Stitt Feld Han - sfhgonline.com · 4 POSITIONAL VERSUS INTEREST-BASED NEGOTIATION1 POSITIONAL...

STITT FELD HANDY GROUP

ON-LINE NEGOTIATION COURSE

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

POSITIONAL VERSUS INTEREST-BASED NEGOTIATION …………………… 4Positional Negotiating ……………………………………………………………….. 4Interest-Based Negotiating ………………………………………………………….. 4The Difference Between Positions And Interests …………………………………. 4Choosing Between Positional Negotiating And Interest-Based Negotiating ….. 5Finding Out Others’ Interests ………………………………………………………. 6Generating Options …………………………………………………………………. 6Points To Consider In An Interest-Based Negotiation …………………………… 7Tips ……………………………………………………………………………………. 9

MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ……………………………………………………………. 10Tips …………………………………………………………………………………….. 10

SALES AND COLD CALLING ……………………………………………………….. 11Tips …………………………………………………………………………………….. 13

SPEAKING PERSUASIVELY …………………………………………………………. 14Tips …………………………………………………………………………………….. 14

EFFECTIVE LISTENING ………………………………………………………………. 15Interactive Listening …………………………………………………………………. 16Using Open Body Language Or Other Non-Verbal Clues ……………………….. 16Using Prompters ……………………………………………………………………… 16Asking Clarifying Questions ………………………………………………………... 17Restating Or Paraphrasing ………………………………………………………….. 17Identifying Feelings ………………………………………………………………….. 17Acknowledging Underlying Values ……………………………………………….. 18Tips ……………………………………………………………………………………. 19

DEALING WITH AN INFLEXIBLE BUREAUCRAT ……………………………… 20Going To The Superior ……………………………………………………………… 21Trying To Establish A Positive Relationship With The Inflexible Bureaucrat

By Being Polite And Respectful ………………………………………………….. 21Threats ………………………………………………………………………………… 22Exaggerating Or Stretching The Truth …………………………………………….. 22Focusing on What Is Fair ……………………………………………………………. 23Providing Information ………………………………………………………………. 23Directing The Inflexible Bureaucrat To What You Think Is The Right Answer . 24Asking The Inflexible Bureaucrat Questions That May Lead Them To The

Answer, Rather Than Telling Them What They Should Do …………………… 25Focusing On Who Is Right And Who Is Wrong …………………………………… 25Using Silence …………………………………………………………………………. 26Brainstorming Possible Options With An Inflexible Bureaucrat ……………….. 26Putting The Onus On The Inflexible Bureaucrat To Find A Solution ………….. 27Knowing Your Audience …………………………………………………………… 28

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont’d.

Focusing On The Positive …………………………………………………………… 28Focusing On Interests ……………………………………………………………….. 29Challenging The Rule ……………………………………………………………….. 29Focusing On Standards of Legitimacy …………………………………………….. 30Knowing and Understanding the Value of Your Best Alternative To A

Negotiated Settlement (BATNA) ………………………………………………… 30Tips ……………………………………………………………………………………. 31

NEGOTIATION TENDENCIES ……………………………………………………… 32People Who Have A Tendency To Be Analytical ………………………………… 32People Who Have A Tendency To Seek Justice ………………………………….. 33People Who Have A Tendency To Seek Results …………………………………. 34People Who Have A Tendency To Avoid Hostility ……………………………… 34People Who Have A Tendency To Focus On Relationship ……………………… 35Tips ……………………………………………………………………………………. 35

MAKING THE FIRST OFFER OR PUTTING FORWARD THE FIRST NUMBER 36Tips …………………………………………………………………………………….. 37

HOW MUCH INFORMATION SHOULD YOU SHARE? ………………………… 38Tips ……………………………………………………………………………………. 39

IS IT IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO APPEAR TO BE REASONABLE? …………… 40Tips …………………………………………………………………………………….. 41

SHOULD YOU MISLEAD IN NEGOTIATION? …………………………………… 42The Prisoner’s Dilemma ……………………………………………………………... 42One-Time Negotiations ………………………………………………………………. 44Strategies For Dealing With The Prisoner’s Dilemma ……………………………. 45

Don’t be envious …………………………………………………………………. 45Don’t be the first to defect or deceive …………………………………………. 45Reciprocate both co-operation and defection/deception ……………………. 46Don’t try to be too clever ………………………………………………………… 47

Tips ……………………………………………………………………………………. 48

WHEN YOU SHOULD WALK AWAY FROM A NEGOTIATION ANDWHEN SHOULD YOU ACCEPT WHAT IS OFFERED ………………………... 49When Should You Say “Yes?” ………………………………………………………. 51Tips …………………………………………………………………………………….. 52

NEGOTIATING IN PAIRS OR TEAMS …………………………………………….. 53Advantages of Negotiating In Pairs Or Teams …………………………………… 53Disadvantages of Negotiating In Pairs Or Teams ………………………………… 54Ideas To Consider When Preparing to Negotiate As A Team …………………… 54Strategies To Consider When Negotiating In Pairs Or As Part Of A Team ……. 55Tips …………………………………………………………………………………..… 57

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont’d.

DIFFICULTIES IN NEGOTIATION …………………………………………………. 58Steamrolling With Information ……………………………………………………... 58Assuming A Deal …………………………………………………………………….. 60You Commit, I Decide ……………………………………………………………….. 61Unreasonable First Offers …………………………………………………………… 61Mixing The People And The Problem ……………………………………………… 62Being Obstinate ………………………………………………………………………. 63

Tips ………………………………………………………………………………………... 64

INDEX ………………………………………. …………………………………………….. 65

4

POSITIONAL VERSUS INTEREST-BASED NEGOTIATION1

POSITIONAL NEGOTIATING

In positional or competitive bargaining, the negotiators begin with an exchange of

positions. A position is a specific proposal or suggested solution. The negotiators

usually then argue about why their position should be accepted. Concessions may or

may not be made. If an agreement is reached, it is normally a compromise between two

positions.

INTEREST-BASED NEGOTIATING

In interest-based negotiation, the negotiators focus on each sides’ interests and try to

create options that will satisfy those interests. Interests are the underlying needs,

desires, wants, goals, and concerns behind the positions.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POSITIONS AND INTERESTS

Positions are specific proposals or solutions, which have been designed to satisfy

interests. A position can be satisfied in only one way. Interests, on the other hand, are

the underlying needs, desires, concerns, and fears that the person is trying to satisfy by

adopting a position. Interests can be satisfied in many ways.

Positional negotiating involves starting with the answer (the position) and then

discussing possibilities and concerns. Interest-based negotiating involves starting with

needs, exploring possibilities, and arriving at answers (or positions) at the end of the

negotiation rather than at the beginning.

1 © 2002 Stitt Feld Handy Group. This material may not be reproduced without the permission ofthe Stitt Feld Handy Group. C01022

5

CHOOSING BETWEEN POSITIONAL NEGOTIATING AND INTEREST-BASED

NEGOTIATING

Positional Negotiating - Advantages

The advantages of positional negotiating include:

• It may achieve a very good substantive result.

• It may result in a quick deal.

• It may not require a lot of preparation.

• It may convey to the other side that you feel strongly about your position.

Positional Negotiating - Disadvantages

The disadvantages of positional negotiating include:

• The negotiation may result in an agreement that is not the best possible

agreement.

• The people negotiating may fail to reach an agreement even though there

were good agreements that could have been negotiated.

• The relationship between the two negotiators may be damaged.

• Opportunities for creative options may be missed.

Interest-Based Negotiation-Advantages

The advantages of interest-based negotiation include:

• There is a greater likelihood that agreement will be reached that satisfies

the interests of the negotiators.

• Focusing on interests promotes creativity and there is a greater likelihood

that options will be generated that create value.

• The relationship will likely be maintained or even enhanced.

Interest-Based Negotiation-Disadvantages

The disadvantages of interest-based negotiation include:

• It can take more time to prepare for and participate in an interest-based

negotiation.

• You may miss opportunities to take advantage of the other side.

• You may be perceived as weak by a positional negotiator.

6

FINDING OUT OTHERS’ INTERESTS

It may be difficult to determine the interests of others’ because:

• Others may not be fully aware of their own interests.

• Others may not understand the value of sharing their interests with you.

• Others may resist sharing their interests with you for fear that their

disclosing their interests will give you a strategic advantage.

To encourage others to identify and discuss their interests, you may:

• Ask others why they take the position they do (for what purpose).

• Ask them why particular solutions do not satisfy them.

• Ask them how they will be better off if their position is accepted.

• Ask them how the situation has affected them.

• Ask them where they see themselves in five years.

• Ask what they hope to achieve in the negotiation.

• Ask whether something has changed, and if so, what has changed to lead

to their position.

• Ask what the situation would look like if it were improved tomorrow.

• Ask them to explain how they arrived at their position.

• Use silence to allow the other person to fill the vacuum.

• Share your own interests.

• Show others that you are open to listen to them.

If other negotiators are unwilling to discuss their interests, you may want to imagine

yourself in the other person’s shoes and consider what their interests might be.

GENERATING OPTIONS

Once the interests have been identified you may try to generate options that might

satisfy those interests. In coming up with options, you may consider the following:

• You may find it helpful to separate the creativity of coming up with

options from the process of analyzing the options. You may want to

create as many options as you can with the other side and then review the

options to determine which options make the most sense.

7

• One way to generate options is to brainstorm. Brainstorming involves

thinking creatively and coming up with a list of possible solutions.

