STEP TWO

Disarm Them
STEP TO THEIR SIDE

Rarely is it advisable to meet prejudices and passions head on. Instead, it is best to appear to
conform to them in order to gain time to combat them. One must know how to sail with a
contrary wind and to tack until one meets a wind in the right direction.
- Fortune de Felice, 1778

An AT&T sales team was negotiating to sell Boeing a new telecommunications system
valued at $150 million. The sales team made a persuasive pitch on the kind of service to
be delivered, the company’s prompt response to problems, and the speed of repairs.
Then the Boeing purchasing director said, “Fine. Now put each one of your
promises in writing. And we want guarantees that if the system isn’t fixed on time, you’ll
pay us damages.”
“We’ll make our best efforts,” replied the AT&T sales chief, “but we can’t be
held liable for all the things that can go wrong. Lightning can strike – “
You’re fooling around with us!” interrupted the Boeing negotiator, losing his temper.
“First you tell us about your services – now you’re not willing to commit yourself to what
you promised!”
“That’s not true!” protested the sales chief, aghast at the turn in the negotiation.
“Let me see if I can explain –“
But the Boeing negotiator refused to listen. “You’re not negotiating in good
faith!” he complained. “We can’t deal with you.”
The AT&T sales chief made a last-ditch effort: “Let’s talk about it. Maybe we can
put some of it in writing.” But the Boeing purchasing director had already made up his
mind. He and his team walked out the door.
What happened? When AT&T refused to go along with Boeing’s demand, the
Boeing negotiator got angry and went on the attack. The AT&T sales chief defended
himself, but this just fueled the buyers’ anger. When the sales chief tried to explain, the
buyer wouldn’t listen. Nothing seemed to work.
The mistake, a common one, is in trying to reason with a person who is not
receptive. Your words will fall on deaf ears or be misconstrued. Before you can discuss
the problem, you need to disarm the person. Going to the balcony has enabled you to
regain your mental balance. Now you need to help your opponent regain his.
Like the Boeing negotiator, your opponent may feel distrustful, angry, or
threatened. Convinced he is right and you are wrong, he may be unwilling to listen.
Disarming him means defusing his hostile emotions. It means getting him to hear your
point of view. And it means garnering a measure of his respect. He doesn’t need to like
you, but he does need to take you seriously and treat you as a human being.
The secret of disarming is surprise. To disarm your opponent, you need to do the
opposite of what he expects. If he is stonewalling, he expects you to apply pressure; if he
1

is attacking, he expects you to resist. So don’t pressure; don’t resist. Do the opposite:
Page

Step to his side. Listen to him, acknowledge his point, and agree wherever you can.
 Stepping to his side is probably the last thing you feel like doing with a difficult
person. When your opponent closes his ears, you naturally feel like doing the same.
When he refuses to recognize your point of view, you certainly don’t feel like
recognizing his. When he disagrees with everything you say, you may find it difficult to
agree with anything he says. Although entirely understandable, this tit-for-tat response is
a recipe for stalemate.
To break through your opponent’s resistance, you need to reverse this dynamic. If
you want him to listen to you, begin by listening to him. If you want him to acknowledge
your point, acknowledge his first. To get him to agree with you, begin by agreeing with
him wherever you can.

Listen Actively

Too often negotiations proceed as follows: Party A sets out his opening position. Party B
is so focused on figuring out what he will say that he doesn’t really listen. When Party
B’s turn comes to lay out his position, Party A thinks, “He didn’t respond to what I said.
He must not have heard me. I’d better repeat it.” Then Party B concludes that he, too, has
not been properly heard, so he repeats his position. And on it goes – in a dialogue of the
dear. “Everything has been said before,” says a character in a novel by André Gide, “but
since nobody listens, we have to keep going back and beginning all over again.”
You have an opportunity to interrupt the chorus of monologues if you are willing
to be the first to listen.

