Tork & Grunt's Guide to Effective Negotiations

TORK & GRUNT’S GUIDE TO EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS Mammoth Strategies Bob Harvey Copyright © 2008 Bob Harvey First publi...

Author: Bob Harvey

112 downloads 1095 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

TORK & GRUNT’S GUIDE TO EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS Mammoth Strategies

Bob Harvey

Copyright © 2008 Bob Harvey First published in 2008 by: Marshall Cavendish Limited 5th Floor 32–38 Saffron Hill London EC1N 8FH United Kingdom T: +44 (0)20 7421 8120 F: +44 (0)20 7421 8121 [email protected] www.marshallcavendish.co.uk The right of Bob Harvey to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including photocopying, electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the rights holders, application for which must be made to the publisher. A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-0-462-09923-1 Cartoons by David Mostyn Designed and typeset by Phoenix Photosetting, Lordswood, Chatham, Kent Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Mackays, Chatham ME5 8TD

To Cuthbert John, my father, who has been a constant source of encouragement

Contents

Introduction

vii

Part One – Background to negotiation 1

Fundamentals of negotiation

3

2

Who is this person?

26

3

What’s this all about?

44

Part Two – Preparation for negotiation 4

Knowing what you want

59

5

Establishing what the other side wants

78

6

Information and opportunities

94

7

Establishing a measurable way of judging the outcome 104

8

Knowing and believing your Walk-Away Option

118

Part Three – Doing the deal 9

Playing games and handling gamesmanship

137

10

Handling personalities and working as a team

156

11

Strategies, tactics and handling foul play

177

Part Four – Summarizing the process 12

Tork and Grunt pass it on

191

Acknowledgements

198

About the Author

199

Introduction

Tork and Grunt are two cavemen. Tork and Grunt learn to communicate and negotiate. Through them you will learn everything you need to know about conducting a successful negotiation and reaching a win-win outcome. They show how conventional bargaining from opposing positions generally fails to reach a satisfactory conclusion and how it is important to identify all the issues affecting both parties. They discover they need an overall approach – a Mammoth Strategy – if they are to achieve something that suits both parties. Tork & Grunt’s Guide to Effective Negotiations demonstrates individual one-on-one deals as well as formal negotiations between teams from the two sides. It explains the importance of detailed preparation and the value of a flexible and open mindset. It explains the importance of understanding body language and appreciating both sides of the debate. You will learn how a creative approach, exploring a broad range of options, can generate new ideas and produce positive results. Both sides achieve an outcome which satisfies their objectives. And it’s not just about work, commerce and business. It’s about all aspects of life, because everyone communicates and negotiates every day.

vii

TORK & GRUNT’S GUIDE TO EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS

Tork & Grunt’s Guide to Effective Negotiations is about understanding what motivates people and how to make yourself understood. It’s about making everyday interactions effective and successful, getting on with people, and negotiating deals that work for everyone and, most importantly, will last well into the future.

viii

PART ONE

Background to negotiation

1

Fundamentals of negotiation

The caveman and the mammoth A strange bird flaps noisily across the sky, screeching its morning call. Tork stirs in his sleep, rubs his eyes and awakens. Then he reaches for his spear and creeps out of the cave. The first streaks of the morning sun glow on the horizon but it is still cold and Tork shivers. He is cold and hungry. Tork must go hunting for food to feed his family. He picks up his flint-tipped spear and heads for the forest where he knows he will find his prey. He stalks through the undergrowth with his spear raised to his shoulder, ready to attack. He smiles as he tracks the footprints in the soft ground but as he takes another step forward, a twig snaps loudly under his foot. He freezes. There is a rustle in the bushes ahead of him and suddenly a beast appears, startled by the noise Tork has made. Its bright eyes focus on Tork, and the two creatures stare coldly at each other.

3


Suddenly a beast appears, startled by the noise Like Tork, the beast is scared; they are competing for survival. Kill or be killed – this is the only language they know. If food were plentiful there would be no conflict, which teaches us the first ground rule of negotiation.

Ground Rule 1: Someone’s got something you want Whatever the situation, a negotiation starts when one party wants something that is specifically available from the other party. This can be as straightforward as shopping or as extreme as territorial warfare. Although negotiations are not necessarily based on conflicting interests, you tend to think that people approach a negotiation from opposing positions.

4

FUNDAMENTALS OF NEGOTIATION

In the case of the caveman and the sabre-toothed tiger it’s critical, and there’s no compromise. In order for one to survive, the other must either be sacrificed, or else head for the hills. The situation will only change if the issue of scarcity is resolved because if there were plenty of food for all, the caveman and the beast would not have to resort to trying to kill each other. The immediate problem with this particular negotiation is that there is no opportunity for communication, no common language, nor any mutual point of reference. Tork cannot sit down and discuss alternative options. There’s no room for creative proposals. Even if they both became vegetarians they still wouldn’t have a language with which to communicate, and could end up fighting over the rights to the cabbage patch. Tork and his wife, Speek, may not always agree with each other, but at least they can communicate and understand each other. When the parties communicate, they can appreciate each other’s needs. This teaches us the second ground rule of negotiation.

Ground Rule 2: Understand – and be understood

The importance of communication. Without communication there is no understanding and similarly without understanding, there is no communication. A workable negotiation is based on the ability to communicate and understand both points of view. Tork and the sabre-toothed tiger don’t have a common language. When they meet in the forest, an unspoken communication passes between the two adversaries. The tiger recognizes a threat and roars. Tork focuses on the vulnerable soft spot beneath the shoulder blade. He balances his spear and launches his attack, rushing forward and thrusting the spear deep into the animal’s body. The negotiation is over and Tork is the winner. The animal gives a desperate roar and collapses on the ground, seriously wounded. But

5


just as Tork is shouting triumphantly, calling the tribe to help him drag his trophy back to the cave, there is a crash in the undergrowth. The tiger’s mate has heard the noise and charges out threateningly. She stands staring at him, roaring and snarling. Tork trips and falls, cutting his head, then jumps up and races off through the jungle before the animal can leap at him. Has Tork run fast enough? Have his tribe folk come to his rescue? Will the animal strike again or turn and run? Was the negotiation successful? No; a successful negotiation must have a lasting outcome because you have to live with it in the future. Tork has won one confrontation only to face another because the matter has been only temporarily resolved. When Tork and the tiger faced each other they both have the same thoughts going through their minds. Tork’s goes like this: ‘Breakfast!’ ‘Greeow! Greeow! Greeow!’ roars the tiger in reply, meaning – roughly translated – ‘Here comes my early lunch!’ Tork lets out a blood-curdling shout: ‘Ha! I’ll get you before you get me!’ And there it might have ended, if Tork’s shouts had not alerted the beast’s mate. Then the conflict starts all over again and might have continued indefinitely if Tork had not raced off home for urgent medical attention. At least he can rely on his beloved wife, Speek, to listen to him and understand him.

Ground Rule 3: Plan for the future The history of the world is a story of conflicting interests leading to wars, conquests and domination. However, as recent decades have taught us vividly, it is one thing to win a war and quite a different matter to win the peace. When the conflict is over you must establish a situation

6


that both parties can live with. This may mean that both sides have to accept fundamental changes. If they do not, there is every possibility that conflict will re-emerge and the vanquished will rise to fight another day.

Remember the ground rules By now, you are probably thinking that this is all far removed from the sort of regular negotiations you face in your everyday life. You are probably asking yourself why this chapter is talking about fighting for survival in the Stone Age and going to war over territorial boundaries in the twenty-first century. What you want to know is how to win an argument; how to reconcile conflicting interests in the course of day-to-day negotiations. You want to know how to persuade someone else to come around to your point of view. The following chapters start with the basics and go on to examine what negotiation is all about. They outline an alternative way to work towards lasting, positive results based on the three ground rules of negotiation:

Ground Rule 1: Someone’s got something you want


7


Ground Rule 3: Plan for the future

Rough & Tough or Soft & Sweet People tend to use the same war-like vocabulary whether they are negotiating a business deal or resolving a personal disagreement. However, there is a better way to negotiate than by resorting to verbal conflict. You saw how negotiation is generally viewed as a clash of opposing ideas, a fight to maximize gain and/or minimize loss. The caveman and the sabre-toothed tiger each wanted to kill the other, so there was no obvious room for compromise. Their positions and demands were irreconcilable because they appeared to have totally conflicting interests. In the end, the confrontation was inconclusive. They were both injured and ultimately fled. Is this the way many negotiations pan out, and was this an unsuccessful conclusion?

Sometimes the best option is the walk-away option At first sight, giving up and walking away looks like failure. But in reality, if the parties walk away they have achieved the one objective that was paramount: they are still alive to fight another day! This isn’t the WOW factor. It’s the WAO factor: the Walk-Away Option. In any negotiation there’s a limit to how much you should sacrifice and it may be wise to walk away. On this particular occasion, the problem was that it was impossible for the parties to achieve

8


both their short-term objective of finding food and the long-term objective of staying alive. In many negotiations: ➣ You take a position ➣ You attack ➣ You defend ➣ You make sacrifices ➣ You make gains ➣ You make concessions ➣ You demand more But in the end, you either compromise or take the walk-away option. Or, if there’s a man with a spear, or a ferocious tiger chasing you, you take the run-away option.

Bargaining often means nobody gets what they really want When you say: ‘I’ll meet you halfway,’ it means that nobody gets what they really want, and everyone has to reach a compromise away from their stated position. This is not a satisfactory way to conduct a negotiation, and yet most people think this is what negotiation is all about. Let’s say you want to pay someone 500, they want to charge you 1,000, and in the end you strike a deal for 750. Perhaps there is some degree of satisfaction because you think you’ve forced the other side to make a concession in your favour. Equally, you might feel aggrieved at having to spend more than you’d initially planned. Similarly, the other party is unhappy at receiving less than they wanted in the transaction.