• A recommended ground rule of brainstorming is that no one be bound by

or committed to options that they generate. Options are not offers. A

second recommended ground rule is that people who are brainstorming

should refrain from criticizing or evaluating the options as they are being

generated.

• Brainstorming can turn the negotiation process from a competitive one

into a joint problem-solving exercise. When negotiators exchange

positions, the process can become adversarial and it can create a dynamic

of competition. When negotiators brainstorm, they work together to

identify options that satisfy the interests of both sides.

• Brainstorming may allow you opportunities to create value or “expand

the pie.”

• Once the options have been brainstormed, the negotiators can review the

options to determine which ones they want to explore further, and which

ones may lead to a mutually beneficial negotiated agreement.

POINTS TO CONSIDER IN AN INTEREST-BASED NEGOTIATION

• When you are asking other negotiators questions about their interests, you

are not trying to force them to justify their interests; you are trying to get

clarity about what their interests are.

• Try to uncover as many of other peoples’ interests as you can. People

often have more than one interest and some of their interests may conflict.

• The other negotiator may have constituents whose interests must be

satisfied. Therefore, it can be helpful to try to identify who those other

people might be (e.g., a partner, a spouse, a boss, etc.) and what their

interests might be.

• It may be helpful to focus on the interests you would like to have met in

the future and not on the interests that were not met in the past.

• Opposing interests are not necessarily bad. Sometimes agreement is

possible because people have different interests and the interests are

complimentary.

8

• It may be helpful to acknowledge the other negotiator’s interests once you

understand them. Acknowledging someone’s interests is not the same as

saying that you share them or that they will all be satisfied; it is simply

indicating to that person that you have heard and understood their needs,

desires and concerns.

• Once the interests have been identified, brainstorming can be used to

identify as many options as possible.

• You may find it effective to talk about interests before you talk about

potential solutions. If you start with a potential solution (your position)

and then try to justify why the solution is appropriate given your

interests, the other negotiator may be less able to hear your interests and

generate options than if you start the discussion by identifying both sets of

interests and then explore possible solutions together.

9

TIPS

• focus on the interests behind positions

• know your own interests

• try to find out the other side’s interest

• ask “why” and “why not” to get at others’ interests

• ask others how they will be better off if their positions are accepted

• try to avoid taking positions at the start of the negotiation; instead, try

to find solutions that meet underlying interests

• brainstorm options that may meet interests

• set ground rules during brainstorming: no commitment to options and

no criticism of options

10

MAKING ASSUMPTIONS2

Some of us are too quick to make assumptions in negotiations. When we do, we risk

that:

• we may be wrong

• others may be put off by our making assumptions

• we may close our mind to other possibilities.

We tend to look for evidence that supports our assumptions, and we see facts so as to

support our assumptions. In order to avoid the dangers inherent in making

assumptions, we can try to:

• keep an open mind

• continually test assumptions that we are making

• ask whether our assumptions are valid.

TIPS

• try to avoid making assumptions

• test your hypothesis to see whether your assumptions are valid.


11

SALES AND COLD CALLING3

In sales, you may have to try to sell to someone who doesn’t want to talk to you; that is,

you may have to make a cold call. People you are trying to sell to may be:

• busy

• in a hurry

• disinterested

You will need strategies that encourage the other person to stay and listen to your pitch.

You may want to consider the following:

• Find out what they need rather than telling them what you are selling.

The days of making a pitch and waiting for the order are over. The pitch

has to meet the clients’ needs.

• Be careful making assumptions about what your clients want and need.

The consequences of being wrong are too great.

• Consider starting your pitch by inviting the potential customers to

indicate that they in fact do not need or want the product. Tell them that

if your product or service is not for then, they should tell you right away

so that you don’t waste their time. Your invitation may be perceived as

refreshing and it may encourage them to listen. They will often respond

by asking what it is you are selling.

• People usually don’t like to feel pressured. While some will make

decisions because they feel as though they are in a corner, others will react

negatively to being forced to decide.

• People often do, however, work better when there are fixed time frames.

Provided the constraints are not so tight that they feel pressured, letting

them know that there are consequences to making no decision may force

their hand.

• People prefer to work with people they trust. If you are not scrupulously

honest, you will not be trusted and it will likely be harder to make a sale. 3 © 2002 Stitt Feld Handy Group. This material may not be reproduced without the permission ofthe Stitt Feld Handy Group. C01022

12

• People like freebies. Customers often appreciate gifts, no matter how

small. People sometimes feel obligated to give you an order if they

believe you have given them a gift with no guarantee of anything in

return.

• People appreciate it when you spend a lot of time with them and do extra

work to answer their questions and help them. If you show that you want

to help them, they may feel an obligation to try to help you. If you are

busy and don’t have a lot of time for them, do not expect them to have a

lot of time for you.

• People appreciate kindness. If you are sensitive to the fact that the people

you are trying to sell to are human beings, with feelings and time

constraints, they may be more open to what you have to say.

• People appreciate it when you have taken the time to learn about them.

Read their promotional material, have a look at their website, and show

them that you care about their business.

• Try to speak to decision-makers, but people don’t usually like being told

who in their organization should hear your pitch. You may be more

successful speaking to the person or people whose job it is to hear your

pitch.

• You may want to pause during your presentation to give your client the

opportunity to interject and ask questions. People have a tendency to stop

listening if they are not speaking as well as listening.

• It sometimes requires a number of attempts before people say yes. Some

people need time to think about whether they really need what it is you

are selling. Follow-up can be crucial.

• People prefer to deal with other people who are reliable. If you say you

will call back on a particular day and you do not call, you may be

perceived as unreliable.

• Some people discount everything that is said by someone who arrives late

for a meeting. Your tardiness can prevent you from making a sale that

you would otherwise have made.

13

TIPS

• ask questions first and pitch after

• give them the freedom to say no to you

• give people what they want, not what you are selling

• be on time, reliable, and scrupulously honest

• be generous with your time and, where feasible, be generous with token

gifts, even when you may not make a sale.

14

SPEAKING PERSUASIVELY4

We all want to be persuasive in negotiation. Usually, we tell others why we are right

and they are wrong. Unfortunately, telling others why they are wrong and should

agree with us is often the least effective way to be persuasive. To be more persuasive,

you may want to consider the following:

• Be open to be persuaded. If you want others to be open to be persuaded

by you, you need to show that you are open to be persuaded by them.

• Find out others’ concerns and try to address those concerns rather than

explaining why you are right and they are wrong. People are more likely

to be persuaded if their concerns are met.

• Try to remain curious. People do not hold beliefs that they know to be

irrational. Their positions make sense to them. Once you understand the

information they have and the way they interpret it, you are in a better

position to try to alter the way in which they interpret the information.

• Demonstrate that you have understood what the other person has said

before you share your differing viewpoint. If you listen to them, they may

be more likely to listen to you.

• Try to think about the message you want to send (the content), how to

send it (the form), and how the message might be heard.

• If you have something that you wish to say, try to frame it in a way that

the other negotiator can hear your message. Try to avoid questions that

are really statements in disguise and ask questions for the purpose of

obtaining information.

TIPS

• be open to be persuaded

• show that you are listening to them so that they will be encouraged to

listen to you


15

EFFECTIVE LISTENING5

Whether you negotiate in person, over the phone, or by e-mail, you are communicating.

Negotiation is communication for the purpose of exploring whether people can do

something together that is better than what they can do on their own. Better

communicators are usually better negotiators.

People often try to communicate by arguing why they are right. Often, however, telling

someone why you are right is the least effective way to persuade.

If you want to persuade someone, you will want to first understand how that person

sees the situation. Once you fully understand the other persons’ perceptions, you will

be better equipped to change them. Also, you may be more persuasive if you listen first

and then speak. To be an effective negotiator you will need to be an effective listener.

The benefits of effective listening are that it:

• allows you to gather important information about the other negotiator’s

interests, needs, concerns and feelings

• allows other negotiators to know that they have been heard

• builds trust between you and other negotiators

• helps to establish respectful relationships

• encourages disclosure

• provides an opportunity for venting

• provides other negotiators with the opportunity to hear how their

message is being received

• models the behaviour you would like the other negotiators to exhibit

when you speak

• allows you to determine whether you have correctly understood other

negotiators

• reduces other negotiators’ need to repeat arguments


16

INTERACTIVE LISTENING

“Interactive listening” involves listening by interacting with the other person – listening

by interacting in a way that allows the other person to feel heard and understood. The

techniques for interactive listening include:

• Using Open Body Language or Other Non-Verbal Clues

• Using Prompters

• Asking Clarifying Questions

• Restating or Paraphrasing

• Identifying Feelings

• Acknowledging Underlying Values

USING OPEN BODY LANGUAGE OR OTHER NON-VERBAL CLUES

We send messages with body language and we may want to consider the messages that

we send. For example:

• If we cross our arms and our legs, we may suggest that we do not agree

with what the other person is saying, even though that may not be the

message we want to send.

• The amount of direct eye contact we make may suggest to others the

extent of our sincerity.

• Our facial expressions may suggest to others that we disagree with what

they are saying.

• If we use open body language, that may suggest to others that we are

interested and listening.

USING PROMPTERS

Prompters are simple verbal cues you can use to encourage the other negotiator to say

more. They include comments such as:

• uh huh

• I see

• go on

• tell me more about that

17

ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS

You ask questions for the purpose of clarifying information provided by the other

person. They are genuine attempts to obtain information, as opposed to questions

asked for the purpose of persuading. Examples of clarifying questions could include:

• You said that you have data that suggests that your salary is too low, what

data do you have?

• Does the guarantee cover dents to the car?