Give Your Opponent a Hearing

Listening to someone may be the cheapest concession you can make. We all feel a deep
need to be understood. By satisfying that need, you can help turn the negotiation around.
Consider a contract negotiation between union and management at an Inland Steel
container plant. The corporate counsel took a rigid position on the crucial issue of wage
arbitration, saying, “Now that is one I believe we’re going to have to insist on.” The
general manager, Robert Novy, added, “That is putting it pretty mildly.”
Normally the union would have counterattacked, management would have
vehemently defended its position, and after a futile argument a strike would have ensued.
Indeed, the previous breakdown in negotiations, had resulted in a mutually disastrous
191-day strike, and everyone expected a strike this time too. But instead of
counterattacking, chief union negotiator Jake Shafer said quietly, “I am interested in Mr.
Novy’s statement. You say, “That is putting it pretty mildly.’”
With this invitation, Novy went on to explain at length why management felt so
strongly about the issue. Having received the satisfaction of a full hearing, management
in turn gave the union a hearing of its concerns. It may have seemed at the time like a
small tactical move, but Shafer’s decision to sit back and ask management to discuss its
point of view broke open the deadlocked issue for eventual resolution. The strike that
everyone expected never materialized.
Listening requires patience and self-discipline. Instead of reacting immediately or
2

plotting your next step, you have to remain focused on what your counterpart is saying.
Page

Listening may not be an easy thing to do, but, as the story of Inland Steel demonstrates, it
can be enormously valuable. It offers a window into your opponent’s mind. It gives you a
chance to engage him in a cooperative task – that of understanding his problem. And it
makes him more willing to listen to you.
If your opponent is angry or upset, the best thing you can offer is a full hearing of
his grievance. Don’t interrupt – even if you feel he is wrong or insulting. Let him know
you’re listening by maintaining eye contact, nodding occasionally, and responding with
“Uh-huh” or “I see.” When he winds down, ask quietly if there is anything more he
would like to add. Encourage him to tell you everything that is bothering him by using
such phrases as “Yes… please go on” and “Then what happened?”
People derive genuine satisfaction from voicing their feelings and resentments.
Customer-service managers know that even if there is little they can do to help an angry,
dissatisfied customer, giving him a full and respectful hearing can often be enough to
keep him coming back.
Once you have heard your opponent out, he will most likely become less reactive, more
rational, and more responsive to problem-solving negotiation. It is no coincidence that
effective negotiators listen for more than they talk.

Paraphrase and Ask for Corrections

It is not enough for you to listen to your opponent. He needs to know that you’ve heard
that he has said. So reflect back what you hear. A conversation between a salesperson and
an unhappy customer might go this way:

CUSTOMER: I bought this answering machine from you barely six month ago, and now
you can hardly hear the voices. It’s not the tape – I replaced it. What kind of lousy
machines do you sell here? I’m losing business because of you. I want it replaced right
now with a quality machine, or this won’t be the last you hear of me.
SALESPERSON: Okay, let me make sure I understand. You bought this machine here
six month ago to use in your business. But now you can’t hear the voices. You need a
working machine and time is of the essence. Have I got it right?
CUSTOMER: That’s right.
SALESPERSON: Let’s see what we can do for you.

Paraphrasing means summing up your understanding of what your opponent has

said and repeating it back in you own words. Remember to retain his point of view.
Adding your own or trying to make him see the error of his ways will not help. It will
give the customer little satisfaction if you say “You couldn’t make it work so you’ve
brought it back?”
Paraphrasing gives your opponent the feeling of being understood as well as the
satisfaction of correcting you. It gives you a chance to check and see whether you have
gotten his message. Paraphrasing is one of the most useful techniques in a negotiator’s
repertoire.

Acknowledge the Point

3

After listening to your opponent, the next step is to acknowledge his point. You may be
Page

reluctant to do this because of your strong disagreement with him. But you thereby miss a
critical opportunity. Every human being, no matter how impossible, has a deep need for
recognition. By satisfying that need you can help create a climate for agreement.
Acknowledging your opponent’s point does not mean that you agree with it. It
means that you accept it as one valid point of view among others. It sends the message “I
can see how you see things.” It is conveyed in phrases such as “You have a point there”
or “I know exactly what you mean” or “I understand what you’re saying.”
Your opponent’s mind is often like a cluttered attic, full of old resentments and
angers, gripes and stories. To argue with him just keeps all this stuff alive. But if you
acknowledge the validity of what he says, it begins to lose its emotional charge. In effect,
the stuff begins to disappear from the attic. By letting him tell his side of the story and
acknowledging it, you create psychological room for him to accept that there may be
another side of the story.
One of the most powerful and surprising ways to acknowledge your opponent’s
point is to preempt him. Take the words out of his mouth. Tell him: “If I were in you
shoes, this is the way I’d see it.” Former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara used
this approach at a 1989 meeting of key American, soviet, and Cuban participants in the
1962 Cuban missile crisis. Sensing that the Soviets and the Cubans were defensive about
why their governments had decided to secretly install nuclear missiles in Cuba, he
announced, “If I had been a Cuban or Soviet leader at the time, I would have concluded
that the Americans intended to invade Cuba. From the evidence you had available to you,
you were right to reach that conclusion. But I must tell you that we had no such intention.
“By preemptively acknowledging what the Soviets and Cubans were thinking,
McNamara made them more receptive to hearing his viewpoint.