Is conflict the essence of negotiation? Let’s imagine that you are the boss and you want something done. What is wrong with being rough and tough and insisting that you get your way? You’d demand that the job be done exactly the way you want it done. And, if your subordinate disagrees with you, surely he or she should play soft and sweet and reason with you in a way

9


that respects your relative positions and ensures that this relationship is maintained. Well, the truth is that this approach is inefficient for both you and your colleague because there is nothing much to discuss. It’s a takeit-or-leave-it approach that stems from a fixed position on both sides. Suppose instead, that rather than arguing from your position, you argue about what you both want to achieve? What difference might it make if you negotiated towards the objective rather than negotiating away from where you are starting from? The next section will explore this in more detail.

You have to believe you got the best deal you could In every effective negotiation it is essential that both parties are satisfied. They may not be entirely happy, and they may have been hoping for something better. But they must both believe they have each got the best deal they could in the circumstances. This is only possible when the two parties know each other’s objectives and can discuss, understand and appreciate them in a search for a mutually acceptable resolution. This doesn’t mean gentle reconciliation, with the parties being soft and sweet with each other. Nor does it mean that you have to think in military language about ‘defending your position’ or ‘fighting for what you want’. What you will discover as you examine negotiation in more detail is that conventional bargaining is generally unsatisfactory. I call this confrontational bargaining process Positional Negotiation because it’s based on arguing away from your particular position. This describes an interaction in which you choose your position and argue from your own individual standpoint. You intend moving away as little as possible from your personal stated position. What generally happens is that you end up with an outcome which satisfies neither party and consequently will not last. It breaks Rule 3 – it fails to plan for the future because you are left with both parties

10


resentful at getting less than they wanted out of the deal. So, what tactics will deliver a lasting outcome?

Is it best to be aggressively masculine . . .? Away on the other side of the hill lives another tribe. They have always kept themselves separate from Tork’s people. Their leader is Grunt the Hunter, a straightforward chap with a rather rough and tough style about him. He is devoted to his wife, Natter, who was his childhood sweetheart. Natter adores Grunt and will do anything and everything to keep him happy. She is the epitome of the soft and sweet partner. When it comes to domestic arguments, who wins? Is it Grunt, who is macho, rough and tough, fighting for what he wants? Or is it Natter who is always gentle, understanding and conciliatory?

Grunt and Natter have very different styles of communication

11


Even at home, Grunt is looking for conquest: he is determined to win the argument, and to persuade Natter to come around to his point of view. As a negotiation continues he digs in, reinforcing his position and refusing to yield. He will threaten Natter and be determined to argue for the final position he has already decided upon. He will aim to diminish whatever offer she proposes and keep pushing and increasing his argument. He will keep his final position hidden from her and will probably distrust any arguments she proposes. Above all, he will make it clear that their relationship will suffer if he doesn’t get what he wants.

. . . or is it better to be submissively feminine? As a loving spouse, Natter’s objective in a negotiation is to reach agreement. When Grunt’s position becomes entrenched she will propose alternative deals, and she will counter his threats with alternative offers. Her objective is to find out what he will settle for and agree to it. She will accept changes, back down from her opening position and – in contrast to her husband’s stance – she will be prepared to reveal what her final position is. She will tend to trust him and concede to his demands in the interests of maintaining the relationship. Positional Negotiation describes where both parties look at a situation in terms of the fixed positions they are occupying. The parties argue in terms of how far they are prepared to move in order to achieve an outcome. The Rough & Tough negotiator is inflexible, while the Soft & Sweet negotiator will back down and make concessions in order to reach agreement. Neither party achieves what they want. The solution is a compromise and as such is unstable.

It’s never that simple Of course, neither of the tactics described above is absolute, and most positional negotiations involve a constant switching of

12


Positional Negotiation Rough & Tough

Soft & Sweet

Going for conquest

Going for agreement

Dig in

Suggest deals

Threaten

Offer

Go for what you’ll settle for

Go for what they’ll settle for

Argue for own position

Argue for agreement

Push hard

Back down

Conceal final position

Reveal final position

Increase argument

Avoid argument

Distrust

Trust

Be hard

Be soft

Make demands as a condition of maintaining the relationship

Concede in the interests of maintaining the relationship

13


strategies between being tough and being soft. This technique is covered later in the book in the section describing Black Hat – White Hat strategy, but neither hard nor soft tactics will move things on if the parties are entrenched in their positions. Negotiation isn’t about sticking to a position; it’s about achieving an outcome, getting what you want. As long as the two parties are focused on positions – whether defending their own position or attacking the position of the other party – then the negotiation risks simply going round in circles until one or other party yields. That’s not the way to reach a lasting solution. The debate can go on interminably as long as both parties are looking at where they are, rather than where they want to be. Just suppose that instead of demanding what had to be done, Grunt had talked about the outcome he wanted to achieve. And just suppose that, instead of agreeing to Grunt’s course of action, Natter had put forward her own ideas on how he might get what he wanted. This way, they would each have been focusing on the direction they should follow in order to move towards achieving their common objective. This is the crux of the matter. The successful negotiator needs to break out of the positional mindset and establish a different framework. The objective is to find an outcome that will satisfy both parties. It sounds obvious, and most of what you will learn about negotiation will seem obvious once you start to examine the subject more closely. What stops people from being successful in the deals they make and the disputes they seek to resolve is their characteristic tendency to be centred on positions and personalities, rather than on opportunities and outcomes.

Tork meets Grunt in the forest Let’s take another look at Tork. He is hunting once again, this time avoiding the ferocious sabre-toothed tigers. He heads off into the forest with his spear and finds that the tribe from over the hill, led by Grunt the Hunter, have trapped and slaughtered a hairy mammoth.

14


A group of them are squatting around the carcass, hacking it into chunks to carry back to their cave. Tork sees the food, and he wants some of it for himself and his tribe. As he approaches the group, Grunt looks up at him with a mixture of curiosity and aggression.

Tork finds that Grunt and his companions have been successful in their hunt for food

He turns to his fellow hunters and asks: ‘Who is this chap? What’s going on here? How do we handle this?’

Pause for a moment, and you will see the Rules of Negotiation in action.

15


Ground Rule 1: Someone’s got something you want Grunt’s tribe have food and Tork wants some of it. If Tork is to get what he wants you have to hope the two tribes have a common language, because this is where Ground Rule 2 comes into force.

Ground Rule 2: Understand – and be understood So, now what? Tork can play rough and tough: ‘Share the food with me, or else!’ Or he can play soft and sweet: ‘I am hungry; please share your food with me.’ If they say yes to either request the negotiation is over. But if they say no, how does Tork proceed? He is outnumbered. So, even if he is very fleet-footed, there is not much he can do proactively. If he seizes a lump of meat and runs off back to his cave as fast as he can, the neighbours will probably chase after him and seek some sort of retribution. Tork has to keep Ground Rule 3 in mind.

Ground Rule 3: Plan for the future Whatever he does, he must ensure that it leads towards an outcome which both sides can live with. If he proceeds with positional negotiation, one or other party is going to feel that they have made concessions and lost out. Tork will have less food than he would like and the neighbours will have to part with some of their hard-won trophy.

16


The four criteria of negotiation To optimize the situation you need a framework for negotiation: a set of principles which both parties can accept and work to. This framework is bounded by a set of standards for negotiation – four Ss. Sensible : Straightforward : Sustaining : Satisfying

A negotiation should be sensible, appropriate and workable

There are times when one’s position and survival are so threatened that war is the only option. But, by and large, conflict is not sensible. It is generally inappropriate and rarely achieves a workable outcome. By the time a truce or surrender is finally signed, both sides have paid a high price and the basis of the original disagreement often remains unresolved. Then you have the challenge of finding a way to win the peace, which means starting negotiations all over again. Throughout history there are examples of how one side has won the battle only to lose the war. In other words, one side has achieved a short-term gain but has failed to resolve the issue in the longer term. Although the negotiation starts when one party wants something from another party, it only becomes active when the other party shows some willingness to consider entering into the deal. In Tork’s case, Grunt and his tribe must be willing to reduce their stock of food and decide on what basis they are prepared to do this. An effective negotiation seeks to acknowledge the grounds for a potential transaction and agree the terms on which this transaction can take place. The way in which the negotiation then proceeds must conform to the first standard: it must be sensible, appropriate and workable. The second standard expands on this, and clarifies just what is meant by adjectives such as ‘sensible’, ‘appropriate’ and ‘workable’.

17


A negotiation should be straightforward, efficient and smooth

The protocol of a negotiation requires effective communication. This means: ● Communicating your own position ● Establishing beyond doubt that the other party understands your position ● Understanding the other party’s position You achieve these three points through a constant exchange of speaking and listening, telling and hearing. To do that, you must have a common language. In the modern world of global corporations, people often work in a language which is not their mother tongue. Even when they believe they speak the same language there can be differences in usage and interpretation. A good example in the language of negotiation is the phrase: ‘We’ll leave the offer on the table.’ In British English this means you will leave the offer open to further discussion and come back to it later. In American English the meaning is more negative. It implies that, while the offer has not been rejected, it is put on one side because it is going nowhere. In face-to-face negotiation it is important to give constant feedback and ask for clarification, so that understanding is complete and the risk of misunderstanding is minimized. However, if the communication is written, such misunderstandings can be dangerous. There is not the real-time exchange of a conversation which makes clarification simpler. In the situation that has just been described, Tork is still on his hunting trip. He is hungry and needs food for his tribe. Similarly, Grunt and his people can explain that they too are hungry and that they

18


need to conserve the food resources so they have enough to survive on in the coming weeks. Tork and Grunt are each taking up a position, establishing a point from which to make concessions. A position can mean anything from a vague preference to an immovable principle. Tork needs to communicate with Grunt some facts about his position. He could ease the path of negotiation by removing any suggestion of hostility and by discussing the problems his tribe faces in finding food. This would fit the first standard of being sensible, appropriate and workable as it immediately establishes some basis for possible cooperation. Tork could then go on to ask if they are willing to discuss mutual issues and explore ways in which they can cooperate. This follows the second standard of being straightforward, efficient and smooth. It clarifies why Tork wants to negotiate. He is giving Grunt and his tribe the opportunity of determining at the outset whether there is the potential for negotiation. Tork is moving away from negotiating about a position and instead he is negotiating about areas of common interest. But it’s not enough for a negotiation just to be sensible and straightforward. It has to last, which is why the third criteria is critical if the process is to develop effectively.

