nothing (give them plenty of time), you can ask them to repeat it or ask if
they are sure.
Example

I am buying a car on a private sale. The seller names his price. I jump a little take a
sharp intake of breath and look alarmed. I take a few paces back from the car and
shake my head. Then I look at him and raise my eyebrows. He reduces his price. I
incline my head and step forward again...
An antique dealer invariably winces loudly when someone tries to sell them something
at anything less than a very low price.

Discussion

When you wince and look shocked at a named price, you are sending a signal that the
other person that they are breaking social norms. Most people are very fearful of the
consequences of such an act and, even in a negotiation, will back down rather than
thought of in this way.
When you show shock, it is also a signal that you may well back out of the negotiation
(a physical movement backwards emphasizes this). To keep you in the negotiation, the
other person will believe they have to act fast, perhaps by making a substantially revised
offer (if you are thinking of leaving, a small change may not be enough).
The Zone Defense

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > The Zone Defense
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Each person on the negotiating team has an area of expertise and/or responsibility.
A way this may be used as a tactic is that one person negotiates with the other side to
gain some concession. Then as the other person thinks they are making progress, a new
negotiator is brought in and who takes a different tack, making new demands, including
in areas that the other side thinks is all agreed.
Zone methods can also be used for such a one person taking notes, another watching
for body language while another negotiates the fine detail.
Example

Hello. I represent the estates department. I know you have been talking to the facilities
people, but I have some particular needs that must be covered.
Yes, I know my husband agreed some thinks about the kitchen and I just need to check
the fittings are suitable.
Now then, I'm Michael's manager and he may have over-stepped his authority in a few
places. Before we agree I want to clear up a few details.
Discussion

The zone defense is used in team sports games where different players 'own' separate
parts (or 'zones') of the field. Hence if an attacker crosses a zone boundary a fresh
defender will seek to tackles them. This limits the need to run long distances, giving
each new defender increasingly more energy than a single running attacker. Also, if an
attacker gets past a defender through greater skill in one area, the different skills of the
next defender may enable a more successful tackle.
When the other side agrees things with you they will think they are making good
progress and are close to a final agreement, bringing in a new player can demoralize the
opponents, making it more likely they will give more concessions.
This approach is related to the 'higher authority' method, where the needs of unseen
other people are introduced. The zone defense enlivens this with actual other people
being brought in. Be careful in this that the other people are competent negotiators or
else are tightly scripted on what the can and cannot say.

Negotiation Mistakes

Disciplines > Negotiation > Mistakes

Negotiation is a difficult art as it requires managing, in real-time, both the other person's
mind and your own.
Here are a number of mistakes that negotiators can make (and what you can do about
them).

Accepting Positions: Assuming the other person won't change their

position.

Accepting Statements: Assuming what the other person says is wholly

true.

Cornering Them: Giving them no alternative but to fight.

Hurrying: Negotiating in haste (and repenting at leisure).

Hurting the Relationship: Getting what you want but making an

enemy.

Issue Fixation: Getting stuck on one issue and missing greater

possibilities.

Missing Strengths: Not realizing the strengths that you actually have.

Misunderstanding Authority: Assuming that authority and power are

synonymous.

Misunderstanding Power: Thinking one person has all the power.

One Solution: Thinking there is only one possible solution.

Over-Wanting: Wanting something too much.

Squeezing Too Much: Trying to gain every last advantage.

Talking Too Much: Not gaining the power of information from others.

Thinking in Absolutes: Assuming that there are only a few

possibilities.

The Walk-away Trap: Becoming too fond of your walk-away option.

Win-Lose: Assuming a fixed-pie, win-lose scenario.

Accepting Positions

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Mistakes > Accepting Positions

Description | Avoiding it | Taking advantage | See also

Description

Accepting positions taken by others as final and unmoveable is to miss the chance to
move the whole negotiation to a new plane.
When the other person states their position assertively or forcefully, it is easy to assume
that they are correct (thus mistaking apparent conviction for evidence) or feel
intimidated by the way they make their point (which is perhaps what they want).
Avoiding it

When the other person says that they want something, when they say that there is no
alternative and that something is not negotiable, do not accept this position as fixed and

unchangeable. And of course do not acquiesce to demands simply to let them get what
they want without you getting something fair in return.
Find the interest behind their position by asking them about their real purpose, what
they want the thing in question for and what is particularly important to them. This
alone is good for building rapport with them, but should also give you the information
with which to move them somewhere else.
When you know their underlying interests, then you can ways of satisfying these other
than by the original position and by a route that meets your interests also.
Of course, the same thing applies to you: if you are stuck on a position, chunk up to find
your own real interests and then look for ways to satisfy them.
Taking advantage

When other take positions, this shows a lack of understanding about negotiation that
you can use to your advantage. When you seek their interests, you are now steering the
negotiation and can carefully turn the wheel in your direction.
Another approach is to play the competing-interests game for a while so they become
embedded in their approach and then change direction completely. This
will confuse them, giving you another advantage
Accepting Statements as Facts

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Mistakes > Accepting Statements as Facts
Description | Avoiding it | Taking advantage | See also

Description

Blindly accepting statements, assertions and general opinions as facts weakens your
negotiation potential, particularly if the other person finds out that this is what you do
and is prepared to take advantage.
The rules of everyday social situations in most cultures are that you must be polite and
truthful in your interactions with others. And also that you should assume that others are
telling the truth. In negotiations and competitive situations, this may vary and weaken,
with rules that permit deception.

A problem occurs when the values of the two negotiators differ, with one believing that
deception is permitted in negotiation whilst the other sticks to the rules of normal
conversation. This happens in particular when negotiating across cultures.
Avoiding it

First recognize when you are in a negotiating situation, even with friends and family,
and then change your expectations of the other person in terms of whether they may not
be wholly truthful or factual. Even those who tell the truth may withhold important
information. Whilst you do not want to distrust someone who is being trustworthy, you
also do not want to trust someone who is being deceptive.
The best stance is thus to 'trust, but verify'. Gently probe assertions for evidence. Ask
further 'interested' questions to gain better information to help you determine the real
facts.
Taking advantage

Make bold statements about those things you want the other person to believe and then
move on quickly before they have time to question you. Look shocked if they seem not
to accept what you say and ask if they think you are not telling the truth.
Cornering Them

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Mistakes > Cornering Them

Description | Avoiding it | Taking advantage | See also

Description

Cornering the other party in a negotiation puts them in a position where they see no way
out, where there is no acceptable solution for them.
When people feel there is no alternative, they will fight to the death. This is one reason
why wars start -- at least one party feels that there is no acceptable alternative.
Avoiding it

When you feel you are being cornered, show that you will not concede on all points,
which is often what the other person is seeking. Show your teeth early and your ability
to bite, and they will be less ready to corner you. If cornering a person leads only to
destruction, then this is seldom a desirable outcome.