Acknowledge Your Opponent’s Feelings

Don’t ignore your opponent’s emotions. Behind his attack often lies anger; behind his
stonewalling often lies fear. Until you defuse his emotions, your reasonable arguments
will fall on deaf ears.
Imagine that an employee storms into your office and rages, “I’m sick of being
cheated! I just found out that Dayle Turner gets two thousand dollars more a year for
doing the same job that I do. I’m through!”
Trying to explain why Dayle earns more money, even if the reason is a good one,
may only make your employee angrier. Instead, you must acknowledge his feelings first.
“You think we’re taking advantage of you. I can understand that. I’d probably feel angry
too.”
This is not the response your employee expects. By acknowledging his feelings,
you have helped him calm down.
He then asks, “Why shouldn’t I make every penny as much as Dayle does? I do
the same work!”
By asking you a question, albeit an angry one, he shows that he is ready to hear
your explanation. Now you can proceed to reason with him.
Like the employee, your opponent often feels embattled and unappreciated. It is
disarming to be met with an acknowledgment rather than an argument. Telling your
opponent “I appreciate how you feel” or “If I were in your shoes, I’d be just as angry”
4
Page
lets him know his message has been heard and appreciated. Showing that you understand
why he feels as he does enhances your acknowledgment.
One word of caution: your opponent will usually be able to tell whether or not
your acknowledgment is sincere. Your intent, as expressed in your tone and body
language, counts just as much as your words.

Offer an Apology

Perhaps the most powerful form of acknowledgment is an apology. This is a lesson we all
learn as children. If you say the magic words “I’m sorry,” you can continue playing the
game. Unfortunately, it is a lesson we often forget as adults. Take the Columbia law
professor who put the following question to his contracts class:
“Seller promises Buyer to deliver widgets at the rate of one thousand a month.
The first two deliveries are perfect. However, in the third month Seller delivers only nine
hundred and ninety widgets. Buyer becomes so incensed that he rejects deliveries and
refuses to pay for the widgets already delivered. If you were Seller, what would you
say?”
The professor was looking for a discussion of the various common law theories
that would, as he put it, “allow Seller to crush Buyer.” He looked around the room for a
volunteer, but found none. “As is so often the case with first-year students ” he reported.
“I found that they were all either writing in their notebooks or inspecting their shoes.
There was, however, one eager face, that of an eight-year-old son of one of my students.
He was in class because his mother couldn’t find a sitter. Suddenly he raised his hand.
Such behavior, even from an eight-year-old, must be rewarded.
“’Okay,’ I said, ‘what would you say if you were the seller?’
“’I’d say, “I’m sorry.”’”
As the child seemed to know instinctively, “crushing” an opponent is not the right
answer. We often overlook the simple power of an apology. The buyer was outraged
because he felt wronged. What such a person most often wants is the recognition that he
has been wronged. Only when that acknowledgment has been made will he feel safe in
negotiating. An apology thus creates the conditions for a constructive resolution of the
dispute.
Your apology need not be meek, nor an act of self-blame. To a disgruntled
customer, you could say. “I’m sorry you’ve had this problem. You’re one of my favorite
customers and the last person I’d want to see unhappy. What can we do to make it up to
you?” Even if your opponent is primarily responsible for the mess you are in, consider
apologizing for your share. Your bold gesture can set in motion a process of
reconciliation in which he apologizes for his share.

Project Confidence

You may be afraid that acknowledging your opponent is an act of weakness. To the
contrary, acknowledgment reflects your strength. To ensure that your opponent
recognizes this, project confidence as you acknowledge him. In dealing with an attack,
5

for example, put as reasonable an expression on your face as you can muster. Adopt a
Page
calm, confident posture and tone. Stand up straight, look your opponent in the eye, and
use his name. Fearlessness disarms.
Consider how an American diplomat, held hostage in Iran from 1979 until 1981,
took control by acknowledging his opponents. Whenever his guards came into his room,
he would invite them to sit down. “They became my guests,” explained the diplomat,
“and in this small way, I established command of the situation. I created the unmistakable
sense that this was my space, my territory, and it did wonders for my well-being.”