RESTATING OR PARAPHRASING

Restating or paraphrasing is repeating, in your own words, what you have heard the

other person say, and checking with the other person to make sure that you have

correctly captured his or her comments. Examples of paraphrasing could include:

• It sounds as though the three major issues you feel we should discuss

today are: the completion dates for the different stages of the project, who

will be responsible for supervision, and cost, is that right?

• Let me make sure I understand you correctly, you are saying that any

agreement we reach today would have to include a provision that protects

you should we not be able to honour our promissory note, is that right?

IDENTIFYING FEELINGS

People sometimes become emotional during a negotiation. The other negotiator may

become angry, frustrated, upset or offended, for example. Identifying the feelings and

acknowledging that you have recognized that those feelings exist lets other negotiators

know that you are paying attention to their emotional responses as well as the content

of what they are saying. This may provide other negotiators with an opportunity to

manage their emotions so that the focus can return to the substantive issues. How and

when you choose to identify emotions in a negotiation will depend upon:

• your personal style

• your relationship with the other person

• your assessment of what might be helpful to the other person

• the circumstances in which the negotiation is taking place

18

Some examples of how you might identify the other negotiator’s emotions include:

• It made you angry when I did not acknowledge how hard you had

worked to complete the report on time, is that right?

• Would it be fair to say that you were frustrated by the response you

received from us when you raised your concerns?

ACKNOWLEDGING UNDERLYING VALUES

Each of us has underlying values which guide our behaviour. We also interpret the

behaviour of others according to whether it aligns with our values. Examples of

underlying values include:

• a desire to be treated fairly

• a desire to act with integrity

• the belief that one should contribute to those who are less fortunate.

Often, people in negotiation believe that one of their underlying values has been

violated. Frequently, however, people talk about the offending behaviour which

violated the value without expressing the underlying value. For example, a negotiator

may argue that you are posturing and being unreasonable. The underlying value may

be that it is important to the negotiator that people negotiate in good faith. It can be

helpful in a negotiation to acknowledge the other person’s underlying values that are

not being stated. An example of a statement designed to acknowledge an underlying

value is:

• When you say that you have been unfairly treated by the company, it

sounds like it’s important to you that people treat each other with respect,

is that right?”

19

TIPS

• try to listen interactively when the other person says something that you

disagree with or want to argue about

• try to show others that you are listening by interacting with them

• try to use open body language

• use prompters, paraphrase, ask clarifying questions, and acknowledge

their emotions

• try to determine the underlying value in what they are saying and ask

them whether you have accurately determined the value

• try to show that you have heard before you respond.

20

DEALING WITH AN INFLEXIBLE BUREAUCRAT6

When negotiating with inflexible bureaucrats, you may encounter a number of

challenges:

• They may have limited time to deal with your concerns.

• You may be perceived as simply one in a sea of abundant clients.

• They may have partisan perceptions of you and your problem, in the

sense that they may, without adequate information or reflection, unfairly

pigeonhole you and your problem into a category of clients or problems

that they have dealt with in the past.

• They may see little or no consequence to not making you happy.

• Because you may have to negotiate over the telephone rather than in

person:

• there may be opportunities for miscommunication;

• you may not be able to pick up on the other negotiator’s

non-verbal cues;

• it may be more difficult to establish a rapport;

• it may be easier for the person you are dealing with to exit

the negotiation by hanging up the telephone.

There is no magic formula for dealing with these challenges; however, there are basic

strategies you may consider using. Each of the strategies has risks and benefits and

deciding which strategy to use involves weighing the risks and benefits. If the first

strategy you try does not succeed, you may want to try a different strategy.

Consider the benefits and risks of the following strategies.


21

GOING TO THE SUPERIOR

Benefits:

• Asking to speak to a superior may shift the negotiation to another person

who can override the subordinate’s decision.

• The superior may be more reasonable than the subordinate.

• The superior may have more authority to deal with the problem than the

subordinate.

• The superior may care more about keeping clients happy.

Risks:

• The subordinate could perceive your request to speak to a superior as a

threat.

• The superior may be removed from the details of the situation.

• Superiors often do not like to override the decisions of subordinates. The

superior may try to defend the actions of the subordinate.

• You may get sidetracked into a debate about whether the subordinate

acted reasonably rather than a discussion focused on finding a solution

that meets your needs.

• The superior may be more difficult to deal with than the subordinate.

• The superior may have less time and be less open to dealing with the

problem than the subordinate.

TRYING TO ESTABLISH A POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INFLEXIBLE

BUREAUCRAT BY BEING POLITE AND RESPECTFUL

Benefits:

• You may get more with honey than with vinegar. It may be difficult for

people to agree with you if they perceive you as unpleasant.

• Front line service people have to deal with impatient and rude people all

the time and they do not like it. You stand out from the crowd when you

are polite and respectful. This may set you up for special treatment.

• People tend to agree with others when they believe others are acting

reasonably. Being polite and respectful sends the message that you are

reasonable and that what you are asking for is reasonable.

22

Risks:

• Some people see politeness and respectfulness as a sign of weakness. They

may think that they can bully you.

THREATS

Benefits:

• The inflexible bureaucrat might be intimidated and give in.

Risks:

• People who are threatened often react by threatening back or by trying to

exit the situation. A threat can put an end to a negotiation or create an

unproductive exchange of threats.

• Threatening others may make it more difficult for them to listen to you

and be sympathetic to you and your situation.

• Your threat may be perceived as unreasonable. That unreasonableness

may taint everything you say.

• Threatening can damage a relationship and prevent inflexible bureaucrats

from considering options that they otherwise might have considered.

EXAGGERATING OR STRETCHING THE TRUTH

Benefits:

• You might get more attention if the bureaucrat thinks your situation is

worse than it really is.

• You may be able to trick the bureaucrat into giving you what you want.

Risks:

• Lies are often easier to discover than liars think.

• If inflexible bureaucrats think you are exaggerating or lying, they may

stop trusting you. Everything that you say may appear suspect, including

your story, your concerns, and your positions.

• If the inflexible bureaucrat believes that you are exaggerating, the person

may also perceive you as unreasonable, with an unreasonable story and

23

unreasonable demands. Inflexible bureaucrats do not like to say yes to

people they perceive as unreasonable.

• Inflexible bureaucrats may believe that you are trying to take advantage of

them if they believe you are exaggerating. Your reasonable position could

get lost in the emotion you create by the exaggerating or lying.

• If you are found to have exaggerated, the inflexible bureaucrat may not

want to negotiate with you and may try to end the negotiation.

FOCUSING ON WHAT IS FAIR

Benefits:

• Most people want to be fair, be perceived as fair and do what is fair. If

people believe that what you are asking for is fair, they are more likely to

want to try to help you.

• It is harder for the inflexible bureaucrat to walk away from the negotiation

if you are asking to be treated fairly.

• You can use fairness as an objective standard for determining which

option should be accepted.

Risks:

• Different people have different perceptions of what is fair. Their

perception of what is fair may be very different from yours.

• You may be perceived as being on your “high horse”.

• Some people are more interested in what is in it for them and those they

work for than what is fair. They may decide to do what is good for them

even if it is unfair.

PROVIDING INFORMATION

Benefits:

• If you make a demand before others understand the problem, they may

have a knee-jerk rejection of your suggestion. Providing information can

help them to understand your problem and may help them to identify

possible solutions.

24

• An inflexible bureaucrat may pigeonhole you and your problem.

Information may help the inflexible bureaucrat classify the situation and

get you out of a pigeonhole. You might even be able to convince the other

person that your situation is unique and that it does not fit into a

preconceived pigeonhole.

Risks:

• Providing information takes time; you might be able to get what you want

without a detailed story.

• The information you are providing may not seem relevant or useful to

inflexile bureaucrats. As a result, they may become frustrated or stop

listening.

• If you provide too much detailed information, the inflexible bureaucrat

may not be able to see the forest for the trees.

DIRECTING THE INFLEXIBLE BUREAUCRAT TO WHAT YOU THINK IS THE

RIGHT ANSWER

Benefits:

• The inflexible bureaucrat might agree with you.

• Telling the inflexible bureaucrat what the right answer is can send a clear

message about what you think and what you are prepared to accept.

• Saying what you want conveys confidence and may give you credibility.

• Being direct can save time.

Risks:

• People do not like to be told what to do and what the right answer is, even

if the answer is a good one. Sometimes they need to be able to come to the

answer themselves before they see it as credible.

• When you give inflexible bureaucrats the “right answer”, they are faced

with a choice: agreeing or disagreeing. By forcing them to make the

choice, you run the risk that they may say no and exit from the

25

negotiation. It may be too early in the negotiation to force the inflexible

bureaucrat’s hand.

ASKING THE INFLEXIBLE BUREAUCRAT QUESTIONS THAT MAY LEAD THEM

TO THE ANSWER, RATHER THAN TELLING THEM WHAT THEY SHOULD DO

Benefits:

• People are more likely to want to implement a solution if they think they

came up with it.

• You appear to be less pushy and more reasonable.

Risks:

• An indirect route can take more time.

• You may appear to be confused, unprepared and tentative.

• You may send the message that the problem is not as important to you as

it really is.

• Some inflexible bureaucrats may not be able to come to solutions on their

own.

• Asking questions may appear to be patronizing.

FOCUSING ON WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG

Benefits:

• You may be able to convince the inflexible bureaucrat that you are right.

• Since most people want to do the right thing, if you are right, the inflexible

bureaucrat may be more inclined to say yes to you.