Taking advantage

Whilst you can push the other person into a corner, always leave a way out for them.
This should seem logical to them and they should ideally feel that they have chosen it
by themselves (so be subtle in your moves).
Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese general who wrote 'The Art of War' said 'Build your
enemies a golden bridge', meaning that the way out for them should be obvious and
desirable.
They should be able to take the way out whilst preserving as much dignity as possible
(so don't chase them over the bridge).
Beware of thinking that you have left them a way out, but them actually finding this
unacceptable. Keep testing for what they really want and what they will accept.
Hurrying

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Mistakes > Hurrying

Description | Avoiding it | Taking advantage | See also

Description

It is easy in negotiation to be in a hurry to reach a conclusion. Perhaps it is

the tension of the situation that leads you to seek relief from.
When you are going fast, you have no time to reflect and think. Decisions are thus made
subconsciously and emotionally, using heuristics, habits and other unthinking patterns.
Avoiding it

Allow lots of time in your schedule for negotiations that are important, no matter how
quickly you think you can make the decision.
Always take a break before making any major decision. It is also good to take regular
thinking breaks. Never be afraid to say 'This is important and I want to think this one
over.'
Watch out for others who are hurrying you up or otherwise creating tension. Be
suspicious of those who want to stop you thinking.
Taking advantage

Wind the other person up, creating a tension that they seek to resolve.
Go fast: talk quickly, move quickly. Do not give them time to think or question what
you say. Use long and complex sentences that eat up the time. Subtly imply that the
other person is somehow incapable or stupid if they cannot keep up with you.
Hurting the Relationship

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Mistakes > Hurting the Relationship
Description | Avoiding it | Taking advantage | See also

Description

Hurting the relationship sometimes happens in negotiations, but it often is unnecessary

and can do long-term damage.
In order to persuade, you may at times be economical with the truth. Persuasion may
also use coercive, high pressure methods. The result of Machiavellian methods, where
the ends are taken to justify the means, can easily result in the other person feeling
cheated or betrayed. If you have to interact with them at any time again, then they will
be highly suspicious of you. They may also seek revenge in more surreptitious ways.
Avoiding it

When negotiating, first consider how important a sustained relationship with the other
person is. Even if you will never meet them again, remember that if they are seriously
hurt by your actions they may take active steps to get revenge.
Whilst remembering that the relationship is important, do not concede on all points in
order to sustain the relationship -- in fact this is more likely to damage it, as the other
person is now taking the position of putting personal gains consistently ahead of the
relationship.
The simplest approach is to ensuring you balance substance with relationship is to
adopt beliefs and values that lead you to an effective approach that gets both a fair
outcome and sustains the relationship.
Taking advantage

Where others seem to put the relationship first, use this by appearing hurt when they ask
for something. Likewise signal that anything that they do that puts themselves before
you would be to jeopardize the relationship.

On the other hand, when you want something, either ignore any relationship items or
suggest that they must concede to you because you are such good friends.
Issue Fixation

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Mistakes > Issue Fixation

Description | Avoiding it | Taking advantage | See also

Description

Becoming fixated on a single issue can lead to imbalance in negotiation and failure to
realize all that you can. It can also lead to you making agreements that later turn out to
be very bad decisions.
When you want one particular thing in the negotiation, then you can forget other things.
Even in single-item negotiations such as house purchases, the real decision-making
often comes down to minor issues such as the size of the garage or the shape of the
kitchen. As a result, you may reject bargains that don't have the right garage and, worse,
buy a house with a great garage that has all kinds of other problems that you only
discover when you move in.
Issues may also become personal. Thus you may find that what you think about the
other person or what they said six months ago has a disproportionate effect on the
process. We negotiate as people, and people issues (including our own issues) can easily
get in the way of a good deal.
Avoiding it

Watch yourself and the focus that you are putting on things. When one thing seems
particularly important, step back and ask how valuable it really is, and what you should
(as opposed to what you are) be prepared to give for it. Also watch for those things that
you are ignoring. Are these significant? Could they cause you problems later?
Taking advantage

When the other person is fixated on something, then look to give it to them in exchange
only for disproportionately more of the things that you want.
Keep them fixated by constant reference to the item. Tease them with possibilities,
keeping them on the hook of uncertainty and confusion.
Missing Strengths

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Mistakes > Missing Strengths

Description | Avoiding it | Taking advantage | See also

Description

Not seeing all of your own strengths is a classic negotiation error when you lack selfconfidence or assume that the other person holds all the cards.
A typical situation is where an employee is seeking a pay rise. It is often assumed that it
is simply a decision that the boss can make at a whim. In fact the boss may well be very
concerned that you stay motivated and fear that if your request is declined that you will
not work as hard. Even more, they will very likely worry that you will no longer like
them (most bosses like to be liked, just as the rest of us).
Avoiding it

Take time to understand your strengths before you get into a negotiation. Think about:

The skills and knowledge that you have.

Your relationships with other people and how they can help.

How others want you to like them.

How you can help others in all sorts of ways.

How time can be used as a negotiable.

The other negotiation variables in the situation.

Also take regular time and effort to build and sustain your self-esteem and selfconfidence. Value yourself as you value others.
Taking advantage

Where others are not using their strengths, do not point this out. In case they realize this
later, you can be nice and make some concession to them as an act of goodwill.
Misunderstanding Authority

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Mistakes > Misunderstanding Authority

Description | Avoiding it | Taking advantage | See also

Description

Having authority is not the same as having power. Certainly, authority gives you some
power, but it does not give you total power. Where you are accustomed to having people
obey your orders without question, then it is easy to expect that whatever you say will
be accepted by others. Even people who work for you have choice (they also have
rights).
The trap of authority is hence in the blind belief in one's own capabilities that it gives.
Managers can easily acquire a God complex, especially if they are surrounded with 'yespeople' who automatically acquiesce to all requests and believe that the manager is allwise.
Avoiding it

When you have authority, know that this is vested in the position you have and does not
make you all-knowing or all-wise. Also remember professional ethics. If you abuse your
authority, it will come back to bite you, perhaps at a time and place when you least
expect it.
Taking advantage

Where the other person has lost sight of the real power that they have, try giving them
lots of rope in which they will entangle themselves. Get them to paint themselves into a
corner. Make it a matter of status for them that they do what you want them to do.
Misunderstanding Power

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Mistakes > Misunderstanding Power

Description | Avoiding it | Taking advantage | See also

Description

It is very easy in negotiation to believe that the other side has all the power and that you
have none. The natural consequence to this conclusion is that you concede on all points
as you believe that you cannot respond in any way to their assertions and demands.

Power is often subconsciously socially negotiated, with one person silently ceding
power to the other person. This may be given because of one person
sending authority signals or where there is a pre-existing power relationship.
Avoiding it

Remember: power is given and taken. Be deliberate and conscious about power
negotiations, which often happen before the trading of substantive items.
Also remember that in a negotiation, the rules of who has power may be very different
from a normal situation (think about a child negotiating with a parent!). You always
have more power than you realize.
Taking advantage

Put effort into the power negotiation, sending authority signals that may range from
power dressing to power body language. You can also make use of power words that
coax and coerce people into concession.
One Solution

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Mistakes > One Solution

Description | Avoiding it | Taking advantage | See also

Description

When negotiating, we often assume that there is only one acceptable solution,
particularly if we are focused on either our own position or if we accept the position of
the other person without question.
However, when you only see one solution to a negotiation you are often missing out on
a whole range of possible other solutions.
Avoiding it

Think carefully about what you really want, understanding issues and interests first.
Then when negotiating, look for a whole set of alternative solutions that can satisfy both
you and the other person. This is often a creative possibility that you and they can work
on together to find a solution with which you both agree.
Taking advantage

When the other person accepts that you must have only one solution, then do not deviate
from it and you may well get it. However, do be aware that there may be other solutions
out there that are even better for you.
Over-Wanting