Agree Wherever You Can

Once you have listened to your opponent and acknowledged what he has said, the next
step is to agree wherever you can. It is hard to attack someone who agrees with you.

Agree Without Conceding

You don’t need to concede a thing. Simply focus on issues on which you already agree.
An American senator told his legislative staff: “Don’t argue with my constituents, even if
they’re wrong. All you do is lose me votes. Do the opposite of what they taught you in
graduate school. There, if someone said something you agreed with ninety-nice percent,
you said, ‘I disagree,’ and you focused on the one percent of disagreement. Here, if my
constituent says something you disagree with ninety-nine percent, I want you to say ‘I
agree with you’ and focus on the one percent of agreement.” It is natural to focus on
differences, because differences cause the problem. At the outset, however, you are
usually better off focusing on your common ground.
Look for any opportunity to agree – even if it is only in a humorous way. Humor
has the added benefit of humanizing you in your opponent’s eyes. Consider the example
of a fund-raiser for the United Way who had to solicit contributions one day from a group
of truck drivers as they showed up for work at six o’clock in the morning. At that hour no
one had the slightest interest in United Way, but the boss had ordered the drivers to
attend the meeting. As the fundraiser was cheerily showing a videotape about the charity,
the atmosphere in the room turned tense. When he passed out yellow pencils and pledge
cards, the truck drivers stared at them and did nothing. Finally, one burly truck driver
stood up, shook his pencil in a threatening fashion at the fund-raiser, and growled, “I’ll
tell you what you can do with this pencil!”
There was an awkward moment as everyone waited to see how the United Way
representative would react. The fund-raiser looked the truck driver straight in the eye and
said calmly, “Sir, I will be happy to do whatever you like with that pencil…” He paused,
then added, “… after you sign the pledge card, of course.” There was a brief moment of
silence, and then one person started to laugh. Everyone joined in. The tension was
broken. In the end, every truck driver signed a pledge card.

Accumulate Yeses
6

The key word in agreement is “yes”. “Yes” is a magic word, a powerful tool for
Page

disarming your opponent. Look for occasions when you can say yes to the other side
without making a concession. “Yes, you have a point there.” “Yes, I agree with you.” Say
yes as often as possible.
You should also try to get as many yeses as you can. One public speaker uses this
technique effectively to handle hostile comments from the audience. If someone says,
“Your proposal is utterly unrealistic,” he responds, “Are you saying you don’t see how
my budget proposal can possibly erase the deficit within five years – is that what you
mean?” The audience member says yes, and as he does, the relationship between the
speaker and the critic changes. The “yes” transforms an antagonistic argument into the
beginning of a reasoned dialogue.
Each yes you elicit from your opponent further reduces tesnsion. As you
accumulate agreement, even I fonly on what he is saying, you create an atmosphere in
which he is more likely to say yes to a substantive proposal.

Tune in to Your Opponent’s Wavelength

Agreement can be nonverbal too. If you observe two friends deep in conversation, you
will often notice something peculiar. If one friend leans on an elbow, the other does too.
If one speaks in a low voice, the other lowers his voice. Almost unconsciously they align
themselves with each other in order to communicate more effectively. Each is sending the
other a subtle message: “I am like you.”
Much of the message comes across in the form, not the content, of the
communication. Observe your counterpart’s communicative manner. If he speaks slowly,
you may want to slow down your own speaking rate. If he talks softly, you may want to
lower your voice. Observe his body posture too. If he leans forward to emphasize his
point, consider leaning forward, too, to show your interest. Don’t mimic. Just adapt your
own communicative style to be more like his. Your goal is to tune in to the same
wavelength.
It also plays to be sensitive to your opponent’s language. If he is speaking in a
colloquial fashion, you may want to make your language more colloquial. If he is from a
different culture, it helps to learn and use a few polite phrases from his language in order
to show your interest and respect.
People also use different “sensory languages,” depending on whether they process
information primarily through their eyes, ears, or feelings. If your opponent uses
primarily visual terms, such as “Can’t you see what I’m saying?” or “Let’s focus on that,”
try to match him with similar phrases: “I do see your point” or “I can picture what you’re
saying.” If your opponent uses primarily auditory terms, such as “Listen to this,” respond
with a phrase such as “I hear you.” Or if his language is oriented around feelings, as in
“That doesn’t feel right to me,” answer with phrases like, “I’m not comfortable either.”
Connect with your counterpart by using the language he understands best.