• If the “wrong” person is somebody other than the inflexible bureaucrat,

you may be able to shift the blame to that third party.

• There may be no way of resolving the matter without focusing on who is

right and who is wrong.

Risks:

• Few people like to admit that they are wrong.

• Even if you do not mean to criticize or attack inflexible bureaucrats, they

may perceive your focus on who is right and who is wrong as criticisms or

26

attacks. Suggesting to inflexible bureaucrats that they have made

mistakes may make them more resistant to everything you propose.

• Focusing on who is right and who is wrong focuses the discussion on the

past. Solutions are usually found in the present and in the future.

Focussing on the past can put distance between you and a discussion

about solutions.

USING SILENCE

Benefits:

• Being silent encourages others to talk and to provide information.

• When people are thinking through issues, they sometimes need time to

think. Silence can give them that opportunity.

Risks:

• If used at the wrong time, silence may be seen as a negotiation tactic by

others.

• If you are silent when an answer is expected of you, others may become

frustrated, may believe you are trying to make something up, may see you

as confused and unmotivated, or may simply believe, in the case of a

telephone negotiation, that you have hung up.

BRAINSTORMING POSSIBLE OPTIONS WITH AN INFLEXIBLE BUREAUCRAT

Benefits:

• Brainstorming may lead you to solutions you had not considered.

• There are often many solutions to a problem and some of these solutions

are frequently better than others. It is not uncommon, however, for

people to miss an elegant option because they have failed to generate all

of the possible options. Brainstorming can increase the likelihood of

exploring all of the potential options.

• Brainstorming can help change the direction of a negotiation. It can help

pivot the negotiation into a discussion of options and away from who is

right and who is wrong.

• Brainstorming can create an environment of joint problem solving.

27

Risks:

• Brainstorming requires more time than focusing directly on a particular or

limited number of solutions. If you are dealing with people who are tired,

busy, and want to resolve issues as quickly as possible, brainstorming

might annoy them.

• You may be perceived as not knowing what you want.

• An inflexible bureaucrat may see your request to brainstorm as

patronizing.

PUTTING THE ONUS ON THE INFLEXIBLE BUREAUCRAT TO FIND A

SOLUTION

Benefits:

• Playing to the expertise of inflexible bureaucrats can empower them and

give them the sense of controlling the situation. The perception that they

are in control may encourage them to continue the negotiation, and

perhaps find a solution to the problem.

• The inflexible bureaucrat may know of solutions that you have not

considered.

• If inflexible bureaucrats come up with a solution, they may be more likely

to want to implement it.

• Inflexible bureaucrats may have an understanding of the situation that

you do not have. Hearing their view may provide you with important

information.

Risks:

• You may appear not to know what you want.

• The inflexible bureaucrat may not care enough to find a solution.

• You may not like the solution that the inflexible bureaucrat proposes.

• If inflexible bureaucrats believe that you share some blame for your

predicament, they might believe that you should share some

responsibility of finding a solution.

28

KNOWING YOUR AUDIENCE

Benefits:

• If you understand how inflexible bureaucrats see things, you may be able

to predict how they will react. You may be able to put yourself in their

shoes, ask yourself how they are likely to react to what you are about to

say or do, and then ask yourself whether that is the reaction you want. For

example:

• Will asking to speak to a superior be perceived as a threat?

• If you suggest to inflexible bureaucrats that they are under stress, will

they see this as a suggestion that they were wrong?

• If you praise the inflexible bureaucrat, will you appear patronizing?

• It forces you to see the negotiation from the inflexible bureaucrat’s

perspective. The first step in building a strategy to get somebody to

change their mind is to understand how they see the problem.

• It may help you to anticipate challenges in the negotiation. If you know

what to expect, you will likely be better prepared.

Risks:

• You may become so focused on the inflexible bureaucrat’s perspective that

you lose sight of your agenda and what is important to you.

FOCUSING ON THE POSITIVE

Benefits:

• People like to deal with others who are positive.

• By recognizing the positive things that the inflexible bureaucrat does, you

may appear more reasonable. People like to agree with those they

consider reasonable.

• Inflexible bureaucrats may be less likely to exit the negotiation if they hear

positive things.

Risks:

• You may appear to be patronizing.

• You may be perceived as weak and unfocused.

29

• It may leave the inflexible bureaucrat with the impression that you were

not treated as unfairly as you believe you were.

FOCUSING ON INTERESTS

Benefits:

• People tend to act in their best interest or in the best interest of the

organization they represent. If inflexible bureaucrats understand how a

solution or a course of action is in their best interest, they may be more

likely to accept it.

• Understanding inflexible bureaucrats’ interests may help you come up

with solutions that they can accept. If you know their interests, you will

have a better sense of which solutions are likely to be attractive to them

and which are not.

• Helping inflexible bureaucrats understand your interests may help them

understand what is important to you and why.

• If inflexible bureaucrats understand your interests, they are more likely to

understand your position.

Risks:

• Understanding and finding underlying interests may take time.

• If you focus on your interests, inflexible bureaucrats may be encouraged

to focus on theirs. This may lead them to reject solutions they might

otherwise have accepted were they not as focused on all of their interests.

CHALLENGING THE RULE

Benefits:

• Where inflexible bureaucrats invoke a rule to justify a course of action,

challenging the legitimacy of the rule may get them to reconsider whether

they should apply the rule to your situation.

• It may be possible to challenge the application of the rule to your

circumstance without challenging the rule itself. You may be able to argue

that the rule is appropriate but it simply does not apply to your

circumstances.

30

• You may be able to convince the inflexible bureaucrat that applying the

rule to your situation defeats the purpose behind the rule.

• The person you are dealing with may not like the rule.

Risks:

• The person you are dealing with may have no discretion to disregard the

rule and may be annoyed and frustrated by the discussion.

• The inflexible bureaucrat may hide behind the rule and lose the desire to

help you.

FOCUSING ON STANDARDS OF LEGITIMACY

Benefits:

• If you can demonstrate that your solution fits with objective standards,

you may be able to persuade inflexible bureaucrats to implement your

solution because they may perceive it as fair.

Risks:

• If you have decided that you want more than what is fair in the

negotiation, focusing on standards of legitimacy may focus the inflexible

bureaucrat away from your goal.

• Inflexible bureaucrats may have other standards that they can refer to that

do not support your preferred solution.

• Finding and comparing standards may take a lot of time.

KNOWING AND UNDERSTANDING THE VALUE OF YOUR BEST

ALTERNATIVE TO A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT (BATNA)7

Benefits:

• Your BATNA is what you will do if you cannot reach an agreement.

Knowing your BATNA provides you with something to measure against

potential solution. If the solution proposed is better than your BATNA,

you should agree to it. If not, you should reject it in favour of your

BATNA.

7 Fisher Roger and William Ury, Getting To Yes, Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Penguin Books,New York, 1981

31

• Knowing your BATNA helps you to assess whether to accept or reject a

potential solution.

• You may appear more confident in the negotiation if you know and

understand what you will do if you do not reach an agreement.

Risks:

• You may cave in too early (say yes to the first thing that is better than your

BATNA) and not push to get the best possible deal.

• You may appear nervous if you know that the result of walking away

from the negotiation is bad for you.

TIPS

When dealing with inflexible bureaucrats:

• try to find solutions that meet their interests

• try to be polite, respectful, and establish a positive relationship

• show that you understand their constraints and are open to creative

solutions

• treat them as experts and create a challenge for them to find a solution

to your dilemma

• know what you will do if they refuse to help you

32

NEGOTIATION TENDENCIES8

Every negotiator has a unique style. If we were to examine styles closely, however, we

would notice that many people in negotiations exhibit common tendencies. People may

be analytical, seek justice, seek results, avoid hostility, or focus on relationships.

Most negotiators possess a combination of tendencies, and while they will usually have

a dominant tendency that will take over in most of their negotiations, they will likely

have different tendencies dominate in different situations. While some of us are aware

of our dominant tendencies, others are unaware of how they are perceived in

negotiations. If you become more conscious of your negotiating style, you can draw on

the advantages and minimize the disadvantages of your style.

In addition to knowing your own negotiation tendencies, it can be helpful to be aware

of the tendencies that other negotiators exhibit. The other negotiator may have different

dominant tendencies or the same dominant tendencies as you.

When reviewing the advantages and disadvantages associated with the tendencies

(listed below), please note that the advantages and disadvantages relate to an

individual tendency and not an individual negotiator.