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation mistakes > Over-Wanting

Description | Avoiding it | Taking advantage | See also

Description

Over-wanting happens when you want something so much that you are prepared to do
anything or give away anything to get it.
This particularly happens when there is one big thing that is being negotiated, such as a
house or a car. If you fall in love with it beforehand, then you may find yourself paying
over the odds for it.
Avoiding it

Start by preparing more carefully, including developing your walk-away. With good
plans, you should not fall into this trap.
Watch your emotions, particularly desire, when thinking about the negotiables in the
deal. Are you strongly attached to something? Step back and cool down. Think: is it
really worth it?
A good way of avoiding wanting something too much is to find something else that is
equally (or almost as) desirable, and spending time developing this possibility to the
point when you have a good choice. If you don't get the thing you want, then the
alternative will be almost as good.
Taking advantage

When the other person is fixated on getting something, then you can push up price for it
or otherwise request many things in return for giving it to them.
You can also encourage over-wanting by talking up the thing and then playing
temptation games, such as offering it to them and then indicating that they may not get
it (perhaps you love it so much yourself you do not want to let it go, or maybe there is
somebody else who has indicated that they are prepared to pay more).

Squeezing Too Much

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation mistakes > Squeezing Too Much
Description | Avoiding it | Taking advantage | See also

Description

When you try to squeeze too much out of a negotiation, you may well find that you
actually get less or irreparably damage the relationship.
If you take a competitive, win-lose approach and try to maximize your winnings (and
hence also the other person's losings), you may push them into a fight-or-flight
reaction whereby they either leave the negotiation table and you get nothing, or they
fight back and you get less than you might have done, had you been more thoughtful.
If you win everything you want, the other person may feel defeated and cheated. As a
result, you may win the battle but lose the war as they will dislike you and not want to
negotiate again.
Avoiding it

Understand what is fair and be careful of going too far. Be careful about asking for 'one
more thing' too many times. Watch their body language carefully. If they are getting
twitchy and are looking irritated, be careful about asking for too much.
Taking advantage

If the other person tries to squeeze too much, start to deploy your walk-away position. If
necessary, take your ball and go home. Say 'the deal's off'. Remember that even if you
have agreed something, until the ink is on the page and the exchange made, you can
always recant on any agreement.
Talking Too Much

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Mistakes > Talking Too Much
Description | Avoiding it | Taking advantage | See also

Description

A common mistake in negotiation is talking too much and listening too little. This often
happens because talking seems to be a way of holding control of the proceedings in a
way that allows you to make your points.
In negotiation, information is power, and when you are talking, you are providing the
other person with useful information.
Avoiding it

Learn to listen. Start by listening to yourself and pondering about what you are really
trying to achieve. This, in itself, can be a startling revelation. Then think about what the
other person is hearing, and themeaning they are deriving from what you say. Watch
also the questions they are using -- are they pumping you for information that they will
soon use to their advantage?
Taking advantage

Learn to listen to others in a way that gets you the information that you need. Learn to
ask questions that opens them up to providing useful data. Good listening will also
create rapport and bonding, where the other person comes to like you more and hence
becomes more open to your ideas when it is your turn to speak.
Thinking in Absolutes

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Mistakes > Thinking in Absolutes

Description | Avoiding it | Taking advantage | See also

Description

The world is many-hued, yet people often see it as black and white. The same happens
in negotiations where people see only very few options and hence focus on absolutes.
This is a form of polarization, where we naturally seek to differentiate ourselves from
others.
An example of 'absolute thinking' might be where you are negotiating for a car and
assume that the person selling is seeking only to get the maximum price, and hence
missing that they might reduce the price to someone they like or that they need to sell it
today to spend the money on something they want tomorrow.
Absolute thinking also is found in your wants and offers. You might decide that you
absolutely must have the car, and hence end up paying too much for it. You might also
decide that you absolutely must have a blue model and turn down a great deal on a

green one. Or perhaps think that you must pay today without thinking about a staged
payment plan.
Avoiding it

Avoid thinking in absolutes by finding variables and other things that allow you to see
the finer spaces between absolutes. Often it is the person who can find the best variables
who gains most from the negotiation.
Taking advantage

You can encourage the other person to thinking in absolutes, for example by using
an alternative close, offering just a few possibilities. When they have fewer choices,
they are more likely to choose than when they can explore many possibilities. This may
be to your benefit.
The Walk-away Trap

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation mistakes > The Walk-away Trap
Description | Avoiding it | Taking advantage | See also

Description

In preparing for negotiation it can be very helpful to develop a walk-away, such that if
the negotiation fails, you can choose this option. This can be very powerful and it is not
uncommon for the person with the strongest walk-away option to get the best deal.
The trap that can be created with a good walk-away is that it becomes too attractive or
that you enjoy the power that it gives too much. The result can be that you forget that
the goal of negotiation is to reach agreement and bring the walk-away into the
discussion too early or choose this option before it is needed. As as result, it becomes
more likely that the negotiation will fail and no real agreement will be reached.
Another thing that can happen is that the other person sees this early use of walk-away
alternatives as a lack of commitment to agreement or a crass display of power that seeks
to coerce rather than agree. As a result, they may decide to back out of the negotiation.
They may alternatively decide to fight, with a result that the negotiation quickly
descends into argument and acrimony.
Avoiding it

Plan your negotiation carefully and always keep in mind the key goal of reaching
agreement. Have a clear concession strategy that includes a defined point at which
you deploy your walk-away. The goal always is to bring the person back to the table,
even when things seem to be falling apart.
Taking advantage

When others start to deploy their walk-away too early, you can either ignore it and pull
them back in to normal negotiation, or else let them talk it out, hence removing their
ability to use it later and so positioning yourself to be able to use your walk-away last
and more powerfully.
Win-Lose

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Mistakes > Win-Lose

Description | Avoiding it | Taking advantage | See also

Description

When you approach a negotiation with a win-lose mindset, remember that it may well
be you that loses. Even if you think you have won, you may have damaged the
relationship with the other person beyond repair.
In win-lose battles there is, by definition, a winner and a loser. Each person usually sees
the event as a life-or-death struggle, where the only way to avoid defeat is to win. The
relationship with the other person is unimportant as to think kindly of them is to show
weakness and expose yourself to defeat.
Avoiding it

Rather than win-lose think win-win. Seek ways to increase the size of the pie such that
you both can get a large part of what you want.
Taking advantage

If the situation truly is win-lose, then prepare for the battle beforehand to ensure that
you are not the loser. Fight hard, but clean, whilst being prepared to handle any dirty
tricks that the other person may use.

Negotiation articles

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation articles

Negotiation is a complex art with many different angles and viewpoints. Here are a
number of articles that add further detail to the other pages in the negotiation section of
this site.

Negotiation is...: Defining negotiation.

Agreement Zones: Zones of acceptability and agreement.

Controlling the Process: Set the way that you will negotiate.

Deception in Negotiation: Lying and more.

Fair Exchange: Creating a sense of fair play.

Four Negotiation Strategies: Different approach you can take.

A Four Stage Negotiation Process: A simple negotiation process.

Needs, Wants and Likes: Knowing what you really want.

Negotiation Roles: Seven roles for negotiation teams.

Elegant Negotiables: The best things to exchange.

Positions and Interests: Seeking interests are usually a better

approach.

Talking to the Taxman: How to handle their challenges.