Acknowledge the Person

In listening to your opponent, acknowledging his point, and agreeing wherever you can,
7

you are in fact acknowledging him as a person. You are showing him respect.
Page

Sometimes, however, you may want to acknowledge him in a more direct fashion.
 Consider one of the world’s most intractable disputes: the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Until 1977, Arab leaders refused to recognize Israel’ existence; they would not even call
it by its name. Then, in November of that year, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat broke
the taboo with his dramatic journey to Jerusalem. Nothing could have been more
surprising to the Israelis, more confusing to their perceptions of the Egyptians, or more
disarming than the arrival of an enemy leader in the country his army had attacked a mere
four years earlier. With this one action, he broke through the psychological barrier that
constituted, in his words, ninety percent of the conflict. He created a climate that
eventually produced a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, which few had thought
possible.
By acknowledging the person, you create what psychologists call “cognitive
dissonance,” an inconsistency between perception and reality. Your opponent thinks of
you as an adversary. When you acknowledge him personally, you are acting as a friend or
colleague, thus inducing him to change his perception of you in order to reduce the
cognitive dissonance. Just as Sadat capitalized on the Israeli perception of him as a
warmonger, you can capitalize on your opponent’s negative perception of you by acting
in a way that shatters his stereotype.
Reaffirming the person does not mean reaffirming his behavior. Parents continue
to love their eight-year-old even after he puts glue between the newspaper pages and tries
to strangle his younger sister. You need to distinguish between the person and his
behavior.

Acknowledge His Authority and Competence

Suppose you are tying to persuade a difficult boss to change his mind about an office
issue. He may perceive you to be personally challenging his authority or competence. Are
you implying, he wonders, that he is somehow incompetent or wrong? He will likely
react by becoming even more resistant to what you have to say. To reassure him that you
are not challenging him personally, you need to preface your remarks with a phrase such
as “You’re the boss” or “I respect your authority.”
If your opponent has a big or vulnerable ego, think of it as an opportunity rather
than an obstacle. A person whose ego needs stroking is dependent on the recognition of
others. To the extent you can satisfy his need for recognition, you can disarm him. If you
are seeking an exception to company policy from a self-important or insecure bureaucrat,
you might begin by saying. “I’ve been told that you are the most knowledgeable person
on this policy.” To make your acknowledgment more credible, base it on facts. Instead of
telling a departmental rival “You’re the best sales-person around” – which he may
dismiss as mere flattery – you might say, “Your presentation to the board was succinct,
persuasive, and to the point. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it done better.”

Build a Working Relationship

One of the best ways to acknowledge your opponent is to build a working relationship.
Invite him out for coffee or lunch, or meet for a drink after work. You can use such
8

occasions to talk about hobbies and families, or whatever his interests are. Take time for
Page
small talk before the negotiations session begins and as it ends. Little gestures of
goodwill can go a long way.
A good working relationship is like a savings account you can draw on in
moments of trouble. When we deal with someone we know and like, we tend to attribute
adverse events to extenuating circumstances: Oh, I guess he didn’t show up for the
meeting because he was ill.” When we deal with someone we don’t like, we tend to
attribute the same events to the person’s basic natures: “He wants to keep me waiting to
show me who has the upper hand.” In short, if you have a positive relationship, your
counterpart will be more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. You can thus
prevent misunderstandings.
The best time to lay the foundation for a good relationship is before a problem
arises. So if your job is likely to bring you into conflict with an individual, nurture the
relationship from the earliest possible point. A production manager ought to have a
healthy working relationship with his opposite number in marketing; a union chief , with
the school board. When the other person is being difficult, you want to be able to say
“Come on, Joe. We’ve always gotten on. We go back a long way.”

Express Your Views –

Without Provoking
Once you have heard and acknowledged your opponent, he is fat more likely to listen to
you. Now is the time to get your views across. You need to do so, however, without
making him close his ears.
The secret lies in changing your mindset. The standard mindset is either / or.
Either you are right or your opponent is. The alternative mindset is both / and. He can be
right in terms of his experience, and you can be right in terms of yours. You can say to
him: “I can see why you feel the way you do. It’s entirely reasonable in terms of the
experience you’ve had. My experience, however, has been different.” You can
acknowledge his view and, without challenging it, express a contrary one. You can create
an inclusive atmosphere in which differences can coexist peacefully while you try to
reconcile them.