PEOPLE WHO HAVE A TENDENCY TO BE ANALYTICAL

Advantages

The advantages enjoyed by people who have a tendency to be analytical may include an

ability to:

• identify issues

• identify symptoms of a problem

• deal rationally with issues

• work efficiently and quickly

• separate people from the problem


33

• have creative and flexible thought processes

• be good at organizing

Disadvantages

The disadvantages may include an inability to:

• deal well with emotions

• arrive at a fair outcome

• listen effectively

• be sensitive to concerns of others

• step back and see the big picture

• consider that there may be many possible good solutions

• conclude negotiations quickly

PEOPLE WHO HAVE A TENDENCY TO SEEK JUSTICE

Advantages

The advantages enjoyed by people who seek justice may include an ability to:

• improve relationships

• defend results

• remain open-minded

• negotiate with a clear conscience

• accept merits of others’ positions

• maintain a good reputation

Disadvantages


• be perceived as strong negotiators

• conclude a negotiation quickly

• be open to others’ assessment of fairness

• get the best substantive deal

34

PEOPLE WHO HAVE A TENDENCY TO SEEK RESULTS

Advantages

The advantages enjoyed by people who seek results may include an ability to:

• get good results

• be focused and well-prepared

• be satisfied with results

• appear persistent and tenacious

• have a strong reputation with clients and constituents

• conclude the negotiation quickly

Disadvantages


• take into account others’ concerns

• hear others’ ideas

• maintain a good relationship during and after the negotiation

• reach a deal at all, even when there are deals that can be reached

PEOPLE WHO HAVE A TENDENCY TO AVOID HOSTILITY

Advantages

The advantages enjoyed by people who avoid hostility may include an ability to:

• anticipate problems before they arise

• be open to new ideas

• emphasize the positive

• avoid getting locked into positions

• maintain (or even improve) relationships

• learn about the concerns and interests of others

Disadvantages


• deal with issues that need to be addressed

• defend one’s own position, interests and objectives

• negotiate effectively with a tough bargainer

• avoid making inappropriate concessions

35

• investigate all of the options

• avoid a damaging blow-up at the end of the negotiation

• be perceived as strong

PEOPLE WHO HAVE A TENDENCY TO FOCUS ON RELATIONSHIP

Advantages

The advantages enjoyed by people who focus on relationships may include an ability to:

• take long-term view of situations and relationships

• encourage others to communicate

• enhance trust

• maintain credibility and a good relationship

• anticipate needs of others

• negotiate with less stress

Disadvantages


• protect oneself from being taken advantage of

• focus on the problem rather than on the emotion

• negotiate without being exploited

• bargain without making concessions

• negotiate effectively when there is no on-going relationship.

TIPS

• know your dominant tendencies and their advantages

• try to protect yourself from the disadvantage of your dominant tendencies

• know that others may have different dominant tendencies than you

• try to assess their dominant tendencies

• try, however, not to stereotype people as having only one tendency

36

MAKING THE FIRST OFFER OR PUTTING FORWARD THE FIRST

NUMBER9

Most people prefer to receive rather than make the first offer. Advantages of receiving

the first number (receiving the first offer) include:

• you learn information about how the other side sees the situation

• you can gauge whether a deal is likely to be reached

• you get a sense of what kind of offer you should make

• the offer may be very good - better than what would have been your first

offer

• it feels more comfortable to receive rather than give information

Disadvantages of making the first offer include:

• it could be too generous and the other side may accept it

• it may be perceived as too extreme and the other side may react angrily

and walk out

On the other hand, there are benefits to putting forward the first number or making the

first offer. They include:

• you set the “playing field,” the zone in which the discussion will focus

• because most people like to receive the first number, you can avoid the

awkward and time-consuming phase of negotiation where both sides wait

for the other to put forward a number

• you can control the process in the way you make the offer by, for example,

justifying your offer based on objective criteria and thereby encouraging

others to justify their offers


37

Disadvantages of receiving the first number include:

• the other side may never make an offer

• you sacrifice control of the negotiation

If you are going to put forward the first number, you may consider:

• putting it forward as an option rather than as a demand or even an offer

• avoiding starting with a “final offer”

• putting forward the number based on objective criteria and asking

whether the criteria are accurate

• expressing that you are open to be persuaded that the offer is not fair

People usually like to engage in the “negotiation dance” and make some counter-offers,

so it can be dangerous to have your first offer be your best offer. One idea is to start by

looking at all of the possible offers that you could reasonable argue are fair, and

choosing the one that is the best for you.

TIPS

• consider the benefits of putting forward the first number or first offer

on a negotiation

• leave room in your first offer for the negotiation dance

• try to justify your offers based on objective criteria

38

HOW MUCH INFORMATION SHOULD YOU SHARE?10

Deciding whether to share a piece of information with the other side involves

measuring the risks and benefits of sharing the information. People often withhold

more information than they should in a negotiation and when thinking about whether

to disclose information, you may want to consider:

� • There are benefits to sharing information about your needs in the

negotiation. People negotiate to try to satisfy needs that they have going

into the negotiation. It will be difficult for others to come up with

settlement options to satisfy your needs if they do not know those needs.

• Disclosure of information is not the same as agreeing to do something.

People often decide on the answer in negotiation (their position) before

they understand the needs of the other negotiators. An exchange about

what each side needs at the beginning of the negotiation can result in a

better, more creative, and durable deal that meets both sides’ needs.

• If you have information that is damaging to you, you have no obligation

to disclose it, and you can get a deal without revealing it, you may be

better off not revealing it.

• Before deciding to withhold information from the other side, you may

want to think about the importance of the relationship. Some people with

on-going and long-standing relationships expect you to make full

disclosure, and may become angry if they later learn that you withheld

information.

• Consider how the situation would appear to others if they find out later

about the information that you withheld. If that prospect worries you,

you may choose to disclose the information.

• If your BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) is worse

than the other side thinks, you may want to avoid revealing it to the other

side. Once others know your BATNA, they will only have to craft an offer


39

that is slightly better for you than your BATNA in order for you to

logically accept it. You may want to share your BATNA with the other

side only if, in your opinion, it is better than the other side believes it to

be.

TIPS

• consider the value of sharing information about your interests and

needs

• think about the possible consequences if the other side discovers

information that you chose not to share

• consider keeping your BATNA confidential if it is worse than the other

side thinks it is.

40

IS IT IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO APPEAR TO BE REASONABLE?3

When others perceive that you are threatening or perceive that you are not being

reasonable, they may hide information from you, be more reticent to make offers to

you, and consider the information you provide and your positions to be suspect.

People like to deal with and agree with people they perceive to be reasonable. If you

give them the impression that you are reasonable and fair, they may be more open to

consider your ideas and may be more willing to share information with you.

Most people perceive that they themselves are fair and reasonable. The challenge is to

persuade others that you are fair and reasonable.

In order to appear reasonable, you may want to:

• Be prepared to justify any offers you make. Reasonable people are able to

explain their positions logically and rationally. If you take a position or

make an offer that is arbitrary, others are less likely to perceive you as

reasonable.

• Treat others with respect and dignity. Reasonable people treat others

appropriately. Treat others the way you want them to treat you. Model

the behaviour you expect of others and you will encourage them to exhibit

that behaviour.

• Avoid taking unfair advantage of others. Reasonable people do not push

others around or take advantage of them. If you search for a deal that is

fair to you and fair to others, they are more likely to consider agreeing

with what you perceive to be fair.

• Listen to all the arguments and points of view before making up your

mind. Reasonable people know that they can make mistakes. If you show

yourself to be open to be persuaded, others are more likely to be open to

be persuaded by you.


41

• Be prepared to discuss options that you may not be prepared to accept.

Reasonable people make a distinction between what they are prepared to

discuss and what agreements they are prepared to make. Just because

you are discussing something does not mean that you will do it. If you

can leave commitment until the end of the negotiation and discuss issues

that are uncomfortable for you, others may be more open to discuss the

options that are uncomfortable for them.

TIPS

• to appear reasonable, justify offers that you make

• try to treat others with respect, and listen before you speak

• show that you are open to be persuaded

42

SHOULD YOU MISLEAD IN NEGOTIATION?11

We make promises during negotiations. Should we always follow through on our

promises or are there situations in which we should not do what we have said we

would do? If we are deceptive, lie, mislead, or defect from our agreement, that may get

us better short term results, but it could produce worse long term results and harm our

reputations.

THE PRISONER’S DILEMMA

Assume the following:

A murder is committed and the police suspect that two men committed

the crime together. The police have only enough evidence to convict each

of the suspects of “attempted murder”, a less serious crime. If convicted

of attempted murder, each suspect would go to jail for a short period of

time. The punishment for murder is a significant jail term. The two

suspects are arrested and separated from each other. In their separate

rooms, each is advised of the same offer: if one provides the information

necessary to convict the other of murder, the person who provides the

information will go free and the other person will receive the significant

jail term for murder; if both suspects implicate each other, both suspects

will receive the significant jail term. If neither suspect implicates the

other, each will receive the short jail term. Each criminal is told that the

other has been offered the same deal. The two suspects get a chance to

talk, and they promise each other that they will not tell the police the

information that would implicate the other.

This type of situation is what is known as a Prisoner’s Dilemma. The choice for each

accused is to “cooperate” with his co-accused and carry through with the agreement not

to talk to the police, or to defect from the agreement and provide the information to the

police. 11 © 2002 Stitt Feld Handy Group. This material may not be reproduced without the permission ofthe Stitt Feld Handy Group. C01022

43

Because this is a one-time negotiation, likely not to be repeated, one may assume that it

make sense for an accused to defect from the agreement and talk to the police. Yet if

both suspects choose this path, they will both go to jail for a long time. If they stick to

their agreement, they only go to jail for a short time. A Prisoner’s Dilemma can be a

one-time event (such as the example set out above), or a continuing series of events. An

example of the latter would be as follows:

Every month, you purchase gold from an international and potentially

disreputable jeweler in a foreign country. The way that you buy the gold

is that you are supposed to mail the cash to the jeweler on the same day

that the jeweler is supposed to mail the gold to you. If either of you does

not mail what you are supposed to, the other has no recourse, even

though you and the jeweler have agreed to mail each other on the same

day every month. (You agree to mail cash and the jeweler agrees to mail

the gold.) Each month, you must decide whether to cooperate with the

jeweler or defect from the agreement.

The decision each month of whether to stick with the agreement (cooperate) or defect is

impacted by the fact that both you and the jeweler know that this is not a one-time

negotiation, and your conduct will impact what the jeweler does next month. Does it

make sense to break your promise if you are in the last month of the agreement?