The Right Time to Negotiate: Time of day, week or relative to events.

Tricks, Kicks and Bricks: Three types of negotiating tactics you may
face.

The Walk-away Alternative: The person with the strongest often wins.

There are no nos: Never accept flat refusal.

Negotiation is...

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation articles > Negotiation is...

A common view | A fuller view | See also

What is negotiation?
A common view

Negotiation is very commonly viewed as being a process of getting what you want. A
simple way of putting this might be:
Getting something you want that somebody else has got.
This is often treated as something akin to a competition, whereby the two parties try to
outwit one another in order for each to get what they are seeking.
A fuller view

A fuller and more mature view could be as follows:

A joint communicative process
for attempting to reach agreement
where by an exchange takes place
and needs are satisfied.
Here, negotiation is seen as a joint process, whereby both people are equal partners and
where they work together (rather than in isolation). This requires that
they communicate -- that is they take turns at listening and talking to be understood
(rather than talking at the other person).
The goal of the activity is to reach some agreement (as opposed to pure concession).
This is attempted, but an outcome where no agreement is achieved is possible and
acceptable.
The outcome of the negotiation is that each person gives something to the other
that satisfies needs in some way. This may be something of tangible substance or maybe
an emotional exchange, such as thanks or other kind words.

Agreement Zones

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation articles > Agreement Zones

The zone of acceptability | The zone of agreement | Agreement gap | See also

In negotiating, there are zones which need to be understood in order to reach agreement.
The zone of acceptability

When I am negotiating to buy something, there is a range of prices which I will consider
reasonable and which I will expect to find. If the price is lower than this, I will be
pleasantly surprised and consider it to be really cheap. Together, these two zones make
up the zone of acceptability. If something is priced within this range, then if I am
seeking to buy it, then I will accept the price. If it is higher than this, then I will not
accept the price.
The 'surprisingly cheap' zone continues to be important during negotiation, as if a buyer
offers something in this range I might be suspicious that what they are selling is less
than I really want, for example being of lower quality, as in the price-quality heuristic.
An important part of early preparation for a negotiation is to discover your zone of
acceptability, for example by researching previous deals and looking at current market
prices. You also, of course, will consider the finances available to you for this purchase.
It can also be helpful to guess the other person's zone.

Surprisingly cheap

Expected price range

Buyer's 'zone of acceptability'

Too expensive

Zone of
unacceptability

Typically the buyer will start bidding close to the bottom of their zone and will stop
when they get to the top.
The seller also has a zone of acceptability, but this is effectively reversed, with the zone

of unacceptability being below a determined price.

Too low

Expected price range

Zone of
unacceptability

Nice surprise

Seller's 'zone of acceptability'

Typically, the seller will start by asking near the top of their range and will not sell
below the bottom of the range.
Note that, although this article talks about price, the same argument applies to any
desirable variable.
The zone of agreement

The buyer and seller thus both have zones of acceptability -- one low and the other high.
If they are to find agreement, then these zones must overlap. This is the zone of
agreement in which the final agreement on price (or what is being negotiated) may be
found.

Buyer
Zone of acceptability
Seller
Zone of acceptability

Zone of
agreement

Much of the early stage of price negotiation is about discovery of the other person's

zone of acceptability and working towards the zone of agreement. Thus at the start of
the negotiation, both people might by outside the agreement zone.
Agreement gap

When the zones of acceptability do not overlap, then there is an effective agreement gap
and reaching a satisfactory conclusion is unlikely.
Where this occurs, there are three possible outcomes.

One person compromises and moves outside their zone of

acceptability.

Both people compromise, giving way on things where they really did
not want to concede.

Neither party concedes sufficiently and they depart without reaching

any substantive agreement.

Buyer
Zone of
acceptability
Seller
Zone of
acceptability

Agreement gap

Controlling the Process

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation articles > Controlling the Process

The power of control | Take charge from the beginning | Negotiating the
process | Handling questionable tactics | See also

The power of control

If you can control how the negotiation is shaped, what happens when, then you can have
a significant effect over what perceptions are gained and what decisions are made.
Controlling the process can often be done invisibly to the other person, who is focused
on the substantive outcomes. It can thus be a subtle method of reaching a satisfying
conclusion.
Control allows you to, for example, decide who goes first in opening or naming a price.
Control also allows you to say no and to question the process at any time. If you think
things are not going well, then you can chunk up to how things are being done, refusing
to return to the substantive negotiation until the process is to your liking.
Take charge from the beginning

The time to take charge is right from the very beginning. When you meet the other
person, offer your handshake first and guide the small talk before moving into
the opening stage, when you may ask them to state their case or smoothly move into
creating your own position.
Depending on the type of negotiation style you want to use, you may choose to give
them control or involve them in decisions at any time. This is still Controlling the
Process, but now at a higher level. By letting them decide, you are still in control.
Negotiating the process

At any time, you may switch from negotiation about specific outcomes and exchanges
to negotiating about how the negotiation is to take place. Thus for example, you can
discuss what should be done to seal an agreement, whether it is by handshake or by
formal contract.
You can base a move to process negotiation on what has happened in the past ('I don't
like the way things are going here') or how thing will proceed in the future ('Let's decide
on how we will reach a binding agreement.'). A useful lever when negotiating is to
positioning your move as seeking fairness. This is a common human value and is
difficult to deny.
Handling questionable tactics

When people use questionable negotiating tactics, a good move is to shift the discussion
to the process. An effective method of neutralising deception or coercive methods is by
telling them the tactic they are using, showing how you are wise to their game.
Take the high ground, talking about the importance of fair play. Shame them into
playing the game properly, if you can. Otherwise negotiate further about process,
demonstrating that you can detect foul play and are able to respond, for example by
deploying your walk-away alternative.
Deception in Negotiation

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation articles > Deception in Negotiation

Misrepresentation | Bluffing | Deception | Falsification | See also

There are many different negative methods used during negotiation and some are
generally more acceptable than others. Anton (1990) describes four strategies that are
used. In order of acceptability these are: misrepresentation, bluffing, deception and
falsification.
Misrepresentation

Misrepresentation occurs in negotiation where a person deliberately takes a position on

something which is not true in some way.
Examples

A buyer takes a poverty position, saying they only have a certain amount of money on
them (and shows this in their wallet) but actually they have more money in another
pocket.
A trade union negotiator takes a hard-line position in pay negotiations, saying the
membership are ready to strike when there is actually dissent about this in the ranks.
Bluffing

Bluffing is stating or indicating an intention to commit some action, but then not
fulfilling that commitment or never intending to take this action.
Examples

A person buying a car says he will bring in an expert to assess the car in order to get the
seller to disclose known problems with it.
A parent says they will make a child sleep in the garage when they would not do this.

Deception

What Anton called 'deception' is the use of false arguments that leads the other person to
an incorrect conclusion.
Examples

A hostage negotiator argues that the hostage-taker has been very clever and is clearly in
control of the situation (whilst special forces are creeping up towards the house).
A car sales person tells a person trading in a car that there is little demand for this
model, leading them to accept a lower trade-in value.
Falsification

Falsification is the simple telling of lies or otherwise providing false information with
the assumption that it is complete and true.
Examples

In a job interview a person says they have an MBA when they do not.
A sales person tells a potential customer that there have been no major problems with a
product when there has been several significant failures.
Fair Exchange

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation articles > Fair Exchange

The need for fairness | Fair process | Fair decisions | Fair results | See also

'Fair Exchange' is a common saying that we use when a short negotiation has led to a
simple and satisfying barter. Creating a Fair Exchange in larger negotiations is also
The need for fairness

As people, we have a fundamental need for fairness in our interactions with others. This
need often becomes prevalent during negotiation as we often suspect others of less that
fair play.
In particular, if the relationship between the negotiating parties is important, then
fairness is necessary if this is to be sustained. If the relationship is completely
unimportant, then caveat emptor ('buyer beware') applies.