A negotiation should sustain and not damage or diminish the relationship of the parties involved

Conflict is not a good negotiating tool. You saw in Tork’s encounter with the tiger that there was no clear outcome. A similar situation could now confront Tork and his neighbours. Maybe Tork and Grunt already co-exist on a friendly basis; alternatively, they may never have met face-to-face. Either way, it is important that the present negotiation does not damage or diminish their relationship. Ground Rule 3 makes this point absolutely clear.

19


Ground Rule 3: Plan for the future Now that they have met, and even though they haven’t yet started formal negotiations, the process has been set in motion. Maybe they will now establish a new basis for future cooperation. Maybe the discussions will never get off the ground. Grunt might tell him to go away, and Tork might do just that. An unsatisfactory outcome for Tork – but it satisfies the WAO factor. It could even conform to the fourth standard: A negotiation’s outcome should be satisfying, meeting the realistic expectations of both parties

Tork might realize that he would be pushing his luck. There is little chance of the neighbours agreeing to share their food in a situation when there is always a shortage. However, if you assume that Tork would not be happy to walk away empty-handed, you must ask yourself: would it have been possible for him to have conducted the negotiation in a way that achieved an outcome which met all the criteria of both parties? Certainly he would not have achieved this through Positional Negotiation. However, he might have stood a better chance through an alternative process I call Directional Negotiation, which is explored later. First, here is an example of a typical Positional Negotiation and a typical compromise.

Home sweet home From prehistoric caves to suburban houses. You have looked at our cavemen and seen how they might negotiate; now let’s take a modern example.

20


Jack’s house is on the market for 250,000; Robert and Rosemary have a budget of 200,000 but decide to view the property as it seems from the particulars to be ideal for their needs and rather overpriced. After looking over Jack and Jill’s house, Robert opens negotiations with a soft and sweet approach: ‘We really like your home, Jack, but we have a budget of 200,000 and wonder if you would consider coming down in price.’ Jack knows he has pitched the price on the high side but wants to get the best price he can. He plays rough and tough: ‘We’ve had the place valued and we know what it’s worth. We need to think about our future plans and cannot afford to start giving away 50,000.’ Jill adds: ‘You must know the value of property in this neighbourhood; we are not in a hurry to sell, so we can wait until we get what we want.’ This is classic rough and tough style. Jack and Jill are arguing their position, pushing hard, digging in, not revealing their final position and not trusting what Robert and Rosemary are saying. Rosemary replies to Jill: ‘Of course I understand your position, and I am sure you know the market value of your home. On the other hand we can complete the sale and purchase quickly as we are renting at the moment. Perhaps we could offer a little more, even if it meant delaying buying some of the new furniture we had planned to purchase. Or maybe you don’t want to take everything with you, especially if you are looking for a smaller place in the country.’ Rosemary’s style is soft and sweet. She is agreeing with the other party and is already suggesting they might pay a little more and that there could be other deals which they could discuss. Jack still plays rough, and makes a grudging concession. They had no intention of taking their furniture, carpets and curtains with them as

21


these would not suit the country cottage they have their eyes on. They will not reveal this to Robert and Rosemary because, in classic rough and tough style, they don’t trust them and they would never reveal more than they had to in conducting the negotiation. ‘OK, I suppose we could do a deal on the furniture and fittings, but it’s all top-quality, and cost us a lot of money. I don’t know what to say – we’ll have to work out a price.’ Again, Jack is concealing his position and leaving the other side to come back with an offer. Rosemary steps in, gently trying to establish a value for the furnishings: ‘We had to furnish our first home with second-hand furniture, and we were surprised how little it cost us. It seems to have very little value when you come to sell it. Carpets and curtains are never the right size when you move, and fashion changes so fast in furniture. I think you’d be lucky to get more than a few hundred, maybe a thousand for everything. It’s heartbreaking, isn’t it, when you know what it cost you?’ Robert joins the discussion: ‘I agree with my wife. And I agree with you that there are properties in this area fetching 250,000 but there are also some around 185,000. I think we could realistically offer you 215,000 to include all the furniture, curtains and carpets. It would mean that we would not be able to have the new furniture we planned on for a year or two, but we could gradually do one room at a time as we can afford it. What do you think: 215,000 and you don’t have to worry about house clearers and auction sales?’ Again, Robert and Rosemary are following the soft and sweet pattern, increasing their offer, agreeing with what Jack and Jill are saying, backing down and almost revealing their final position. Jack can see that selling to Robert and Rosemary could have several advantages. The sale would go through smoothly and they could move earlier than they had anticipated, and that would suit them. However he still needs to get the best price he can to conserve as much capital as possible. He keeps following a hard line.

22


‘It has cost us a fortune to get this place looking this good, and you’d be saving a lot of money with the house ready for you to move in without having to spend anything. On the other hand, you say you are in a position to close a deal quickly, so perhaps we could come down to 235,000. If we do that, we’d want to complete the sale quickly.’ Rosemary responds: ‘We couldn’t stretch to 235,000; it’s just too much for us to afford. If we take our savings and borrow extra, we might be able to raise 230,000, but that’s as far as we can go.’ Rosemary has revealed her final position and is doing everything she can to avoid an argument. Jack now knows he cannot push the price any higher, and replies: ‘Well, if that really is all you can manage then I suppose we will at least be able to move quickly and not have to keep showing people round the house. What do you think, Jill?’ ‘It’s not what we want, and I don’t want to make a commitment and then find that Robert and Rosemary cannot go through with the purchase. I think we must insist on a quick sale.’ Jack picks up on this and concludes: ‘Right, well, we will accept your offer of 230,000 but we insist that the sale is completed by the end of the month.’ Finally they shake hands on the deal. As Robert and Rosemary drive home, they are resentful of the fact that they are paying 30,000 more than they had planned. As Jack and Jill stand at their front door and watch them drive away, Jack turns to Jill and comments that they are out-of-pocket by 20,000. That’s what happens with positional negotiation. Both parties feel hard done by but, as we shall see later, the same negotiation could have been achieved more easily and more positively if the two parties had approached it differently.

23


Summary There are three basic rules to all negotiations:

Ground Rule 1: Someone’s got something you want


Ground Rule 3: Plan for the future

24


There are four criteria for conducting an effective negotiation: Sensible : Straightforward : Sustaining : Satisfying

A negotiation should be sensible, appropriate and workable

A negotiation should be straightforward, efficient and smooth

A negotiation should sustain and not damage or diminish the relationship of the parties involved

A negotiation’s outcome should be satisfying, meeting the realistic expectations of both parties

25

2

Who is this person?

You have seen the three rules of negotiation, and the four standards for conducting an effective negotiation. Next are the three steps the parties take when they start to negotiate. These are: 1. Consider the people who are involved. 2. Establish what it is you are discussing. 3. Determine how you are going to negotiate. You can see this in Tork’s encounter in the last chapter. As Tork approaches the group, they look at him with a mixture of curiosity and aggression. Grunt speaks: ‘Who is this person, what’s this all about, and how do we handle this?’ Grunt encapsulates our three steps most succinctly: 1. Consider the people who are involved: Grunt asks: ‘Who is this person?’ 2. Establish what it is you are discussing: Grunt asks: ‘What’s this all about?’

26

WHO IS THIS PERSON?

3. Determine how you are going to negotiate: Grunt asks: ‘How do we handle this?’

Who are you dealing with? This chapter and the next examine the first two elements – the personalities and the issues. The rest of the book looks at the mechanics of negotiation. The people aspect of a negotiation is the first consideration because, whether you are talking about a domestic dispute, a commercial contract or an international treaty, it all starts with the personalities involved. When Grunt asks: ‘Who is this person?’ you can picture them eyeing each other. In any personal interaction, most people will start by looking the other person up and down and making an assessment. This applies whether you are talking about a sales person and a customer, a teacher and a student, or a parent and a child.

First impressions are important The parties each sum up the other and make judgements. You do this when you meet someone face-to-face. Equally, you will use an initial judgement in any type of contact. You don’t need to see people to form an opinion of them. Where the contact is by telephone, you will make a judgement based on their voice, their choice of words and their accent or dialect. If the initial approach is written, you will judge the use of language as well as how the document is structured, the quality of the paper, the style, layout and overall aesthetics. From this you will form an impression about the person or the organization sending it to you. First impressions count for a lot but if you read too much into your initial reaction you can make serious mistakes. The fundamental mistake is to judge the person, rather than evaluate the deal the person is looking for.

27


Are you judging the person, or evaluating the deal on offer? People do it all the time. When two parties make contact they make a judgement about each other before they consider what it is that each is asking for. They use their assessment of the person as a tool to help them determine what the issue is, what the expectation of the other party is and what their position should be. When you see an angry expression, you immediately assume you are going to have to put up a fight. When you see a smiling face you are instinctively more receptive to the person, even before they speak. If you see a pleading face, you imagine you are going to have to make some concessions. Pre-judgement based on skill, experience and human instinct can work to your advantage. A skilled sales manager may use her experience to sum up a customer from a first impression and be able to estimate what the customer is willing to spend on a particular product or service. She may also be able to dismiss contacts who are ‘just looking’ so that she does not miss the opportunity to attend to customers who are more likely prospects. After that first impression the two parties must establish a working relationship. The first consideration – going back to the initial ground rules – is their communication with each other. This can be either helped or hindered by how well they know each other or each other’s personality. It can be an advantage to be negotiating with someone you know well, or who has a similar social, educational or cultural background. On the other hand, this may complicate the process. While friends and enemies may be two extreme examples, the point is that all negotiation is a people-thing and getting to know the other party helps to build a basis for interaction. Common ground, whether it is based on personal background or on the discovery of common interests, values and beliefs, creates a link between the parties, connecting them with a degree of mutual trust.