Perhaps yes, since you get the gold without paying for it, and there is no opportunity

for the jeweler to retaliate. But could you ever know for sure that you would never deal

with the jeweler again?

When we decide in a negotiation whether to be honest and whether to follow through

on agreements we have made, one of the factors we will have to consider whether a

decision to be deceptive, lie, or defect from an agreement will impact what the other

person does in future negotiations with us. In other words, we have to assess whether

the negotiation is a one-time event.

44

ONE-TIME NEGOTIATIONS

Deciding whether to treat a particular situation as a one-time negotiation may therefore

impact our decision about whether to deceive or stick to our word. Negotiators who

treat negotiations as one-time occurrences may:

• miss out on opportunities to develop the best solution

• encounter problems implementing the agreement reached

• undermine opportunities for future dealings

• create unnecessary tension or mistrust

Negotiators who treat negotiations as part of a series of dealings may:

• be taken advantage of in the short term

• give up current gains for the prospect of potential future gains that may

not arise

The vast majority of negotiations are not one-time events. If there may be future

negotiations with the same negotiator or if there may be issues with respect to the

implementation of what has been agreed, a negotiator will be taking a significant risk

by assuming that the negotiation is a one-time event.

Even if you decide the negotiation is a one-time event, that does not mean that lying or

deceiving is your best course of action. Lying may harm your reputation so that

negotiations with others will be adversely impacted. We rely on our reputations when

we negotiate, and when people trust us, we can achieve results that we cannot achieve

when they don’t trust us.

Also, some people are not comfortable with the ethics of lying and being deceptive.

Their morals do not allow them to lie, even if they are convinced that a negotiation is a

one-time event. Being able to sleep at night and look at yourself in the mirror may be

more important to you than economic gain.

That said, if you never defect from an agreement (even after the other side has

defected), others who are less scrupulous may continually take advantage of you. So

what is the best strategy?

45

STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH THE PRISONER’S DILEMMA

There have been studies that have explored different approaches to a Prisoner’s

Dilemma that is not a one-time event. Robert Alexrod12 conducted linked computer

tournaments in an attempt to determine a successful strategy in deciding whether to

deceive or cooperate when one is faced with a repeating Prisoner’s Dilemma. He

concluded that the most effective strategy is one of “Tit for Tat”. That strategy involves

starting by cooperating and then defecting from an agreement only after (and

immediately after) the other side deceives you and defects. In his article, “The

Evolution of Cooperation” Alexrod has four suggestions for doing well in these

situations:

1. Don't be envious.

2. Don't be the first to defect (or to deceive).

3. Reciprocate both cooperation and deception/defection.

4. Don't try to be too clever.

1. Don't be envious

For you to “win” a negotiation, you need not always “beat” the other

person. Being envious (i.e., demanding that your outcome be the same as

or better than the other side's) can undermine your ability to achieve your

own goals. Most negotiation situations are not "win/lose or "all or

nothing". It may be that for you to do well, the other person also has to do

well. Sometimes, you can beat the other person and get a worse result (for

you) than if you had cooperated.

2. Don't be the first to defect or deceive.

You can fundamentally and negatively alter the negotiating climate if you

are the first to lie or be deceptive. Having been burned, opposite parties

in negotiations are likely to see you as untrustworthy, and are likely to try

to find a way to reciprocate your deceptive conduct. They are likely to

reject your future attempts at cooperation, believing that you have an

2Alexrod, R., The Evolution of Cooperation, 1984, Basic Books

46

ulterior motive. They may not agree to work with you, even if doing so

makes sense for them (and for you). Once a destructive spiral has

commenced, it is very difficult to recover from it.

You have to decide in every negotiation whether you will be trustworthy.

How important is it for you to be trustworthy? Imagine negotiating with

someone you trust, and with someone you don't trust. The range of

possibilities discussed, the terms for implementation, and the tools for

enforcement will likely be very different in the two negotiations. The

negotiation with the untrustworthy person will likely be considerably

longer, more stressful and procedurally difficult, and at the end of the

day, you may still decide to say no. Further, you may be unwilling to

consider options that you would have considered if you had trusted the

other negotiator.

You can separate your trustworthiness from your level of trust of others.

You have complete control over your own trustworthiness, whether you

stick to your word, and whether you are scrupulously honest. Even if you

do not trust others, you can choose to be trustworthy. You can choose not

to be the first one to deceive.

That said, it may make sense to deceive if you know that the other person

will also deceive. The challenge of negotiation is that we rarely (if ever)

know in advance whether the other person will defect or tell the truth.

3. Reciprocate both co-operation and defection/deception.

Reciprocity can build stability and predictability in your negotiations. By

reciprocating cooperation, you indicate openness to achieving good

results for both people. On the other hand, if you retaliate when you are

deceived, that indicates that you will not be taken advantage of by the

other negotiator.

47

That said, once you have punished someone for deceiving you or for

defecting from an agreement, it may not make sense to continue to punish

indefinitely. Holding a grudge may not be to your advantage. Others

may regret their actions or may perceive that there has been a

miscommunication. Forgiveness, on occasion, can allow you to rebound

from deception or lack of cooperation. Those who are prepared,

periodically, to assume good motives in others and forgive perceived

injustices, may do better than those who punish and never forgive.

4. Don't try to be too clever.

If you have a purpose and are clear in your negotiations, the other side

will understand exactly what you are doing. It can therefore be helpful

for you to make it clear to the other side that if they cooperate, you will

cooperate as well. In addition to telling others that you will cooperate

with them (and asking them to cooperate with you), you can choose to

behave in a positive way, in the way that you want others to behave, and

in a way so that others perceive that cooperation will be beneficial for

them.

48

TIPS

As part of your preparation for any negotiation, you may want to ask yourself the

following set of questions:

• How trustworthy should I be?

• How trustworthy is the person I am dealing with?

• Is this a one-time negotiation?

• Do I need to “beat” the other side in order to win?

• What are the potential consequences of being deceptive or defecting

from an agreement I have made?

• What are potential gains I can achieve if we cooperate and trust each

other?

• Am I modeling behaviour that I want others to exhibit?

• Am I morally comfortable with my behaviour?

In considering your answers, you may choose to think about the following:

• You have complete control over how trustworthy you are, even if others

are untrustworthy

• You can sometimes achieve more by being cooperative than by being

competitive and aggressive

• If others are untrustworthy and deceptive, you may want to punish their

behaviour so as to discourage it in the future

• You may consider, after a time, forgiving what you consider to be

aggressive and deceptive behaviour

49

WHEN YOU SHOULD WALK AWAY FROM A NEGOTIATION AND

WHEN SHOULD YOU ACCEPT WHAT IS OFFERED13

People in negotiations need to know when they should continue negotiating and when

they should walk away and end the negotiation. It is not necessarily bad to walk away.

You should walk away from any agreement that is not as good for you as what you can

get if you walk away.

The courses of action you can take if you walk away are your “alternatives”. These are

the paths you can take or courses of action that you can follow if you do not reach

agreement. In most negotiations, you will have a number of alternatives and you will

not be indifferent from among the alternatives. Your best alternative, the best course of

action you can take if you do not reach an agreement at the negotiation, is your BATNA

(Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement).

If you cannot reach an agreement that is better than your BATNA, you should walk

away from the negotiation.

Before the negotiation starts, it may be helpful to do the following:

• Consider the courses of action you might take if you don’t reach an

agreement, the courses of action that do not involve the other side (your

alternatives).

• Decide which of the alternative courses of action you would follow if you

had to select only one (your BATNA).

• Make your BATNA as concrete as possible (try to determine exactly what

you would do and how you would do it).

• Try to improve your BATNA (because the better your BATNA, the better

the deal on the table will have to be for you to accept it).


50

• Assess the best-case scenario, worst-case scenario, and likely scenario of

following the course of action that is your BATNA.

• Think about how your BATNA would compare to possible deals that you

may reach.

• Consider the other side’s BATNA (what you think it might be).

At the end of the negotiation, before you accept what has been offered, it may be

helpful to:

• Compare what is offered with your BATNA.

• If what is offered is better than your BATNA, accept what is offered.

• If what is offered is not as good as your BATNA, thank the other person

and politely terminate the negotiation.

People sometimes accept a deal that is not as good as their BATNA, only to regret the

decision later. Reasons why people accept deals that are better than their BATNA

include:

• they have not figured out their BATNA

• they have not compared their BATNA to the offer they have accepted

• they feel pressure to settle

• they (erroneously) perceive that reaching a deal in negotiation is a success

and not reaching a deal is a failure

• they like the other person and don’t want to say no

• they have invested a lot of time in the negotiation

• they are negotiating on someone else’s behalf (clients, constituent, a boss)

and don’t agree with the instructions they have been given

• they are uncomfortable saying “no”

It usually makes sense for you to keep your BATNA confidential and not disclose it to

the other side. That said, there may be situations where it makes sense to disclose your

BATNA, such as:

• You may want to disclose your BATNA if, in your opinion, your BATNA

is better than the other person thinks it is.

51

• If you are about to walk away from the negotiation because the other side

is not offering anything better than your BATNA, you may consider first

disclosing your BATNA to see whether doing so causes the other side to

make an offer that is better than your BATNA.

• If you do disclose your BATNA, you may want to wait until the end of the

negotiation to do so because, once you disclose your BATNA, others will

know that they only need to offer something slightly better than your

BATNA for you to accept it.

WHEN SHOULD YOU SAY “YES?”