Note that fairness is perceived as an emotion: we feel satisfied if something is fair and
cheated if we are duped. Managing fairness is also a process of managing perception
and meaning, and hence emotion.
Fair process

If we perceive the negotiation process as being unfairly stacked against us, we will be
loath to make any trades or even come to any agreement, as we may well suspect that
we are on the losing end of a win-lose situation.
To create a sense of fair play, you can start by discussing the process by which the
negotiation is conducted, for example with respect to demonstrable honesty and factual
evidence. (In early arms limitation negotiations, the first several months were spent
negotiating the shape of the negotiating table!).
If you perceive that the process is unfair, then you can also bring this up during a
negotiation, effectively sending the whole show back to square one. The social needs for
fairness make this a strong card to play.
Fair decisions

A particular area for ensuring fairness is to ensure decisions are fair, and the way to
ensure decisions are fair in the criteria we use to decide. For example, deciding where
go on holiday may use criteria of cost, near the sea, things to do, cater for children, etc.
A typical way to find fair criteria is to ask 'How shall we decide?' In doing so you invite
the other person to collaborate in the process of searching for equitable decision criteria.
This can result in a sub-negotiation about what actually is fair and not fair.
Fair results

The real test of fairness of a negotiation is in the results that both sides get. In an unfair
negotiation, one person gets everything they want and the other person gets very little.
Fair results means that each person gets the important things that they need and gives up
some of the less important things.
In a zero-sum negotiation, there is a 'zone of fairness', in which one person does get
more than the other, but not to the extent of such extremes as ruining them or otherwise
causing them unfair hardship.
Note that fairness is also a matter of skill and values. If one person is skilful in
negotiating and has values that do not respect the other person, then they will happily
'take the other person to the cleaners' whilst considering them a hapless victim.
Four Negotiation Strategies

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation articles > Four Negotiation Strategies
Yielding | Compromising | Competing | Problem-solving | See also

There are four common strategies that are used in various ways. Here's details.
Yielding

A yielding strategy is to not negotiate. A person who yields accepts the first offer or
assumes the price is fixed.
A common reason a person yields is to avoid inner discomfort from thoughts of taking
advantage of someone else or the fear of breaking social rules that say you must accept
what others say as truth. Another reason is fear of some form of conflict or other
unpleasantness.
People who use the yielding strategy typically assume other people are more important
and powerful than them, and so abase themselves by giving in at the earliest
opportunity. They put gaining the approval of others well above getting what they want
from the situation.
Compromising

A compromising strategy strategy seeks some fair balance where both parties appear to
get an equitable deal. A typical tactic people used by people who adopt this approach is
to 'split the difference', which is not necessarily the best way when the other person is
using tactics such as highballing or asking for all needs, wants and likes.
People who use compromising tend to see others as worthy and equal to them, and
hence seek fair play. They realize that nobody can get everything they want and seek an
equitable arrangement. As with yielders, they care about what others think about them
but have higher self-esteem and see themselves as equal to others rather than inferior.
Competing

A classic and more aggressive approach is to treat the negotiation as a zero-sum game
where their goal is to get as much as possible at whatever cost to the other party.
People who take this approach often assume they are superior or feel inferior but need
to appear superior. They may well use any of the negotiation tactics, including the more
deceptive ones, and consider this is not at all wrong (after all, it is a negotiation). They
may well generally distrust others, seeing the world as a dog-eat-dog place where you
deserve what you can get and also deserve to lose what you lose.

Problem-solving

The problem-solving approach is closer to Compromising than Competing in that it

starts from a position of respect for the other party. A person using this approach does
not see the other person as competitor or threat, but rather as a person who has
legitimate wants and needs, and that the goal of negotiation is less to make trades and
more to work together on an equitable and reasonable solution.
In particular, a problem-solver will seek to understand the other person's situation,
explain their own, and then creatively seek a solution where both can get what they
need. They will listen more and discuss the situation for longer before exploring options
and finally proposing solutions.
The relationship is important for a problem-solver, but mostly in that it helps trust and
working together on a solution rather than it being important that the other person
necessarily approves of the first person.
A Four Stage Negotiation Process

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation activities > A Four Stage Negotiation Process
Exploration | Bidding | Bargaining | Settling | See also

Here is a simple way of structuring and thinking about the negotiation process, broken
down into four major stages.
Exploration

Exploration is the early stage where you share information with others and learn more
about them and what they want. This may be carefully planned, with checklists of needs
and information to seek.
Exploration may also be a relatively unstructured affair where the two parties get to
know one another and discover that each has something that the other wants. This type
of 'emergent negotiation' often appears in social situations where the initial contact has
some purpose other than substantive exchange.
Exploration not only discovers information, it sets the climate for the subsequent
negotiation, most notably whether this is competitive or collaborative. For collaborative
negotiation, the greater sharing and relationship development can make exploration a
relatively lengthy process.

Bidding

When the parties have enough information, then the negotiation starts with someone
offering an exchange. This typically takes two forms, exchange proposal ('I'll give you
this for that') or exchange request ('What do you want for that?' or 'What will you give
me for this?').
The essence of a bid is that it is an offer that may be accepted, rejected or trigger a
counter-offer. If the initial bid is accepted then the deal is swiftly concluded. Otherwise
there may be significant bargaining activity.
The secret of good bidding is to be firm and clear. To retain credibility the bid should be
realistic, but this does not mean it should be low if you are selling, or high if you are
buying. In fact a good bid lies at the extreme end of what may be acceptable and leads
the other party to consider that they may yet be able to reach agreement.
Bargaining

The heart of many negotiations is in bargaining, the adjustment of what is being traded
until both parties are satisfied with the arrangement. This is the activity that many view
as being what negotiation is all about, although a much better result can be gained with
attention to other stages as well.
An important part of bargaining is trading, where parties effectively say 'If you give me
that, then I will give you this.' Trading may be about individual items or the whole
package. It may also include non-material aspects such as support given and when
things will be delivered.
This stage can become heated and use many competitive negotiation tactics, especially
if the parties have a win-lose attitude. In more collaborative negotiations, parties show
more concern for one another while vigorously but carefully seeking an equitable deal.
Settling

When the deal is broadly agreed, it is formalized in a way that makes it difficult for
either party to back out or change their commitment.
The first step of settling is to agree what you have agreed. It is surprising how often
people do not agree on this as they reflect on the detail, and returning to bargaining may
be necessary.
The simplest way of sealing the deal is with a handshake, which has a powerful effect in
preventing people from backing out. This may be significantly strengthened with a
formal contract, especially in commercial settings.
Needs, Wants and Likes

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation articles > Needs, Wants and Likes
Needs | Wants | Likes | See also

By understanding Needs, Wants and Likes, you can identify your negotiables and ensure
that you get what is most important to you.
Needs, Wants and Likes are sometimes also called Musts, Intends and Likes (MILs).
Needs