28

WHO IS THIS PERSON?

Are you letting your personal feelings cloud the issue? It can be difficult to do business with friends because your personal relationship gets in the way of commercial considerations. Maintaining the personal relationship becomes more important than optimizing the proposed transaction. Looking at the opposite situation, you may find it difficult to do business with someone you do not like, even if the deal on offer is a good one, because you do not want to give any benefit or advantage to someone you don’t get on with. What you can see from all of this is that personal relationships, whether positive or negative, can get in the way of achieving an efficient negotiation.

How to handle unavoidable differences In addition, issues of gender, generation, status and culture can all have an impact on any kind of negotiation. In a court of law, a woman in dispute with a man may deliberately choose to be represented by a male solicitor so the element of male/female conflict is reduced. On the other hand, either party to a negotiation may deliberately exploit a difference to gain an advantage. Children, from toddler to teenager, know exactly how to exploit this: a manipulative child negotiating with a parent will use age or dependence to try to win sympathy.

Sorry officer, no speak the lingo A language barrier can be a bonus: a motorist on holiday in a foreign country may plead his ignorance of that country’s laws in order to try to avoid being given a speeding ticket. Sex rears its not-so-ugly head when a handsome man or attractive woman uses flirtatiousness as a tool in a negotiation with a member of the opposite sex. Sometimes such strategies are effective; at other times they can rebound with an unexpected outcome.

29


Would it help if you involved a third party to act as an intermediary? In family life a child may turn to an elder brother or adult relation to mediate with parents over a disagreement, so that the age difference is less significant. Similarly, when there is a differential in the status of the two parties – a junior wishing to negotiate with a superior – the junior may seek the support of a senior colleague. When it comes to cross-cultural or international negotiations, a business executive negotiating with a foreigner will attempt to be familiar with local cultural and social practices to avoid being at a disadvantage. They will frequently engage the services of a local person to act as their agent in handling the discussions to ensure complete comprehension. Where there is any level of language barrier the parties will engage an interpreter to make sure the nuances of language are fully understood. In every case the parties are seeking to remove barriers to communication and to come closer to achieving a basis for rapport. What is more, in these examples they are specifically involving a third party in their negotiations. This is covered in more detail later.

Choosing between the negotiation and the relationship Negotiations are all about people, and personalities are central to every interaction. Personal factors can complicate the issue, or they can make it easier. If you allow personalities to over-influence you, you can end up taking an unwise decision based purely on personality, that does not fully evaluate the issues under discussion. ‘He’s my friend. Give him whatever he wants.’ This is what you might say, basing your decision on a trusted personal relationship. Or, equally prejudiced: ‘Don’t listen to her. She is jealous and is always unreasonable.’ You need to ask yourself what it is that you want. Do you want to maintain the personal relationship, keeping friends as friends – or

30

WHO IS THIS PERSON?

equally, keeping enemies as enemies – or do you want to resolve the issue being negotiated? There is not necessarily anything wrong with making the personal relationship more important than the negotiation, as long as you realize this is what you are doing. What is important is to be aware when you are sacrificing one objective in order to fulfil the other. Take the example of a domestic situation. The husband wants to go to a football match and the wife wants him to go shopping with her – and for various reasons they cannot do both. In this situation either party may decide to relinquish their personal preference in the interests of maintaining the relationship. By contrast, in an international trade negotiation, Cuba may be willing to sell cigars to the US, knowing that the US consumers appreciate the quality and value of their products. However, the US may decide that it wishes to maintain an embargo on trade with Cuba for political reasons. There is nothing wrong with ranking a personal or political consideration as more important than a negotiation, as long as you are aware of what you are doing. So what is the answer? If you keep your distance, if you are cold and dispassionate and do not take personalities into account, you miss the opportunity to build on an existing relationship or on the fact that you do have some common understanding. On the other hand, if you let yourself be swayed by personal or political considerations, you may be unreasonably prejudiced or unfavourably influenced.

Separate the personalities from the problem The only way to set the basis for an efficient negotiation is to be clear about establishing a definite separation between your relationship with the personalities involved, and your attitude to the issues which are being considered in the negotiation. Negotiation is a people business, but people and business must be dealt with separately.

31


Tork and Grunt enter negotiations

First impressions are always important

Grunt looks at Tork. Tork is wearing funny clothes: his loincloth goes right over his shoulder, and what are those silly bits around his ankles? When Tork greets them, his voice is squeaky and some of the words he uses mean nothing to Grunt and his companions. Tork has a big old-fashioned spear so he is obviously out hunting. Grunt is amazed because nobody goes spear-hunting for mammoths these days; it’s terribly out-of-date. Pits are much easier and more reliable. Grunt wonders how sophisticated Tork’s people are. Tork looks at the mammoth that Grunt and his companions are carving up and licks his lips. Grunt guesses that Tork must be hungry.

32

WHO IS THIS PERSON?

Tork looks at Grunt. Grunt and his companions are wearing tiny loincloths that only cover their bottoms. Tork thinks it shameless to walk around with the chest fully exposed, and finds it rather offensive. He is also surprised at their lack of greeting when he approached. He has been formal, following the etiquette of his own people, and has talked at length about the weather before ritually offering blessings on them, their ancestors and their families. All Grunt has done was stare at him, which any civilized man knows is over-familiar, almost rude. They ought to be offering hospitality but show no inclination to share their magnificent kill. Tork is perplexed and unsure how he should proceed.

Culture, tradition, language and territory What you learn from the initial contact can provide you with useful information for your negotiation. You need to verify your early interpretations, and be especially cautious when dealing with people of a different culture. When Tork and Grunt meet they are both perplexed because what they see is unfamiliar. Each finds the other’s appearance rather quaint. How should they proceed? Whether you are talking about a prehistoric caveman or a twentyfirst century city trader, everyone has the same basic primeval desire for territorial demarcation and the same psychological demand for recognition and ego-protection. Everyone has their own values, and even if you do not hold these same values yourself, it is a lot easier to negotiate with the other party if you can at least understand where they are coming from. As soon as they met, Tork and Grunt were forming opinions about each other and each other’s intentions, even though no real communication had yet taken place. Both parties made their initial evaluation of the situation and both started to assess their next steps. As they observed each other, they were drawn back to very basic instincts.

33


Everyone protects their own identity and integrity When you look at members of a younger generation you may be surprised by their priorities and some of the things they do. People forget that their own parents were similarly perplexed by their actions and ideas. Similarly, you can look back at history, look at the actions of governments of previous generations, and ask yourself: ‘How on earth did they arrive at that solution?’ Whether you are talking about the impulsive actions of teenagers or the political actions of past governments, the answer to the question is that they chose their options because they felt good about the values on which they based their decisions and felt good about the outcome they achieved. Their egos were validated, their values were upheld and their self-esteem was preserved. Their decision was right at the time because decisions are rooted in real-time and relate to the values of the day. This point is crucial to understanding the process of negotiation. There is always a tendency to judge past events by present values, and hindsight is an exact and unforgiving science. When you look back at past events and try to understand them, you need to understand the perspective and realities of a past era. When you negotiate with someone, you need to understand where they are coming from.

Everyone operates from their own perspective When people talk about a ‘point of view’ they are using the vocabulary of perspective. Each party to a negotiation will operate primarily from their own perspective – their own point of view – in a way they perceive to be perfectly logical and rational. This was considered in the previous section when you looked at gender, generation, status and culture. Because it’s not always easy to do this, people will often appoint an intermediary who can relate more easily with the other party. But there’s more to it than being the same gender, race or nationality. If you look back at history you can see how the whole social context affects why people did the things they did and why this sometimes looks strange from a present-day perspective.

34

WHO IS THIS PERSON?

Put yourself in the other party’s position When people look back at the age of the British Empire, they are often puzzled. They question how one civilization thought it appropriate and justifiable to eliminate cultures and societies that had existed for many generations. You can start to find the answer if you now examine the British parliamentary debates that surrounded – for example – the building of the railways in East Africa. There, you will find discussion of the economic imperative to open up Africa to trade and commerce. This you can understand, because current thinking is that imperialism was essentially an economic movement born of greed and arrogance. However, what you will also find as a strong thread in the parliamentary arguments is a passionate desire to evangelize and bring western education and values to areas that had been isolated from the outside world before the railway was conceived. The Victorians wanted to create economic wealth, and at the same time they embodied a strong element of altruism in believing they had a mission to ‘save’ the local population by converting them to Christianity. If this sounds unbelievable to twenty-first century ears, you can go back to Hansard, the official record of British parliamentary debates, and look at what was being said in Parliament at that time. It is revealing to discover that these were the clear values that were being expressed. You will make your own judgement as to whether you believe people were being open and honest in what they said, but many other contemporary records support the thesis that idealism and religious fervour were important elements in the British colonial psyche at that time.

You don’t have to agree with another person’s point of view, but you do have to understand and appreciate it What actually happened in terms of the seizure of land and other assets, and in terms of the violent wars of conquest, is a separate issue; what you can see is that the basic motivation was far from simple territorial expansion and economic exploitation. Today, society challenges and denounces colonialism because society has different

35


values. By and large, people are arguably more tolerant and more open to different ideas. In short, people today have a different perspective from people a century ago. And when we try to look forward, it is challenging to try to predict future attitudes. ➣ How do you think history will judge the American nation for the invasions of first Afghanistan and then Iraq? ➣ Will multiculturalism be looked on in a positive or negative light? ➣ Is Political Correctness a mature and correct way to interact with other people or is it patronising and over-reacting? All we can do is try to see a situation from many points of view, and try to understand the various different perspectives. Usually we will see the bare bones of a negotiating situation. If you look deeper into imperialism, you can see colonization as a sort of negotiation, going back to Rule One: Someone’s got something you want Colonization failed as a way of achieving this for many reasons including its ultimate failure under Rule Three: Plan for the future One of the underlying reasons for failure was that, despite the benevolent and humanitarian assertions found in contemporary documentation, colonialism threatened two of the most important elements of civilization: It denounced self esteem and it claimed territory.