Not every offer that the other side makes that is better than your BATNA is the other

side’s “best offer”. Others may be prepared to make proposals that are significantly

better than your BATNA, and better than their initial offer. You will want to say yes to

a deal that you perceive is the best deal that the other side is prepared to make. In

making the assessment, you may consider:

• Few negotiators start with their best offer (as they often leave themselves

room to manoeuvre).

• Others will likely accept, at the end of the negotiation, any deal that is

better than their BATNA. If you can offer something that is better for

them than their BATNA, they are likely to accept.

• Their body language may suggest that they expect the discussions to

continue.

• People sometimes bluff in a negotiation.

• There may be opportunities to create value or “expand the pie”.

• People are more likely to be persuaded if you show yourself to be open to

be persuaded, and search for fair standards of legitimacy.

If you decide not to accept the other side’s offer where that offer is better than your

BATNA (whether or not you make a counter-offer), you risk the possibility that the

other side will withdraw the offer. You will be balancing the potential gains you may

garner by rejecting the offer with the risk of the other side withdrawing the offer. In

performing that balance, you may consider:

• The other side may make a final offer and not budge from that offer.

52

• If others perceive that you are respectful, reasonable, and fair, they are

more likely to continue negotiating with you and less likely to withdraw

an offer.

• If others have a good BATNA, it is easier for them to leave the table and

withdraw offers.

• People sometimes act illogically and contrary to their own interests if they

become angry or frustrated.

TIPS

• in every negotiation, figure out your Best Alternative To a Negotiated

Agreement (your BATNA)

• try to improve your BATNA and make it concrete

• only disclose your BATNA in the negotiation if it is better than the

other person thinks it is

• accept a deal only if it is better than your BATNA

• walk away from a negotiation if you cannot reach a deal that is better

than your BATNA

53

NEGOTIATING IN PAIRS OR TEAMS14

Teaming up with another person to negotiate has advantages and disadvantages.

ADVANTAGES OF NEGOTIATING IN PAIRS OR TEAMS

• It is difficult to talk and collect information at the same time. While one

person is talking, others can listen and collect information.

• While one person is talking, others can strategize about your side’s next

move.

• There is less chance of missing something important if there are more eyes

and ears at the table.

• A person who is not talking can observe body language. Many people do

not control the non-verbal cues they give. A negotiator may verbalize one

thing while his or her non-verbal demeanor says something different.

• The members of the negotiation team can monitor and temper each others’

behaviour.

• Negotiators on a team may have different negotiating styles and

approaches. This allows the team more versatility in the negotiation. The

team may develop a strategy so that the negotiators alternate taking the

lead because of their different styles.

• Having a number of people on a team allows different strengths to be

brought to the table. For example, one person may be a great negotiator

while another may be an expert on a technical issue.

• It may be appropriate to add a person of the right gender or cultural

background to your negotiation team.

• Having more people at the negotiation table trying to resolve an issue

may make it easier to generate innovative solutions.


54

DISADVANTAGES OF NEGOTIATING IN PAIRS OR TEAMS

• You may not agree with a team member’s style, values, priorities,

strategy, or solutions. This can result in your negotiating as much with a

member of your team as with the other side. It can also waste time. If the

other side recognizes what is happening, your side may appear divided,

disorganized, or unfocused.

• In the course of the negotiation you may disagree with what a team

member says.

• Some members of your team may not be good negotiators. Worse, they

may not know it and may want to take the lead. A chain is only as strong

as its weakest link and it can be hard to hide a weak team member.

• Some people have difficulty delegating. If you have a need to be in

control, you may find it difficult to share that control others, especially in

the often unpredictable and dynamic environment of a negotiation.

• Communicating with your team members during negotiations can be

challenging. When you negotiate alone, you instantly know everything

your side knows. When you negotiate with others, you face the challenge

of sharing information during the negotiation without appearing

disorganized, unprepared, or weak.

• Negotiation is a creative process; you are trying to create a solution to

which both sides can agree. It can be difficult to be creative without

knowing what others on your team are thinking.

• Increasing the number of people in a negotiation can slow the process and

make it more cumbersome.

IDEAS TO CONSIDER WHEN PREPARING TO NEGOTIATE AS A TEAM

If you are going to be negotiating with a partner or as a member of a team, you will

likely want to prepare. You may find it helpful when preparing to:

• Explore your strengths and weaknesses and those of your team members

and establish your respective roles for the negotiation (for example, lead

spokesperson, notetaker, etc.) in a way that capitalizes on the strengths of

the team and minimizes the weaknesses.

55

• Explore with your team members what you will do if you do not reach an

agreement, your interests, the possible solutions, and standards of

legitimacy you might use in the negotiation.

• Explore with your team members what the other side might do if no

agreement is reached.

• Develop an overall strategy for the negotiation.

• Develop with your team members each of the topics or issues that need to

be dealt with in the negotiation and develop sub-strategies for each of

these issues.

• Create a tentative agenda that you can follow during the negotiation to

ensure that issues are addressed completely and in their proper order.

• A negotiation does not always unfold as expected. You may want to

discuss how you will change direction, strategy and approach to react to

what the other side is doing. You may also want to discuss whether to

develop a set of signals you can use during the negotiation to call for a

caucus (private meeting), show approval for a course of action, or show

disapproval for a course of action.

• Try to anticipate what the other side might do and develop contingency

strategies you can implement during the negotiation as the needs arise.

• Set ground rules with your team members. For example, you may want to

agree that no offer will be accepted or made unless you have all agreed.

• Do dry runs of the negotiation with one team member acting as the other

side. This will help you fine-tune your delivery and help you explore

strategies.

STRATEGIES TO CONSIDER WHEN NEGOTIATING IN PAIRS OR AS PART OF

A TEAM

Here are a few strategies you may want to consider when negotiating with a partner or

as part of a team:

• Try to be patient. Unless things have really gone off the track, maintain

your strategy.

56

• Try to remember your role and to support your team members in their

roles. Focusing too closely on what your team members are doing may

interfere with your ability to perform effectively.

• When in the presence of the other side, try to foster the impression of

unity among team members. When you disagree with others on your

team, you may not want the other side to be aware of the disagreement.

• Try to give others on your team room to manoeuvre. If things do not

unfold as planned, others might have to be creative to react to what the

other side is doing. Try not to react negatively if something unexpected

comes up and one of your team members moves the negotiation in an

unanticipated direction. Reflect on the new direction. You may conclude

that it is a good one and that there is no need to intervene.

• Do not expect perfection from yourself or your team members.

Negotiation is an art, not a science. You may become frustrated if you

raise the bar too high.

• Think about caucusing (having private team meetings). Caucusing allows

you to regroup with your team, though it can disrupt the flow of the

negotiation.

• If you decide that a caucus is necessary, you may want to give some

thought to when and how you ask for it. Asking for a caucus too early can

irritate your team members and irritate the other side. Asking for a

caucus can also suggest to the other side that the issue under discussion is

one that raises disagreement on your side of the table or is a subject you

had not considered. As a result, you may want to wait to caucus with

your team and, when the times comes, you may want to create the

opportunity for a caucus that does not reveal why you are caucusing.

• Unless there is a reason not to, try to make each caucus relatively short.

The longer you caucus, the more likely the other side may read something

into the caucus.

• If you think the negotiation should change direction, you may be able to

convey this to your team members without a caucus. For example,

sharing a particular piece of information with the other side may be

enough of a hint to get your team members to shift tracks.

57

• Remember that you may not just be negotiating with the other side. You

may have to negotiate within your team about strategy, and any offer you

make or accept. Try to bring as much skill to the negotiation within your

team as you do in the negotiation with the other side.

• Members of your team may want to exchange feedback during or after the

negotiation. If you agree to give feedback during the negotiation and you

think there is a better way of handling the negotiation, try to discuss it

with your team members in caucus in a constructive and non-threatening

way.

• Try to remain flexible in the negotiation. It is good to have a plan until

that plan gets in the way of success.

TIPS

When negotiating in pairs or as a member of a team:

• decide who will lead the discussion

• have signals for when to take a break and when your team members say

something you don’t agree with

• give your team members room to manoeuvre

• decide who has the authority to make offers

• caucus when necessary

• try to take a unified approach to the negotiation

58

DIFFICULTIES IN NEGOTIATION15

Not everyone is a skilled negotiator and not everyone has taken negotiation training.

Some people do things in negotiations that are difficult to deal with, either for a

purpose or unconsciously. Your task is to recognize the difficulty and to find a strategy

to deal with it. The best strategies are those that work whether or not the person is

creating the difficult situation on purpose.

STEAMROLLING WITH INFORMATION

Some people steamroll you with words in negotiation; they speak very quickly and

continuously without giving you an opportunity to jump in. They might be trying to

control the negotiation and keep you off balance, or they may be nervous and excited.

When you have to deal with a steamroller, you may want to:

• Remain calm. If others are steamrolling as a tactic, they may be trying to

gain control. If you get flustered or frustrated, they may gain the control

they are seeking. If others are steamrolling because they are nervous and

enthusiastic, your calmness may help them to relax.

• Sit back quietly and let them steamroll. People who are talking may be

providing you with valuable information that can help you get a better

deal.

• Interrupt and ask them to slow down. If you point out to them that they

are talking quickly, they may relax and slow down. On the other hand,

they may feel stifled and not then disclose

information that they otherwise would have disclosed.

• Suggest that you do not agree with everything the steamroller says, but

want the person to continue. If the steamroller says

15 © 2002 STITT FELD HANDY GROUP. This material may not be reproduced without the permissionof the STITT FELD HANDY GROUP. C01022

59

something you disagree with and you say nothing, the other side may

think you agree with what has been said. That can create a

misunderstanding.