Needs are the things that you must get from the negotiation. If you do not get these, the
deal is off. If you are prepared to concede on something, then it is a want or a like, but
not a need.
Generally, the more needs you have, the more difficult the negotiation will be. This is
particularly true when the other person is unwilling to let you have your needs. If your
and their needs overlap, then you will, by definition, not reach agreement.
It is thus worth taking time to clarify your needs in some detail, stripping away any
parts that can be traded as wants and likes.
Wants

Wants are the things that are important to you, but you might trade in exchange for
getting your needs. Your wants will not come cheap and you are unlikely to concede on
them with little thought. In particular, you will not trade a want for a like, which are less
important to you.
Know your wants. Be clear about the trades that you will make for them.
Likes

Likes are those things that you would like to get but will not be disappointed if you do
not get them. This does not mean that they are of low value, as your likes can be the
other person's wants or even needs (so listen carefully before giving them away). You
thus may be able to get quite a lot in exchange for giving way on your likes. For
example, you can pretend that a like is a want or need and concede woefully in order to
get wants or needs in return.
Likes are useful as exchanges to get your wants and needs. A typical exchange is that
you will give way on two or three likes to get a want.

Negotiation Roles

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation articles > Negotiation Roles

Leader | Critic | Relater | Expert | Recorder | Builder | Observer | See also

In a negotiation, there many be many roles to be played, particularly if it is long and

with high stakes. Such negotiations may be found in big deal-making situations such as
high-value sales and international politics.
Not all of the roles below need be held by separate people, for example the leader may
also play the relater or critic and the secretary may also be an observer. Roles that may
conflict with one another, such as relater and critic, however, are usually best separated
and taken by different people.
Leader

The leader has two main roles, first to coordinate the actions of the team and second to
provide the main 'face' of the negotiating team. In fact the leader may at times have
separate conversations with the leader of the other team, in particular when things are
getting stuck. Much can be completed in one-to-one discussions that may get bogged
down when multiple people are each adding their thoughts.
The leader may be a senior person who has the authority to make decisions. There can
be a risk in this, however, when the person is not experienced in team negotiation and
may make elementary mistakes that could cost their organization a great deal.
Critic

The critic is the 'bad cop' of the team, always looking for flaws and problems. They may
have an internal focus, criticizing their own team's activities (in private, of course) and
may focus more in the room, criticizing points made by the opposing team. The internal
role is helpful for avoiding problems like complacency and antagonism where the team
moves away from an effective way of working together or with the opposing team.
Being a verbal critic in the negotiating room can be useful for giving a focus for the
opposing team's frustration, which the leader or relater may later offer to quell (in
exchange for agreement, of course). It also frees up the leader and relater to build
relationships without having to cope with criticism. The leader may also let the critic
bring up a subject and then say something like 'Well, she does have a point there' before
taking it up as major topic.

Relater

The relater is the friendly face of the team. They build relationships with individuals in
the opposing team and may through this gain useful pieces of information. They also act
to intervene when there is conflict between personalities and can act as mediator or
other supporting roles.
The relater may well avoid the harder substance of the negotiation, focusing more on
relationships. However, they may at times need to use the relationship bridge to talk
about aspects of the deal.
Expert

Experts may be rolled in and out of the negotiation to provide particular evidence or
assessments in key areas, for example technology or law. Typically they do not do any
direct negotiating, but give information and answer questions. When they are not there
permanently, they may need to be briefed before they enter the negotiating room so their
comments can be adjusted to align with the position of their home team.
Recorder

The recorder (often called a scribe, secretary, etc.) takes notes about what is said. In
particular they note what people are requesting and what offers are made. While they
may occasionally ask questions to ensure they take accurate notes, they are mostly
silent. This can let them act as another observer and they may make side notes that they
can bring up with the leader or team later.
Builder

The builder is the person who creates the deals, putting together packages of things to
exchange for other packages in return. They may also have a financial role where they
assess the cost and value of items being exchanged. Often in negotiations, people overvalue what they offer and under-value what they might receive. The builder seeks the
truth of such positions and provides the leader with facts to enable a sound decision.
Observer

The observer has a watching brief, in particular paying attention to the subtleties of
words and non-verbal body language. They may pass notes to the leader about their
observations and discuss what they see in breaks between meetings. Hence, for
example, they watch for signs of lying and other tensions. While this is not an exact
science, people do send many unconscious signals that other members of the team may
miss as they focus more on the substance of the negotiations.
Elegant Negotiables

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation articles > Elegant Negotiables

Description | Examples | Discussion | See also

Description

Elegant negotiables are those things that you can give away or concede to the other side
that are of lower value to you but of higher value to them.
Knowing how much a person values the things they may trade is very useful as this
affects their decision as to their worth.
The danger with elegant negotiables is that you may give them away without realizing
that you can use them to get something valuable in exchange. This is one reason why
you should do lots of listeningbefore diving into making trades.
Examples

I have grown more potatoes than I need. My friend has grown more beans than she
needs. So we exchange potatoes for beans and both are happy.
A negotiator reviews their own items for exchange or concession in terms of the value
to others in comparison with the value to self. Those that have a high ratio of other-toself value are used for critical exchanges.
Discussion

One of the basic principles of a marketplace is barter, where people give away things
they do not need in exchange for things that they do need. This is the key to an elegant,
agreeable negotiation.
Negotiation discussions may include conversations about the worth of things where
each seeks to hide how much they value what the other person has in order to knock
down its price. If the other person does not value that thing and thinks you do not value
it highly, then they may well trade it away to you in exchange for something of lower
value to you.
In a competitive negotiation, a person hence seeks to get the best value in return for the
most elegant negotiables they have. They also seek to hide how they value what the
other person has to offer in order to get the best exchange.
In a collaborative negotiation, both people are more open about what they have and
what they value, seeking to sustain the relationship while each gets good value in the
exchange.

Talking to the Taxman

Disciplines > Negotiation > Articles > Talking to the Taxman

Listen and understand | Get your facts right | Challenge politely | Accept fair
ruling | Have realistic alternatives | See also

According to the old saying, death and taxes are the only certainties. And the reason
taxes are certain is that the tax authorities have a lot of power to collect them.
Yet when you get a call from the 'taxman' (or woman, of course), it does not mean you
have to do just as they say. Here's a way of ensuring you only pay the tax you really
have to.
Listen and understand

When you first get the letter or phone call from the tax authorities, it can be rather
alarming. It is important at this time to focus on understanding rather than just reacting.
Don't panic

First of all, don't panic. Tax authorities are trying to ensure they apply tax laws
correctly, not just squeeze you until you are broke (even though it seems this way). And
tax laws are pretty complex.
So if you get a letter or phone call, start with the assumption that this is a human being
(not a monster) just trying to do their job. And it's your job to help them.
Another don't: don't ignore it. Sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich and hoping
it will all go away is more likely to make things worse.
Listen, read, think

So first, listen to what they say or read the letter carefully. Read it once, then read it
again. If you are talking with a person, start by asking questions for clarity, not
challenge. Try to sound reasonable and certainly not angry.
Then pause, calm down and think about the information what you have received.
Separate legitimacy from pain by considering whether it is reasonable within the
taxation laws.