You must acknowledge the other party’s territory and self-esteem Personal integrity, the sense of self-worth and ego, is at the heart of our individual values. If you are not allowed to be yourself, you will rebel against the other party and insist on your right to be who you are as an independent human individual. There will be a lack of communication and understanding, and ultimately the parties will polarize into opposing positions.

36

WHO IS THIS PERSON?

Once again, you can look at history for examples. In the negotiations leading to the independence of India from the British Empire, Jawarhalal Nehru, then the future first Indian Prime Minister, said: ‘We want the right to make our own mistakes.’ The peoples of India did not want to be told what they could and could not do. They claimed the right to act within their own personal integrity. This is a classic negotiation scenario. In every negotiation, each party wants to make its own choices in accordance with its own values, and from its own perspective. It is only when each party truly believes it is reaching the best available decision, that you have the basis for a positive solution. The final outcome may not be what each party had hoped for at the outset, but it must be one that each party agrees to as an acceptable resolution. When you look at a formal negotiation like an armistice, even though it confirms that one party has won and one has lost, it now establishes a new, non-combatant relationship, a workable way forward. In one sense, ego is all about the territory you occupy mentally. Personal territory is an imperative which must be considered in any negotiation. People are all animals at heart, occupying their own space in every sense, whether they are sitting with a group of friends drinking coffee and chatting socially or whether they are at the boardroom table discussing corporate policy.

Choosing where to negotiate The selection of a location will make a clear statement about the relationship between the parties. If one wishes to create the impression of equality, it is important to select a neutral location, or to alternate between Home and Away. This will ensure that neither party has reason to be intimidated by being on the other’s territory; nor is either party able to demonstrate territorial dominance. It is highly significant that the talks to end the Vietnam War were delayed for months because no agreement could be reached on the shape of the table around which the delegates would meet to

37


negotiate. That was not a matter of aesthetics or whim; it was a highly significant issue of the physical territory the parties would be seen to occupy. What is more, the negotiating table was eventually situated in a neutral venue (Paris). The location of a negotiation often determines a hierarchy between the parties, which is why international alliances are often concluded on neutral ground or at a relatively anonymous location. The Franco-German armistice in the First World War was concluded in a railway carriage in the middle of a forest, away from any publicity so that no element of triumphalism could endanger the ongoing relationship between the population and the invading power. In more recent times, negotiations on the ongoing crisis in the Middle East have been held in the United States, signifying on the one hand the removal of the negotiation from the theatre of the dispute, but at the same time confirming the dominant role of America in influencing policy in the negotiations between the Arab and Israeli peoples. An acknowledgement of both real and virtual territory is fundamental to understanding effective negotiation. You hear it in the vocabulary of negotiation: ‘We need space to manoeuvre … Where do we go from here …? We need to move on …’

The importance of showing respect When you look at acknowledging and understanding ego, you come up against one of the buzz-words of the twenty-first century: Respect. It is a word commonly used by people who feel themselves to be socially or economically disadvantaged. They demand respect because it is the essential element that validates their individual ego and their right to personal territory.

38

WHO IS THIS PERSON?

When someone asks for respect, what is it that they are actually asking for? In a sense it is recognition of their individuality – but how do you recognize individuality? You do it by moving out of your own mindset and temporarily putting yourself into the mindset – the beliefs and values – of the other party. You set aside your own opinions (ego) and vacate your own position (territory) so you can see what your opinions and your position look like from a different perspective. In doing this, you show you are willing to explore – to use a territorial expression – where the other party is coming from. You are acknowledging and practising the real process of negotiation.

Now, back to the cavemen again Grunt asks: ‘Who is this person?’ Having made his initial assessment he needs to find out more, and to establish what it is that Tork wants to negotiate. From the length and substance of Tork’s opening greeting, Grunt realizes Tork is used to rather more formality than his own tribe. He puts down his flint knife and the bone he has been gnawing and raises his hand in his own tribe’s formal greeting. Then he adds a few words which he hopes will be well-received: ‘Greetings to you, stranger. Blessings on your women and children.’ In doing this, he acknowledges Tork’s ego, and then he needs to address territory. He can invite Tork to join them, but in doing so he is both inviting him into his circle with his companions, and at the same time effectively threatening him by outnumbering him. He cleverly chooses a compromise and gestures to some rocks a few yards away. ‘Let’s sit over there and talk.’

39


Get to know the person you are dealing with Grunt’s companions watch as Tork and Grunt walk across and sit down. Grunt makes sure that Tork can see the others. He also ensures his companions can see him and overhear the conversation. Tork understands the strategy and complies. There is still an imbalance in the negotiation, which is clear to Grunt as he sees Tork licking his lips. Grunt offers Tork a hunk of meat and the balance is restored. Tork is now revising his initial opinion of the other tribe. They clearly don’t have the same traditions as his own people, but they have made him comfortable by accommodating his psychological needs and his hunger. Grunt knows he has made all the right moves. He has carefully thought about the situation from Tork’s point of view,

40

WHO IS THIS PERSON?

knowing that he and his companions are in a strong and possibly threatening position. Now Grunt has to decide what to do next – but he is in no hurry to declare his hand. That can wait while they get to know each other. In particular, he needs to assess whether the neighbour’s group is large and threatening, or small and a potential ally in the struggle for survival. When Tork has finished eating, Grunt talks about the mammoth they have hunted and asks Tork if he has had any success. Tork is careful not to reveal too much of the harsh situation of his people, who have not eaten well in weeks. He does not wish to imply that his plight is desperate, even though things are very tough right now. He tells Grunt that he has been tracking the mammoth Grunt and his companions trapped and congratulates his neighbours on their success. This shows respect for Grunt, addressing his ego. He continues the conversation about food supplies, reverting to their common interest: ‘I like to hunt alone. Are there just the three of you who are hunters?’ Tork has been clever, not revealing that he is the only strong and fit adult male in his group, but at the same time asking Grunt a leading question which may help identify the size of his group. ‘We need three of us to carry the meat back to our people. How could you manage alone if you were successful in your hunt?’ Tork thinks a moment: ‘One hunter can move silently, while the others wait to help when I find the mammoth. If there were more of us there would be more danger.’ There is now mutual respect, because each party has shown skill and intelligence in the way they conduct their business. A similar conversation could have taken place between a manufacturer and a potential supplier seeking to discover more about each other. There is an element of point-scoring in the exchange, but equally there is a common language that establishes a basis for understanding. The

41


two parties sit in silence, each considering the next move, then Grunt speaks: ‘This is a harsh and difficult life.’ ‘I agree, food is hard to find,’ responds Tork, not wanting to put himself at a disadvantage by making any requests at this stage and putting himself and his people under an obligation to their neighbours. Grunt pauses, then speaks again: ‘Perhaps we can help each other. There might be ways that would make life easier for all of us.’ Tork thinks for a moment, then has an idea: ‘What we need is a strategy, something that would work for all of us. Not just a survival strategy, we need a policy, a great, big, mammoth strategy, a way of working together so that we don’t have to worry about the day-to-day problems.’ Grunt laughed. ‘Mammoth strategy – that’s good. A strategy for dealing with mammoths and a big, strong strategy, a way of doing things that will work whenever we need to resolve an issue. I reckon you and I could come up with something that would suit all of us.’ And so they establish a personal relationship, and begin to negotiate.

Summary Communication is at the heart of negotiation. There is no communication without understanding, and the only way to ensure you are understanding and being understood is by constant active listening, emphasis and explanation, and by asking for clarification. Personalities can help or hinder a negotiation. Whether or not you like the other person is relevant, but must be put to one side: you must separate the personalities from the problem.

42

WHO IS THIS PERSON?

Who are you dealing with? A pre-negotiation checklist How do you relate to the other person? Are you the same gender as the other party?

Is this an advantage or a disadvantage?

Are you the same status as the other party? Is he/she superior or inferior to you in the organization or situation you are in?

Do you need to act in a different way?

Are you culturally similar? Are there any national, religious or racial issues which might affect your conversation?

Should you appoint a third party who would relate more effectively to the other person?

Do you have similar social and educational backgrounds?

Should you negotiate through your local business agent, a legal representative, an interpreter, someone closer to the other party in status or age or of the same gender?

Are you both speaking your mother-tongue? Do you have a fluent and fully understood common language?

Timing Are you ready to hold this negotiation here and now?

What will be the effect if you delay the negotiation?

Is the other party ready to proceed?

Can you agree when to proceed?

Location Should you aim to hold the negotiation on your own territory?

Would a neutral location be an advantage?

Should you aim to hold the negotiation on the other party’s territory?

Is there a significant third party whose territory could be used advantageously?

Common interest Can you see possible areas of common interest?

Are you willing to explore possibilities?

Is the other party open to expanding the negotiation?

Will they be persuaded to move from a fixed position?

43

3

What’s this all about?

In traditional Positional Negotiation, this is where things can start to go wrong. Grunt’s position is that he has food supplies. Tork’s position is that he doesn’t. If they focus on the present circumstances, they can see the situation only in terms of one party winning at the expense of the other, which is generally the outcome of Positional Negotiation. There is another way to look at this. After all, what’s this all about?

Establishing the issues It is vital to realize that the issue is not that Grunt has food and Tork does not; it’s all about the fact that food is scarce and hard to come by. This is the critical issue, and the particular situations of Grunt and Tork are the direct result of this central issue. When the cave people find a mammoth they have plenty, but mammoth-hunting is hard work and not always successful. Suppose Tork had met Grunt and his companions on the previous day, when they were all very hungry and desperately hunting. After the initial greetings and formalities establishing a relationship and finding a comfortable neutral location to talk, their conversation might have gone something like this: ‘Seen any mammoths today?’