In deciding whether to interrupt, you may want to consider:

• Are you getting information by letting the other person talk? If so, you

may want to defer your interruption.

• Does the other person need to vent nervousness and enthusiasm? If so, it

may be too early to interrupt.

• How will others perceive the interruption? Will they get the impression

they are not being allowed to explain their side of the story? Will they get

the impression that you do not see what they are saying as important? If

so, you may choose not to interrupt.

• Do you have the luxury of time? If you are running out of a limited

amount of time to negotiate, it might be unrealistic for you not to

interrupt.

• Will letting others continue to talk give them the impression you are

agreeing with what they are saying when you are not? If so, you may

need to interrupt, at least to let them know that you do not agree with

everything they say.

If you decide to interrupt, you may want to consider:

• Do you want to interrupt to ask a question?

• Do you want to interrupt to make a point?

• Do you want to interrupt to demonstrate that you are listening and have

heard what they have said?

• Do you want to interrupt to let others know that you are writing down

what they are saying and that you cannot write as fast as they are

speaking?

• Do you want to interrupt to ask for a break?

• Do you want to interrupt to talk about process? For example, do you

want to try to establish time limits or an agenda of issues to be discussed?

• Do you want to interrupt to distract?

60

• Do you want to interrupt to express concern about the difficulty you are

having, for example:

• telling others they are talking too quickly and that you are having

difficulty understanding what is being said or

• telling others you need clarifications of facts.

ASSUMING A DEAL

Sometimes others say something that suggests that they believe that a deal has been

struck on an issue and you believe the matter is still open for negotiation. They may

suggest that your boss or another negotiating team member has already dealt with the

issue.

When the other side assumes a deal is done, it may be that the other side has made an

honest mistake about the existence of a deal, the other side is assuming a deal as a tactic

to get you to give in, or a deal has, in fact, been made.

If they have made an honest mistake, you may anger them if you suggest that they are

lying or trying to deceive. As well, you will likely want to avoid giving the other side

the impression that your side is trying to get out of a deal that is made. On the other

hand, you do not want to give in if the other side is assuming a deal as a tactic.

When you have to deal with someone who is assuming a deal, you may want to:

• Confirm that you are prepared to live up to any deal that has been made

and seek the information you need to determine whether a deal has been

made.

• Take a break to attempt to verify whether a deal has, in fact, been made.

• Ask for details about the deal and about when and with whom it was

struck.

• Explain that you have different information about what has or has not

been agreed.

• Suggest that there may have been a misunderstanding and then explain

what you have been told about the matter.

61

YOU COMMIT, I DECIDE

Some people try to negotiate by getting you to make a series of offers and negotiate

against yourself. It may be that they are uncomfortable making offers or making

commitments, or it may be that they are using “you commit, I decide” as a tactic to try

to make you move closer to your bottom line.

When you have to deal with someone who is trying to get you to negotiate against

yourself, you may want to:

• Avoid making offers; rather, put forward numbers as options without

commitment.

• Avoid making numerous offers in succession.

• Base your offers on objective criteria and ask the other side why your last

offer was not fair.

• Set ground rules for making offers.

• Talk about the fact that you are concerned about negotiating against

yourself.

UNREASONABLE FIRST OFFERS

Some negotiators make unreasonable first offers and then take the position that they are

making concessions by coming down from that unreasonable first position. This may

be a tactic used by the other side to try to get you to make concessions from a

reasonable position or they may believe that they are being reasonable.

When you have to deal with someone who has made an unreasonable first offer, you

may want to:

• Keep your cool. If the other side has presented an inflated first number as

a tactic, you may be dealing with a negotiator who likes to play on your

emotions.

• Try to avoid making concessions from your reasonable offer.

• Focus the discussion on objective criteria and away from the other side’s

unreasonable first offer and any concessions made from it.

• Don’t accept the other side’s offer as a position. Rather treat it as an

option.

62

• Show yourself to be open to be persuaded that the unreasonable offer is

fair.

• Talk about the fact that if an agreement is not reached, both you and the

other side will have to go to your Best Alternative To a Negotiated

Agreement (BATNA), and that could be unfortunate for both of you.

If you choose to focus the other side on objective criteria, you may want to ask the other

side:

• How have you come up with that offer?

• Why do you believe the offer is fair?

• Why have you made concessions from your first offer?

• Why do the options that you had talked about not make sense?

MIXING THE PEOPLE AND THE PROBLEM

Some people entangle the substantive issues with the relationship issues and try to

encourage you to agree to something for the sake of the relationship, even if it is

unreasonable. You may find over time that the relationship does not compensate you

adequately for your other needs that are not being met.

Preserving relationships that are valuable is important. It is also important to meet

other needs in the negotiation. Agreeing to neglect your substantive needs in the

negotiation for the sake of the relationship can be dangerous for you.

People may mix the people and the problem to try to encourage you to make

concessions for the sake of the relationship, or because they believe one cannot separate

the problem from the relationship.

When you have to deal with someone who tries to encourage you to make concessions

for the sake of the relationship, you may want to:

• Try to separate the people from the problem.

• Try to help the other side realize that there are other needs in the

negotiation besides preserving the relationship.

• Try to find ways to preserve the relationship and meet your other needs.

63

• Acknowledge that preserving the relationship is important to you as well.

• Recognize that in some situations, the relationship is more important than

the substantive issues being negotiated.

• Talk about the danger of not meeting other needs in the negotiation in

addition to relationship needs.

• Put a fair value on preserving the relationship without overvaluing or

undervaluing it.

BEING OBSTINATE

Perhaps the most challenging person to deal with in negotiation is someone who is

positional and will not budge from a position. If you choose to take another position

and be obstinate as well, you may find that you do not reach agreement. Further, you

may irreparably damage the relationship and miss opportunities to come up with

creative solutions.

Others may become obstinate as a tactic, believing that if they stick to positions, you

will eventually agree with them rather than walk away. Others take firm positions and

don’t make concessions because they believe that they are right.

When you have to deal with an obstinate person who sticks to a position, you may want

to:

• Ask how the other person came up with the position.

• Show that you are open to the possibility that their position is a fair one.

• Treat the position as an option rather than as a position.

• Look for creative ways to find a solution that accepts their position and

results in your getting what you need.

• Talk about how you will both be worse off if no agreement is reached.

64

TIPS

When negotiating with difficult people, you may choose to:

• model behaviour that you want them to exhibit

• show yourself to be open to be persuaded

• show others that you are listening to them

• avoid assuming that everything they are doing is a tactic

65

INDEX

A

Advantages of negotiating in pairs orteams, 53

Analytical people, 32Asking clarifying questions, 17Asking the inflexible bureaucrat

questions, 25Assumptions, 10, 60Avoiding hostility, 34Axelrod, Robert, 45

B

BATNA, 30, 38, 49-52Being obstinate, 4-5, 63Best Alternative To a Negotiated

Agreement, see BATNABody language, 16, 20, 51, 53Brainstorming, 6-8, 26-27Bureaucrats, 20-31

C

Challenging the rule, 29-30Cold calling, 11-12Communication, 15-18Competitive negotiating, 4-5, 63Concessions, 34, 35, 61, 62Cooperation, 42-47

D

Dealing with an inflexible bureaucrat,20-31

Deceptive, being, 22, 42-47Defecting, 42-47Disclosure, 38

E

Effective listening, 15-18Emotion, 17-18Envy, 45

Exaggerating or stretching the truth, 22,42-47

F

Fairness, 23Feelings, 17-18Finding out others' interests, see

InterestsFirst offer, 36-37, 61Fisher Roger and William Ury, Getting

To Yes, Negotiating Agreement WithoutGiving In, 30

G

Generating options, see OptionsGong to a superior, 21

I

Inflexible bureaucrats, 20-31Information, sharing, 38Interactive listening, 15-18Interest-based negotiation, see InterestsInterests, 4-8, 29Interests versus positions, 4-8Intimidation, 22

J

Justice, people who seek, 33

K

Knowing your audience, 28

L

Lying, 22, 42-47

M

Making assumptions, 10, 60Making the first offer, 36-37, 61Misleading, 42-47Mixing the people and the problem, 62-

63

66

N

Negotiation tendencies, 32-35

O

Obstinance, 63Offer, first, 36-37, 61One-time negotiations, 42-47Open body language, 16Options, 6-8, 26-27

P

Pairs, negotiating in, 53-57Paraphrasing, 17Persuasion, 14, 62Positional negotiating, 4-5, 63Preparation as a team, 54-55Prisoner’s Dilemma, 42-47Prompters, 16Providing information, 23

R

Reasonableness, appearance of, 40-41Relationship, people who focus on, 35Restating or paraphrasing, 17Results, people who seek, 34Retaliation, 43, 46

S

Sales, 11-12Silence, 26Speaking persuasively, 14Standards of legitimacy, 23, 30Steamrolling with information, 58-60Superior, going to, 21

T

Team preparation, 54-55Teams, negotiating in, see PairsTendencies, 32-35Threats, 22Tips, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 31, 35, 37, 39, 41,

48, 52, 57, 64Trust, 42-47

U

Unique styles of negotiating, 32-35

W

Walking away, see BATNAWhen should you say "yes?", see

BATNA

Y

You commit, I decide, 61

Stitt Feld Han - sfhgonline.com · 4 POSITIONAL VERSUS INTEREST-BASED NEGOTIATION1 POSITIONAL...

Documents

Transcript of Stitt Feld Han - sfhgonline.com · 4 POSITIONAL VERSUS INTEREST-BASED NEGOTIATION1 POSITIONAL...