Get help

If you don't know what is right or not, the first place is online where there is much
written about taxes and what they mean. You may also ask partners, friends and
colleagues for their views.
When you have found out all you can by free methods, you may want to get an
interpretation from professionals, but of course this will cost you, so only take this route
if you are being asked to pay a large sum.
A cheaper route may be to use decent software when working out your income taxes.
Get your facts right

Before you reply, ensure you know what you are talking about. .
Your financial situation

Know all the income you have gained, including from salary, investments and so on.
Know also what you have paid in tax during the current period and in past periods.
And of course it is important to know what cash you have for paying any dues to the
authorities.
Tax laws and requirements

Know what obligations you have, and what you are allowed, for example in taxdeductable amounts, time for repayment and so on.
This can be an area of great complexity, so perhaps here it is most important to consult
professionals, though again, remember that this advice is not cheap.
What you owe

The bottom line is what you owe (or, if you are lucky, what they owe you!), so this is
something to be very clear about. There are three ways to calculate this: do it yourself,
get your tax advisor to do it, or let the tax authorities do it. If it is a lot of money and
you have a complex financial situation, then the second choice is the best.
Challenge politely

When you are know the facts, then the next step is to prepare and make your challenge.
Prepare your arguments

First put together what requests and rationale you can use, such as paying less or paying
in instalments. Know the tax requirements and allowances that you can call on.
Also consider what is 'reasonable', for example if the tax authorities have delayed in
contacting you, making it reasonable that you do not have to pay the demands
immediately or that it should be now reduced.

One of the best things you can do is to give more facts to them, to help them improve
their ruling.
Prepare your words

Turn your arguments into words. If you are writing, craft the sentences. If you are
speaking, think hard about what to say and consider practicing what to say.
Be clear and concise

While confusion and obfuscation are options, remember that the tax authorities can take
their time and also take a hard line. If you can help them with clear and simple
communication, then they may be more likely to accept what you say.
Communicate to the right person

If possible, communicate with a named person rather than a general office. With
individuals, you can build up a relationship and negotiate more reasonably.
Accept fair ruling

When the tax office comes back to you after your challenge, they may accept it, reject it
or take it into account in a modified request.
What is a fair ruling

Know what is fair, as opposed to what you want. Fairness starts with being within the
rules, and often is similar to what other people have had to pay.
What to challenge further

Remember that you can always challenge the tax rulings, within the regulation of
challenge, of course. You can ask for more information, you can note that procedure has
not been correctly followed, you can ask for more time, and so on.
Whatever your further challenge, the biggest decision is whether you are ready to
continue the battle. And this can be much about how determined you are and how deep
your pockets are to face legal and advisory costs.
Have realistic alternatives

One of the most powerful thing you can have is a strong walk-away alternative. Take
time to understand and prepare this, even if you will never need it.
Alternatives can include escalation to higher courts, asking for delays so you can get the
money together, and so on.
Deploying Your walk-away needs care, of course, and do be ready for a longer-term
battle. Remember: death and taxes.
Positions vs. Interests

Disciplines > Negotiating > Negotiation articles > Positions vs. Interests
Positions | Interests | See also

Negotiation is often about positions, yet managing interests can be more effective.
Positions

A common start point in negotiations is to 'take a position', which usually means having
a particular viewpoint and requirements from which there is little movement. Like
medieval barons, each player builds a castle and besieges the other. Success is
simultaneous defending of your own position and destruction of the opponent's position.
It is a fixed-sum, win-lose pitched battle, where key information is about strengths and
weaknesses and strategies of attack and defense.
Taking positions, however, has many limitations. Battles can leave you weakened. The
vanquished can become secret enemies. What seemed like a good position at the time
can turn out to be a poor choice.
In a Fight-or-Flight sense, an alternative to fighting sometimes seems like being friendly
and allowing others what they want rather than standing your ground. The substance of
the negotiation is given up in return for what is hoped to be a good relationship. Those
who bend over backwards will be treated as if that is their normal position, and hence
will be taken advantage of again and again.
Interests

An alternative is to seek the interests that underly the positions. Ask why any position is
taken. Probe for the deeper reasons. Find the underlying needs and goals. 'Why' is a
powerful question that uncovers real reasons.
Discovering interests confers many benefits. Positions may still be taken, but now you
have many possibilities that can still satisfy interests. Battles may still be fought, but
now the loser has choices in defeat to retreat to a lesser position or negotiate a
settlement that ends the war. The all-or-nothing, do-or-die approach of positional battles
can be also replaced with variable feasts that seek peaceful solutions from the start,
preserving the relationship and expanding the pie so both parties can satisfy most of
their interests.
The Right Time to Negotiate

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation articles > The Right Time to Negotiate
Time of day | Time of week | Proximity to events | See also

When you negotiate can have a significant effect on the proceedings of the negotiation,
as it can affect how alert people are, how interested they are, etc. If you can choose
when negotiations happen, you can thus influence how the proceedings will go.
Time of day

The time of day when negotiations happen affects how alert and attentive people are.
Early morning

Negotiating first thing is first of all affected by the rest and wakefulness of the other
person. If they are not fully awake, as many of us are not, then they will be less
challenging in their argument. If they are well-rested and awake, then you will have
better attention.
Early in the morning, people are not so stressed by the rigors of the day, although they
may be distracted and stressed by the thought of work to come. People who are stressed
will think less about the negotiation, which may be a good or bad thing for you.
People are usually somewhat more alert after eating breakfast. A breakfast meeting can
be useful, as it combines the act of waking up with the act of thinking. Even the sight of
something to eat can wake them up. A cup of coffee or tea contains caffeine, which also
serves to stimulate.
Late morning

By late morning, the day is in full swing and either a sense of achievement and goodwill
will have been developed by what has been done, or stress and frustration will have
developed at what has not been done or the additional load that has been taken on.
Late morning, thoughts may be turning to lunch as the energy intake from breakfast is
depleted and cognitive ability and attention span may be reduced.
Lunchtime

At lunch, people are more relaxed and may be more open to discussion and negotiation.
If you buy lunch for them, you will set up an exchange whereby they may concede more
to you during the negotiation.
Early afternoon

In the post-prandial period after lunch, we feel sleepy as our digestive systems have
more need for blood than our brains. This less alert may be a period when we are
susceptible to suggestion (or maybe just not interested in negotiation).

Late afternoon

Later in the afternoon, we get the dual effect of energy from lunch and exhaustion from
the day. If we are in a work environment, we may be watching the clock. Negotiation
can be effective when people are itching to leave, as they will agree to anything to get
out of the door!
Generally speaking, some people are more amenable and ready in the morning, whilst
others are more ready in the afternoon or even evening. If you can identify the best time
for negotiation with the other person, then you can achieve a more effective result.
Dinner

Dinner is often a more relaxed affair than lunch, as there is typically no real effort
afterwards and you can slide gently towards bed. This can make it a good time for
subtle persuasion. Many proposals (and acceptances!) of marriage are, unsurprisingly,
made over the dinner table. With a comfortably full stomach and seductively low
lighting, we may be open to suggestions that we might otherwise reject.
Evening

Before or after dinner, the evening may normally be spent relaxing with friends and
family. In this comfortable and trusting environment we may feel ready to negotiate
without hurry, although if someone enters our home to sell to us, we may feel somewhat
defensive.
Time of week

As well as during the day, we are differently affected across the week.
Monday morning