Don’t Say “But”; Say “Yes… And”

One of the most common methods of expressing your differences is to preface your view
with the word “but.” When your customer says “Your price is too high,” you may be
tempted to refuse his statement with your own: “But this product is the highest quality
you’ll find!” Unfortunately, when your customer hears a “but”, he may hear “I think you
are wrong for the following reasons.” Not surprisingly, he may stop listening.
Your opponent will be more receptive if you first acknowledge his views with a
“yes” and then preface your own with an “and.: After your customer complains about the
high price, you could say, “Yes, you’re absolutely correct that our price is higher. And
what that increment buys you is higher quality, greater reliability, and better service!”
9

Even a direct disagreement can be framed inclusively: “I can see why you feel
Page

strongly about this, and I respect that. Let me tell you, however, how it looks from my
angle,” or “I am in total agreement with what you’re trying to accomplish.. What you
may not have considered is…” Whatever language you use, the key is to present your
views as an addition to, rather than a direct contradiction of, you opponent’s point of
view.

Make I-Statements, Not You-Statements,

As you express your views, you will be less likely to provoke your counterpart if you
speak about yourself, rather than about him. After all, your own experience is all your
really know about anyway.
Suppose you are dealing with a difficult teenager who promised to come home by
midnight but didn’t show up until three o’clock in the morning. You could express your
views by saying, “You broke your word” You’re irresponsible.” Or, “You only care
about yourself. You never think about your family!” These are called “you-statements.”
The teenager naturally becomes defensive and angry. He tunes out the familiar parental
lecture.
Suppose that you were to say instead: “Ken, I felt let down last night. I worried myself
sick that something terrible had happened to you. I even called the highway patrol to see
if you had been in an accident.” Instead of attacking, you express your feelings and
experience. These are “I-statements.” The underlying message is the same, but phrased
this way, your feelings are more likely to be heard.
The essence of an I-statement is to describe the impact of the problem on you.
You are giving the other person information about the consequences of his behavior in a
form that is hard for him to reject – because it is your experience. Common phrases to use
are: “I feel…,” “I get upset when…’ “I’m not comfortable with…,” and “The way I see
it is…”
An I-statement does not challenge your opponent’s view but simply offers him a
different perspective – yours. It does no tell him what to do or how to think or how to
feel. He is entitled to his opinions, and you are entitled to yours.
Note that just putting an “I” in front of a your-statement does not make it an I-
statement. Telling your teenager “I feel that you have been irresponsible” or “I feel that
you broke your word” is still accusatory and provokes the same defensive reaction. An I-
statement focuses on your needs, concerns, feelings, and desires, not your opponent’s
short-comings.

Stand Up for Yourself

Don’t hesitate to stand up for yourself. When threatened by the truck driver, the United
Way fund raiser did more than just humorously acknowledge his demand. After saying
“Sir, I will be happy to do whatever you like with that pencil,” headed: “after you sign
the pledge card, of course.” He stood up for himself and his charity.
Standing up for yourself does not negate your acknowledgment. Acknowledgment
from someone perceived as confident and strong is more powerful than acknowledgment
from someone perceived as weak. The combination of seemingly opposite responses –
10

acknowledging your opponent’s views and expressing your own – is more effective than
Page

either alone.
 Consider the parents faced with a bawling five-year-old who does not want to be
left at home with a babysitter. Should they give in and stay home? Should they threaten
to spank the child or try to appease him? A leading child psychologist suggests a third
strategy. With empathy, tell the crying child: “I know you wish we were not going out
tonight. Sometimes when we are not here, you get scared. You wish we would stay with
you, but your father and I are going to enjoy a dinner with friends tonight. We’ll have
dinner at home with you tomorrow.” Acknowledge his views and stand up for your own.

Acknowledge Your Differences with Optimism

Expressing your agreement with your opponent does not mean suppressing your
differences. Indeed, it is often helpful to acknowledge them openly. It assures your
opponent that you have understood his side of the story, which helps him relax. In many
ethnic conflicts, for example, the parties only feel comfortable acknowledging areas of
agreement after they have clearly delineated the areas of disagreement.
When you set out your differences, you may find they are not as great as either of
you imagined. Sometimes, however, they seem overwhelming. So an optimistic stance on
your part is critical. Affirm your interest in reaching agreement and assert your belief that
a satisfactory solution is possible: “I think we can make a deal here.” Be bold in
acknowledging your opponent’s views, bold in asserting your own, and equally bold in
expressing optimism that your differences can be resolved.