44

WHAT’S THIS ALL ABOUT?

‘I saw two together, over by the mountain.’ ‘That’s always dangerous when there are two of them.’ ‘Yes, the trouble is that if you manage to get one then the other can come on after you.’ ‘Suppose we got a crowd of us together and tried to separate them, then we could limit the risk. What do you think?’ ‘If we involved all our people who can run fast, it could work. Mind you, we’d have to work closely together.’ ‘But then we could have enough food for all of us.’ Tork and Grunt have a common objective, which is to have enough food. That objective already existed on the day before Grunt and his companions were successful, and it will be the same objective when the new stock they are dining off today is depleted. The present situation, when Tork has no food and Grunt has plenty, does not contradict the basic fact, which is that food is generally scarce and it is hard to feed everybody.

Moving in the right direction Let’s look at what happens if you compare the process of Positional Negotiation with Directional Negotiation, viewing the situation from a broader perspective. Tork and Grunt will have a more efficient negotiation if they concentrate on the issue, explore all the options and are open to investigating all the alternatives. If they keep personalities out of the discussion and listen to each other’s point of view, concerns and needs, they can discover whether there is a solution that works for both of them. It is in human nature to be so focused on your own position that you fail to see the opportunities which could satisfy both parties. Taking a creative approach requires a willingness to forget any preconceived ideas about what the outcome has to be, and an openness to considering every option.

45


Positional Negotiation

Directional Negotiation

Rough & Tough

Soft & Sweet

Broader Perspective

Going for conquest

Going for agreement

Going for an appropriate outcome

Dig in

Suggest deals

Focus on what it’s all about

Threaten

Offer

Explore

Go for what you’ll settle for

Go for what they’ll settle for

Establish what all the options are

Argue for own position

Argue for agreement

Look for mutually beneficial options

Push hard

Back down

Listen, and be open to alternatives

Conceal final position

Reveal final position

Don’t have any fixed final position

Increase argument

Avoid argument

Listen to reason, and respond accordingly

Distrust

Trust

Take trust out of the equation

Be hard

Be soft

Be balanced

Make demands as a condition of maintaining the relationship

Concede in the interests of maintaining the relationship

Keep personalities out of it

You can illustrate this example if you take a look at two cavewomen who live far away from Grunt and Tork, on the other side of the mountain. They are Wizpa and Chat, and they have their own problems surviving in these primeval times. Once again, one group has trapped a mammoth while the other has been unsuccessful. Chat arrives on the scene to find Wizpa and her companions hard at work skinning the mighty beast.

46


Fighting over the kill

‘I want that mammoth,’ shouts Chat. ‘You can’t have it. We found it and it’s ours!’ replies Wizpa. ‘You can’t possibly want all that – it’s huge,’ says Chat. At this point Chat and Wizpa have taken up positions and are arguing about who should have the mammoth. The argument could move into Rough & Tough mode and become violent, or Chat might play it Soft & Sweet. Eventually they might agree to divide the carcass, but would this serve their individual needs? Think about it for a moment! What would happen is that both parties would be left disgruntled, having failed to maximize what they could have got out of the negotiation.

47


You must establish what both parties want from a negotiation The problem with Chat and Wizpa is that they have not established what it is that each wants from the mammoth. The argument continues. ‘We need all of the mammoth. We are cold at night and winter is coming. We need to keep warm,’ retorts Wizpa. Wizpa’s issue is that she and her group are cold, so they need the fur of the mammoth to make clothes and bedding. ‘And my people are all hungry,’ answers Chat. Chat’s issue is that she and her group are hungry, and they want to eat the mammoth. ‘Why are you hungry?’ says Wizpa. ‘The lake is full of fish.’ ‘How can anybody catch a fish?’ asks Chat. ‘They swim too quickly. And anyway, why are you cold? There is plenty of wood to burn?’ ‘Only thunderstorms make fire,’ says Wizpa. ‘We can’t keep the fire after the storms, and we can’t make it ourselves. As for fishing, don’t you know how to make a harpoon?’ Chat’s people have no problem keeping warm in winter, but the only source of food they are familiar with is meat. On the other hand, Wizpa’s people have no problem taking fish from the lake for food, but they do not know how to keep warm without layers of fur clothing and bedding. The debate continues. Wizpa pauses for a moment, and then makes a proposal – a revolutionary win-win solution. ‘We will show you how to make harpoons and catch fish if you will teach us how you make fire.’ Suddenly, the negotiation is not about the mammoth at all. It has moved on to skills which each can teach the other – and transfer of skills means that there is a benefit to the receiver without any loss to

48


the giver. This proposal benefits both parties but Chat’s eyes are still on the mammoth. Chat thinks, and then offers a counter proposal: ‘What about the carcass? Once you’ve skinned it you’ll have enough fur to keep you warm. What about all that meat? There’s too much there for your group to eat and our people love to eat meat.’ Wizpa looks for a further deal. ‘The meat is tough and hard. That’s why we don’t eat it. But the bones are really useful.’ Chat is surprised. ‘If you put the meat on the fire it is very good to eat. It becomes tender. It tastes really good. You can cook it with plants and vegetables, too. You say the bones are useful? Why would you want to keep the bones? We just throw them away.’ Wizpa shakes her head in disbelief. ‘Bones can be carved into different shapes; we make all sorts of things with bones, including brooches and buckles for our clothes. You can sharpen pieces of bone to make knives and it’s perfect for harpoons, of course. That’s how we catch the fish.’

What was it all about? It wasn’t about who should have the spoils of the hunt, it was about finding sources of food and finding ways to keep warm at night. Once they established what it was all about, they created a winwin solution.

Solving each other’s problems by being creative Now you have established that there is in fact no conflict between the positions that Wizpa and Chat started from. The secret of this success has been a willingness to move from a fixed position, to be

49


creative and open to ideas. Once they focused on their needs they quickly reach an ideal outcome. Let’s look again at the negotiation you considered in Chapter One, with Jack and Jill selling their house to Robert and Rosemary.

It’s not just a matter of price The first example of their negotiation focused primarily on the price. In reality, there were many other issues that surfaced in the course of the negotiation. Jack and Jill were going to sell not only their house but also the contents. Although they said they were not in a hurry to sell, there was considerable benefit in being able to sell to buyers who did not themselves have a property to dispose of. They pitched the price of their property at 250,000, which was at the higher end of its valuation, and you saw that Robert and Rosemary knew there were similar properties available at a range of prices lower than this. Although Robert and Rosemary had a figure of 200,000 in mind, they were going to have to spend a significant sum on furnishing their new home. This means Jack and Jill wanted to sell their home and much of the contents, while Robert and Rosemary wanted to buy a house and most of the necessary furnishings. This was what it was really all about, but all of this only came out after initial disagreement and a degree of tension.

When you know the real issues, the negotiation can be more efficient, smooth and straightforward In the end, the figure of 230,000 was probably a fair and realistic price for both parties. But it only appears so when you look at what the negotiation was really all about, and not when you examine it from the standpoint of the opening positions of the two parties. From that opening perspective, it seems that the 50,000 differential could never be bridged.

50


How do you handle this? You have looked in some detail at the matter of establishing what a negotiation is about, but finding out what the real issues are is only one step in the negotiation process; most negotiations involve a further stage. Generally negotiations take place on two levels at the same time.

The What? And the How? Firstly you need to establish what it is that you are negotiating about. Then you need to determine how the negotiation itself should be conducted – and, most importantly, how the parties can evaluate and judge the proposed outcomes. A tough salesman will often try to establish a timescale in advance, telling a customer that the prices and deals he is quoting are only valid if the customer signs up there and then. At the other extreme, it may take days to draw up the timetable for an international negotiation, establishing the format and timetable for a series of discussions, determining how evidence will be presented, and deciding in advance what sort of agreement will be acceptable to both sides.

Examining the process of Directional Negotiation Let’s take another look at Grunt and Tork, in the first example, when Tork finds his neighbours grouped around the carcass. Tork arrives on the scene and sees his neighbours eating. His stomach rumbles and he feels very hungry. ‘Give me some food,’ he shouts. ‘I haven’t eaten for three days!’ Grunt looks up and sees the stranger. He could say: ‘No, we are also hungry. We haven’t eaten all week!’ Tork has now stalled the negotiation. By focusing exclusively on his own position he has tried to start the negotiation but has failed to consider the other party’s position. Suppose he had said:

51


‘I see you are hungry and eating well.’ In doing this Tork is deliberately seeing things from Grunt’s point of view and Grunt cannot disagree with what Tork is saying. Grunt might then have replied: ‘Yes, it is a long time since we have eaten. Are you also hungry?’ Grunt can see from the expression on Tork’s face that he is, and Grunt’s approach is polite, inviting Tork to join them. This resolves the immediate imbalance without creating a longer term problem. Grunt and his people cannot eat a whole mammoth by themselves, and nor can Tork, so the main negotiation on whether they should all share their food is postponed.

What did it take to resolve the negotiation?

52


Summary The negotiation process goes through six steps. 1. You set the scene. This means establishing a personal connection and deciding when and where the negotiation should take place. The next step is: 2. You acknowledge both of your positions. You cannot ignore the realities of a situation, and the realities are the positions you start with. However, having acknowledged the situation, you can then start to look for the underlying issues. 3. You define the issues. The basic issue between Grunt and Tork is that food is scarce and hard to come by. You now need to explore and see if there are other issues that may be particularly important to either party. In the example of Chat and Wizpa, you again saw how the existing position can cloud the issue; they both wanted the mammoth but they wanted different parts and for different reasons. In any negotiation, you must continually pull the debate away from considerations of positions, and to do this: 4. You identify the desired outcome. This may not be as straightforward as it was when Tork and Grunt agreed that food was scarce and hard to come by. There may be many possible outcomes to a negotiation, and many ways of achieving the outcomes, leading to the next stage: 5. You explore possible solutions. Even then, exploring and debating are not enough. You will not reach an acceptable resolution of the negotiation unless you agree in advance on how you will differentiate between good outcomes and bad outcomes, and between good and bad ways of achieving the desired outcomes. This establishes the final stage of a negotiation, which is: 6. You establish how you will evaluate the options. As you can see, you are no longer negotiating about the positions, nor are you yet negotiating about the issue. You are determining the process of negotiation itself and agreeing on the parameters by which you will judge the options.