On Monday morning we may be feeling a bit dozy (possibly good for negotiation) or
grumpy (not so good). The week's work may be looming ahead (not so good) or not yet
arrived (probably good).
In other words, before you start to negotiate with someone on Monday morning, check
whether they are grumpy and distracted or relaxed and ready. Then either flex your style
to suit the other person or change the time to a period when the other person is more
amenable to the negotiation.
Tuesday

Tuesday is often a good day, particularly in the morning. The week is under way and
people have got over any Monday blues, and have also not yet started to tire with the
weight of the week's work.
Mid-week

Wednesday can also be a good day, although the week may be beginning to weigh down
on the person. The weekend may seem a long way off and the work may well be

mounting up. On the other hand, the other person may also be in full flow and not yet
slowing down for the weekend.
On Thursday, this effect can be exaggerated, with greater tiredness from work or
excitement at the impending weekend which is now in sight. If the other person has
goals to reach by the end of the week, then depending on how they are doing, they may
be relaxed or anxious and focused.
Friday afternoon

Friday afternoon has an even more exaggerated effect. The other person may be
completely relaxed and either happy to negotiate or only too ready to put it off until
after the weekend.
They may also be working very hard to complete work for the end of the week, which
can mean that you can get agreement to all kinds of things as they seek to get back to
their main task.
Weekend

At the weekend, people are often at their most relaxed. Domestic issues now take over
from work issues and negotiations about home aspects may be uppermost in their mind.
Depending on the extend to which they take their work home, they may entertain workrelated ideas or they may be completely switched off about work.
Other considerations
Attention availability

When a person is engaged in some other activity or where they are otherwise distracted,
then someone starting to negotiate with them requires attention that they do not want to
give and is probably unwelcome. This may well trigger some form of fight-or-flight
reaction.
If they are likely to fight, then negotiation is probably not a good idea and you should
delay until they are more ready to listen to you.
If they have a flight reaction, then a typical response is satisficing, where they seek any
solution to reduce the stress -- including making concessions to you. Where their later
regret or anger is unimportant to you, then this can be a lever you can use.
Proximity to events

When a significant event is looming, from holidays to a difficult task, then the
proximity of this event can have a noticeable effect on the attention of the other person.
If they have a short-term focus, then right before the event is the best time. If they can
imagine into the future, and most of us can, then reminding them of the impending
event can create the attention you need.

The way people react here may well depend on how they forecast threats and their risk
bias. When they are risk-seeking then they may look forward to danger, and when they
are risk-avoiding, then the thought of impending hazard will scare them silly.
Tricks, Kicks and Bricks

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Tricks, Kicks and Bricks
Tricks | Kicks | Bricks | See also

Many negative negotiation tactics can be divided into one of three categories:
Deception, coercion or prevention. An easier way of remembering these is 'Tricks,
Kicks and Bricks'.
These are not always 'bad', as the rules of negotiation in which you are working may
allow a certain amount of trickery. It is often important to know these rules, particularly
if you are in a foreign culture where seemingly-aggressive tactics are the norm.
Tricks

Many negotiation tactics are designed to deceive the other person in some way, making
them think or believe something that is perhaps not wholly true or valid.
Deception (or 'tricks') is a very common part of many people's lives and there is an
evolutionary viewpoint that suggests we have big brains because tricking others is a
good strategy for survival and procreation. The bottom line is that we all have
experienced much deception and, if truth be told, have probably used a lot as well.
Kicks

A more overt method of getting people to do what you want is to make it impossible or
at least rather uncomfortable for them to refuse.
Coercion (or 'kicks') occurs when a parent tells their child what to do or when a
manager orders their subordinates, with the underlying threat that non-compliance will
lead to dire events such as disciplinary action or termination.
Coercion can also be physical, of course, but mostly it is psychological. It also takes two
to tango: one to attempt coercion and another to believe that they have no alternative but
to obey.
Bricks

A third method used during negotiations is to block the other person in some way. By
definition, both people in a negotiation have something that the other wants, and each
has the ultimate sanction available of not giving what is required.
Prevention (or 'bricks') may occur when a person acts as a gateway to other people or
places. I can also prevent you from acquiring information simply by refusing to fully
and honestly answering your questions.
The Walk-away Alternative

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation articles > The Walk-away Alternative
The walk-away | Fear and alternatives | The walk-away trap | See also

When negotiating, having a strong walk-away alternative can be very powerful tool.
The walk-away

What happens if you do not reach agreement in a negotiation? The answer is that you
walk away from the other person with nothing to show for your time and effort with
them.
The next question is where you walk to. If you have no alternative, then you may be left
wandering in the wilderness. If, however, you already have an alternative with which
you are satisfied then, although you would have liked to reach agreement, walking away
is not such a bad thing.
The Walk-away Alternative is also known as a BATNA, or Best Alternative To a
Negotiated Agreement (Fisher and Ury, 1981).
Fear and alternatives

Having a strong walk-away alternative is more than just a comfort blanket. When a
person in a negotiation realizes that agreement may not be reached, then they are forced
to think about what they will do if this undesirable alternative occurs.
If a person does not have a very good alternative, then they may well be driven as much
by the fear of not reaching agreement as by the prospect of reaching a satisfactory
agreement. The thought of what happens if agreement is not reached thus replaces the
thought of what happens if agreement is reached as the driving force for their actions.
The walk-away trap

Beware of the 'walk-away trap' whereby, having worked hard on developing your walkaway, you end up with a mentality that focuses too much on this.
By putting something in your subconscious, it easily becomes assumed as a possibility
and then even a quite likely event. This can result that, without realizing it, you start
bringing it up too soon, using it as a threat ('I do have alternatives') and so on, and so
precipitate the event.
There are no nos

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation articles > There are no nos
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Never accept an outright refusal. Take the motto that 'There are no nos'.
When they say 'no' re-interpret this as meaning something other than 'I will not agree'.
For example it can mean:

I am not yet ready to agree

You are making me feel uncomfortable

I do not understand

I don't think I can afford it

I want something else before I will agree

I need more information before I agree

I want to talk it over with someone else

So, use words like 'yet', 'if', 'when' and so on, assuming that there is a reason for them
saying 'no', and that when this is addressed, they will say 'yes'.
Example

What would it take to make you say yes?

Ok, so it's not right yet. Let's keep talking. I'd like to understand more of how you are
thinking.

You're right, I've not been clear. Tell you what, let's go and look at it. You'll love it when
you see it.
Discussion

'No' is a statement of perception far more often than of fact. It seldom means 'I have
considered all the facts and made a rational choice'. A trap into which many negotiators
fall is to take people literally.
People like to feel certain, so they say 'no' when they feel uncomfortable, pushing back
with refusal, trying to make you stop so they can recover their composure. There are
two approaches you can take when faced with this flight: increasing stress until they
give in (coercion) or backing off to reduce stress, showing concern that increases trust
and then using gentler levers to gain a more lasting agreement.
Addressing 'no' in negotiations is the same as objection-handling in sales and resistance
to change in businesses. The basic problem is a lack of agreement and the classic
approach is reframing.
Sometimes no does mean no. When you have tried various ways to reframe, then
perhaps you will have to accept refusal, though the anticipation of this should never be
an excuse to not try converting a no into a yes. Watch for signs of frustration or anger.
These can be indicators of a good point at which to back off. Yet you may still persist as
agreement may yet be on the other side of anger. It is fear of anger that puts many off
pressing against a 'no'. Be brave and you may be rewarded.