Create a Favorable Climate

For Negotiation

In sum, the hurdles you face are your opponent’s suspicion and hostility, his closed ears,
and his lack of respect. Your best strategy is to step to his side. It is harder to be hostile
toward someone who hears you out and acknowledges what you say and how you feel. It
is easier to listen to someone who has listened to you. And respect breeds respect.
Pleasantly surprised by your behavior, your opponent may think: “This person
actually seems to understand and appreciate my problem. Since almost no one else does,
that means he must be intelligent.” Then comes the clincher: “Maybe I can negotiate with
this person after all.” That is the crack in the wall you have been seeking.
To conclude, let’s return to the negotiation between AT&T and Boeing described
at the beginning of the chapter. Faced with the breakdown of the talks, the AT&T sales
chief arranged a private meeting with the Boeing purchasing director. This is how he
started off;
“I’ve been trying to understand your concerns. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but as
you and your colleagues at Boeing see it, we’ve been misleading you, saying we’re
prepared to give all this service but not to put it in writing and be held liable for it. That
seems to be bad-faith negotiating. So naturally you get angry and don’t see the point in
continuing. Is that right?”
“That’s right!” the Boeing buyer replied with fervor. “How can we trust what you
11

say? If we were negotiating an aircraft sale and told the buyer the safety specifications
but then said we wouldn’t put them in writing, the buyer would walk right out the door.
Page

And he’d be right to leave. If we won’t be held accountable, we shouldn’t be in the

airplane building business. If you won’t be bound by your promises, you shouldn’t be in
the communications business ! »
“You’re absolutely right,” acknowledged the AT&T sales chief. “I’d feel the
same way if I were you!”
Surprised, the Boeing negotiator asked, “Then why wont’ you agree to put your
promises in writing and agree to pay damages if you don’t live up to your commitment?”
The AT&T representative answered, “We will of course put our promises in
writing. Damages are an issue we have trouble with but are at least willing to discuss.
First I want to see if I can clear up what’s gotten us stuck. I think I’m only beginning to
understand it myself. I hear you saying that Boeing has what you might call an
‘engineering culture.’ There’s no tolerance for ambiguity or error when people’s lives are
at stake. So if you promise a certain safety specification, you’d better be sure you’re on
target. And, of course, everything has to be clearly specified in writing. Am I making
sense?
“Yes, what you’re saying is right, but I don’t see what it has to do with our
problem,” said the Boeing buyer.
“If you’ll bear with me, I’ll try to explain why I think it has everything to do with
our problem. You see, at AT&T we also have our engineers, but we’re primarily in the
business of providing a service. We’re more of a ‘relationship culture.’ We see our
relationship with our clients as all-important – if the client’s not happy, we’re not happy.
That’s why people call us ‘Ma Bell.’ Now, when your mom tells you she’s going to make
your lunch and drive you to school, you don’t say to her, ‘Now, Mom, put in writing and
I’m going to hold you liable for damages,’ do you?”
“Of course not.”
“You just expect that she’ll do the best she can. Now obviously there’s a big
difference between a household and a business, but this gives you a sense of where we’re
coming from. We make oral promises and fully expect to deliver or, them. Our track
record, you’ll have to admit, is very good. It’s a new experience for us to meet with a lot
of skepticism and a demand for damages from a client. That’s why we sort of collided
with each other at the last meeting – you were coming from one place, which was
absolutely right for you, and we were coming from another. Does this make any sense to
you?”
“It’s beginning to. Let me ask you… “
And so the negotiations got back under way.
How was the AT&T sales chief able to get the negotiation back on track? He
preemptively acknowledged what he understood to be Boeing’s concerns. He listened. He
didn’t try to refute his client’s argument or defend AT&T. He simply acknowledged that
the client was right. Once the Boeing negotiator’s views were understood and
appreciated, his anger subsided and he became more receptive. He asked a question
inviting the AT&T representative to offer his explanation. Only then did the sales chief
describe how the situation looked from his side. In the end, he was able to ally his client’s
suspicious, get him to listen, and garner his respect – in short, to disarm him. Not long
afterward, AT&T and Boeing reached agreement on the $150 million sale.
12
Page