53


To summarize, this then is the process of Directional Negotiation: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

You You You You You You

set the scene. acknowledge both of your positions. define the issues. identify the desired outcome. explore possible solutions. establish how you will evaluate the options.

RECAPITULATION OF PART ONE Negotiating strategies There are two basic strategies: Positional Negotiation which means arguing from where you start, or Directional Negotiation which means arguing towards what the parties want. Most people use positional negotiation even though it leaves both sides dissatisfied, whereas if you find the common objective that is underlying a negotiation, you can work towards a mutually rewarding outcome. This book concerns itself with making directional negotiation work for you, and the following chapters explore different aspects, tactics and approaches. We have set out ground rules, criteria, scope and a process to make this work efficiently.

The three ground rules There are three basic rules to all negotiations:

Ground rule 1: negotiation starts because someone’s got something you want

54


Ground rule 2: negotiation can only continue if the parties can understand one another – and also be understood

Ground rule 3: negotiation is only successful if you plan for the future

The scope of the negotiation 1. The People: consider the people who are involved. 2. The Topic: establish what it is that you are discussing. 2. The Method: determine how you are going to negotiate.

The criteria of the negotiation Four criteria for conducting an effective negotiation: Sensible : Straightforward : Sustaining : Satisfying

Firstly, a negotiation should be sensible, appropriate and workable

55


Secondly, it should be straightforward, efficient and smooth

Thirdly, it’s important that a negotiation should sustain and not damage or diminish the relationship of the parties involved

Finally, a negotiation’s outcome should be satisfying, meeting the realistic expectations of both parties

The six-step process of directional negotiation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

You You You You You You

set the scene. acknowledge both of your positions. define the issues. identify the desired outcome. explore possible solutions. establish how you evaluate the options.

In Part Two you will learn about all the necessary preparation that establishes the context and background for a negotiation. In Part Three you will learn the essential skills for handling the negotiation itself. If it all sounds very complicated, be assured that homo sapiens has been negotiating since he was hunting mammals. And while some of his contemporaries were making the same mistakes then as people still make today with positional negotiation, others were learning the winning strategies and tactics of directional negotiation arguing towards a win-win solution.

56

PART TWO

Preparation for negotiation

4

Knowing what you want

Sometimes, what seems like a good idea ... isn’t Some time later, after further discussions with Grunt, Tork rushes back to the cave, excited about the news he has for the family: ‘Listen, everyone! We are going to join forces with the people who live on the other side of the valley and work together to trap mammoths. We’re going to live together as one big community. Isn’t it a great idea?’ His wife, brother, sisters, uncles, aunts, in-laws and all his relations look at him with shocked expressions. His wife responds: ‘Will there be room for all of us? And anyway, I’ve only just finished the cave-paintings in the living area. It’s looking so bright and cheerful; I don’t know that I like the idea of living down in the valley.’ Tork’s sister joins in the conversation: ‘How many people are there in that tribe? I thought they were all young warriors; how many women and children are there?’ Tork’s father breaks out in a fit of coughing. Noisily clearing his throat, he looks at Tork with a worried expression on his face:

59


‘It’s very damp, down there in the valley, you know. The fog and mist hang low every morning. It won’t do my chest any good – I get very wheezy in the winter. The air up here suits me, and I like to sit out on the ledge and watch the sun go down. You know that, Tork. ‘It’s not much to ask for in my old age, just a place in the evening sun to sit and watch the clouds drift by. I’ve done my bit over the years, you know, been a hunter and raised a fine family. You can’t expect me to start moving around the countryside at my age. It’s not on, you know.’ Tork is taken aback, and rather flustered as he tries to respond to their objections: ‘Well, the guys I met seem really nice. I don’t know if they have families and I thought a change would be a good thing … ‘It just seemed like a great idea when we were talking about it … ‘We were thinking that ...’ Tork’s voice fades away. He had been full of enthusiasm for Grunt’s proposal that the two groups should cooperate and live together. The two of them had been so excited that they had readily agreed to go ahead without consulting their families, without thinking through all the implications of the idea. In their enthusiasm, neither of them had taken account of the many issues and concerns that their families might have. Meanwhile, down in the valley, Grunt sits down with his family group, smiles broadly and announces: ‘The people up on the mountain are going to come down here and live with us. I met this chap Tork – nice bloke – and we reckon that if we all hunt together then life will be a lot easier.’ The group is silent. Boss, the most senior member of the group, strokes his beard and looks Grunt in the eye:

60

KNOWING WHAT YOU WANT

Like Tork, Grunt lets his enthusiasm get the better of him

‘Your great-grandfather had the same thought, you know. It seemed such a good idea, but in the end there was an argument and our ancestors drove them back up the mountain. ‘Mountain people are very different, you know. They’re lazy and they’re poor hunters. The women just stay in the cave and play with the children. They’re not like us. It will never work out.’ Grunt’s two sisters, who both have teenage daughters, exchange sly glances. One turns to the other with a look of shock and dismay on her face: ‘Well, you know what those mountain men are after, don’t you? They want our daughters!’ Grunt realizes there are other things to consider apart from having more people to help with the hunting. Perhaps they should have

61


talked about it more before hastily shaking hands on what had seemed like a good idea at the time. They had not asked themselves the first question of any negotiation: ‘Is this important, and is it urgent?’ When Tork was facing the tiger the timescale was critical – kill or be killed. When Tork met Grunt, the topic they discussed was very important to both of them – but it was not a matter that needed to be decided there and then. Confusing importance with urgency is a common fault you can make when you become deeply involved in wanting to resolve a situation. Tork and Grunt became so excited at the prospect of an easier life that they rushed to decisions without taking all the implications into account.

Fools rush in … The message of this example is that it is not a good idea to rush into an agreement unless circumstances demand instant action. Once in a while you may face a situation when you need to make a snap decision. Far more often, it pays to take stock and assess all the issues involved before coming to a decision that may have many ramifications. Techniques for making quick decisions are examined later in the book – but firstly this section looks at how you prepare yourself for a negotiation.

Is this a good time to talk? Tork and Grunt both rushed in and started trying to negotiate without first establishing whether the other parties were even interested in negotiating. To maximise your bargaining power, you need to be sure you’ve sorted the fundamentals. Is this the right time, the right place, and is the other side interested in talking? The following diagram is based on the Harvard Theory of Negotiation, and sets out the critical path for laying the foundation for a negotiation.

62


The first steps in opening the negotiation process

Meet face-to-face : first impressions

Gender

Culture

Age

Establish appropriate approach

Status

Appoint third party negotiator

Formalities and exploratory remarks

Decide not to proceed

Decide to proceed Timing – are we both ready to proceed?

No

Yes

Do I want to continue?

No

Yes Postpone negotiation Reschedule timing

Unable to agree on timing

Reach agreement on timing

Do both parties agree on location?

No

Yes

Passive approach

Active approach

Await proposal from other party

Propose alternative location

Discuss alternatives

Unable to reach agreement

Agree on location Open negotiations

Decide not to negotiate

Determine negotiation process

63


What will you talk about? What do you really, really want? At the same time as being sure your timing is right and that the other party is ready, willing and able to negotiate, you must be clear about what it is that you really want out of the deal. Just as importantly, why do you want it? Are there other ways of achieving your objective? What is your acceptable WAO? If you start by finding the answers to these questions you are well-prepared to negotiate sensibly towards the outcome you desire.

The importance of preparation Every negotiation is about change. You saw in Part One how negotiation is often couched in phrases that relate to location, position and movement. Negotiation involves changing your position from where you are at the moment to a new position – whether it’s about war and peace, buying and selling, hiring and firing, or agreeing what to do on a sunny afternoon. To negotiate successfully about this change in position, you need to prepare yourself by knowing: ➣ Where you are at the moment ➣ Where you would like to go ➣ Where the other party or parties to the negotiation would like to go ➣ And finally, where you are willing to go if you cannot go where you would ideally want to go Working out these positions is preparation that will often make the difference between good and bad negotiation. When you consider all these positions before you start to negotiate, you not only clarify things in our own mind, you also establish a clear and strong basis for your discussions. Furthermore, you lay the foundations for achieving a lasting outcome rather than a temporary solution.

Being realistic Knowing your position does not mean you are adopting Positional Negotiation; it just means you acknowledge how things stand at

64


present and have an expectation of what you want. You will probably also have some sort of road map in your head with various options clearly defined.

Knowing what you want Whether you are negotiating a family decision, like Tork and Grunt’s plans to join forces as a community together down in the valley, or whether it is a matter of a business transaction or a career move, you must decide precisely what you want to achieve. Not more or less the sort of outcome you might settle for, but a clear picture of what it is that you want, what it entails, and why you want it. Tork knew he wanted an easier way to have enough food for himself and his family but neither he nor Grunt had thought through all the implications of the solution they hit on – which would mean relocating Tork’s family and disrupting Grunt’s living arrangements. Let’s take a contemporary example and examine the preparation you might go through as part of a plan to make a career move. Imagine you have been in the same job for three years and feel that you’ve gone as far as you can in your current employment. You hear that one of your customers is setting up a new business, and you believe this could represent an interesting opportunity for you. You start by talking about this informally, to find out more about the company and discover what openings there might be. If this looks promising, you might then have an exploratory interview, and if this goes well, you could be invited back to negotiate the possibility of a job. Up to this point, there has been no actual negotiation. You have been going through a logical progression.

Setting your personal agenda Having gone through the preliminaries, the next stage in your preparation is to determine the criteria you will be considering. These will depend on the type of work you are applying for. You will not – if you are serious about getting the best deal from your new employer –

65


simply be looking for a certain level of pay. You will have an idea of the salary and benefits you want, and you will also be ready to justify why you believe that your proposal is fair and reasonable. Timescale: you know your personal timescale. If you were currently unemployed, a new job would probably be a matter of some urgency. On the other hand, if you are reasonably content in your present employment, there is probably no need to be over-anxious to finalize negotiations quickly and come to a quick decision.

Mutual benefit: you have determined that there is something each of you wants from the other.

Communication: you have established personal contact and have no problem communicating.

Desirable outcome: you both know that the subject of the negotiation will be a mutually acceptable contract of employment.

Process: you also know how you will negotiate, because there is an accepted procedure – the interview scenario – which you both accept as the process for reaching a negotiated agreement.

It could be simply a matter of determining the job and the remuneration package, or it could be more complex and look something like this: ➣ You will have an idea of the appointment you want in the company, and what this means in terms of role and responsibility ➣ You will want be sure that you will have the support and assistance you need to perform your job effectively, with specific

66


authority in terms of your authority to hire and fire, and to make certain levels of expenditure ➣ You will want specific strategic authority to set policy, within the terms of the job specification ➣ You will know the salary you are looking for, and will want to ensure that the ratio of fixed salary to performance bonus is acceptable to you ➣ You will know what additional benefits you expect in terms of personal insurance, life and health cover, pension scheme and holiday entitlement ➣ Finally, and you will consider this in more detail in a moment, you will know what your options are if the job offer does not match up to what you are looking for Clearly, the more senior the appointment, the more critical some of these elements will be. But all of the above points apply to some extent to any level of employment. Even the most junior position carries with it certain rights, obligations, duties and privileges.

Knowing where you can afford to be flexible The sum total of these criteria acts as a starting point for you, but takes no account of what may be important to the other side. Again, that can be put to one side for a moment. Clearly, potential employers will not want to pay you more than they think you are worth. They may not wish to grant you privileges and benefits they are not offering other employees in similar jobs. Because of this, it is important that you decide how flexible you are over the criteria you have listed and think about the range of alternative outcomes which you are prepared to accept in each of the areas. There may be a balance. Some points may be critical to your decision, while you may be prepared to reduce your demands in some areas in return for an increased benefit in others.

The importance of the timescale One crucial factor in any negotiation, quite apart from the simple mutual benefits of the transaction itself, is the question of urgency.

67


Are you in a hurry or can you afford to wait? Do you have a deadline? Is the other side anxious to conclude the deal quickly? The package deal that one party is prepared to offer is almost always related to the need and urgency with which the other party wants it. Generally, if you are not in a hurry to finalize a negotiation, whichever side you are on, you are in a stronger position. If you are in business and critically short of funds, you may be forced to borrow at a high rate of interest or sell a controlling share of your business in order to survive. If you are trying to buy a house and are in a position to move quickly because you are currently renting accommodation with a short-term lease, the person who is selling to you may accept a lower offer because he or she knows you can close the deal quickly. One person who needed money and concluded a deal which later proved to have cost him dearly was J.R.R. Tolkien, author of the fantasy trilogy Lord of the Rings. In 1968, Tolkien sold the film rights to Lord of the Rings for 10,000 pounds sterling in order to settle a personal tax bill. When the three films were eventually made, almost 40 years later, they grossed almost three billion US dollars in box-office takings with a further two billion dollars from additional sales and rentals of videos and the merchandising programme of toys, games and other products. Even allowing for exchange-rate fluctuations and inflation, Tolkien’s price represents a miniscule fraction of one per cent of the film’s earnings. Was it a good deal or a bad deal? In 1968, Tolkien needed money urgently. At that time, with the growth of television changing the pattern of social life, market analysts across Europe were predicting the demise of the cinema industry, and theatres were being pulled down or converted to leisure centres and supermarkets. The offer of 10,000 probably looked reasonable, and nobody could then have imagined that the eventual screen adaptations would prove to be in the all-time top ten of box-office money-earners. The crucial points are that both the prevailing market conditions and the seller’s need to conclude a deal were strong factors in enabling

68


the purchaser to strike a bargain that now, with the benefit of hindsight, seems to have been a steal. Once you: ➣ know the timeframe ➣ know what you want and ➣ know how flexible you are prepared to be with your demands … you will have taken three of the most important steps in preparing yourself. But setting a starting position and deciding on your final position are not enough.

Moving from ‘What?’ to ‘Why?’ If you can’t get what you want, and even the final negotiation falls short of what you are prepared to settle for, what will you do? What are the alternatives to achieving a negotiated agreement? Sometimes you become over-attached to the subject of one particular negotiation and end up making more concessions than you had planned. Alternatively, you walk away when your final offer is refused, and have a sense of failure about the whole deal. The reason this happens is because you lose sight of your motivation. You can become so focused on the one particular negotiation that you forget why you started on this course of action. If you go back to basics, and you clarify the reasons why you want to make a deal, you can see whether the present negotiation is the only solution, or whether it is one of a range of possible alternatives. Furthermore, you can establish a course of action to follow, if all your negotiations fall through. This is what is called the WAO – the Walk-Away Option.

The risks of seeing a single solution Let’s return to Robert and Rosemary, who bought the house and most of the furniture from Jack and Jill and are now settling in. As they relax one evening, Robert sees an announcement in the local

69


paper for an auction sale with a photograph of a fine dining table and set of chairs. He points it out to his wife: ‘This looks good. Why don’t we go along and bid for this?’ ‘I agree, it does look rather smart,’ she replies. ‘But why do we need more furniture?’ ‘Your family are all coming over next month, and that old table is too small to seat all of us. We need a larger table and it would be good to have a set of matching chairs. The estimated price is 1,500–2,000. It’s an antique, and at that price it would be an investment.’ So they decide to go to the sale, with a budget of 2,000. An auction is a tightly structured type of negotiation. The clear objective is to strike a bargain between the seller and the bidders. The communication process is formal, with gestures and eye contact between the auctioneer and the potential purchaser to place and acknowledge a bid. The procedure and rules are understood by all parties. The potential problem for buyers at an auction is that it is easy to become focused on winning the single negotiation of the auction, to be carried away by the excitement of the bidding, and to end up spending more than was originally planned. In this example, the antique suite rapidly reaches the estimated price and is finally sold for 2,200, above both the estimate and the budget that Robert and Rosemary had set. They go home disappointed, and worried about accommodating the forthcoming visit of their relatives. Even if they had continued bidding, and bought the suite, it would have solved their guest problem but cost them more than they planned. Why have they failed to achieve the outcome they wanted? The reason is straightforward. The motivation for buying furniture was to be prepared for the visit of the relatives; this was why they went to the auction sale. In fact, they had considered only one solution to their problem: the auction sale. Was this the only option? Of course not! But

70


by focusing on the single negotiation and losing sight of their motivation they failed to achieve the outcome they wanted.

Establishing alternative solutions Let’s rewind the conversation: ‘This looks good, why don’t we go along and bid for this?’ ‘I agree, it does look rather smart,’ she replies. ‘But why do we need more furniture?’ ‘Your family are all coming over next month, and that old table is too small to seat all of us. We need a larger table and it would be good to have a set of matching chairs. The estimated price is 1,500–2,000. It’s an antique, and at that price it would be an investment.’ Then Rosemary could reply: ‘Yes, you’re quite right; we must get a new table before the parents arrive. I agree that it would be good to have a quality antique, but we can’t afford to pin our hopes on placing the winning bid. Let’s have a look around and see what else is available.’ That weekend they go round the furniture stores and find a good modern suite for 1,800. Rather than take a decision there and then, they still go to the auction, but drop out of the bidding at their budget limit of 2,000. Next day they buy the modern suite and have enough left in their budget to purchase new crockery and cutlery in time for the visit of their guests. What did they do that made this a good negotiating strategy? ➣ They went to the auction because this was one option to solve their problem of needing a new suite of furniture ➣ They researched the market and found an acceptable alternative in case their bid at auction was too low to conclude their purchase ➣ They went into the negotiation, but kept to their strategy and stopped at their budget limit

71


➣ They achieved their objective of having the furniture – and the bonus of new crockery and cutlery – in time for the visit of their guests The point about this example is that Robert and Rosemary were clear about what they wanted, which was to buy a new dining suite. It was not specifically to purchase the antique suite that they saw at the salerooms. Even though they liked this, and decided it would be an investment, they had made a clear distinction in their minds and they were not attached to a particular solution to the problem. Most importantly, they had a valid alternative if their bid at auction failed. Often, when you think about negotiation, you are keen to determine your ‘bottom line’ or ‘final offer’ but you do not always ensure that you have established your Walk-Away Option. To do this, you have to be creative and know precisely why you are going into the negotiation in the first place.

Following the Rules of Preparation You can summarize the process of preparation into five questions which help you to focus on the areas you need to think about before you get down to discussions. These are easily remembered as When, Why, What, Where and How. 1. When is about Timing: When do you need to have this negotiation? 2. Why is about Motivation: Why do you want to have this negotiation? 3. What is about Results: What are the outcomes you want to achieve? 4. Where is about Flexibility: Where can you be flexible and where will you be rigid about concessions? 5. How is about your Walk-Away Option: How will you proceed if the negotiation fails? At the beginning of this chapter you looked at Tork and Grunt and their decision that they should all live together, down in the valley. They hurried back to break the news to their shocked families and it

72


looked as if that idea was a non-starter. You will remember one of their conversations in Part One: ‘Seen any mammoths today?’ ‘I saw two together, over by the mountain.’ ‘That’s always dangerous when there are two of them.’ ‘Yes, the trouble is that if you manage to get one then the other can come on after you.’ ‘Suppose we got a crowd of us together and tried to separate them, then we could limit the risk. What do you think?’ ‘If we involved all our people who can run fast, it could work. Mind you, we’d have to work closely together.’ ‘But then we could have enough food for all of us.’ This is how their conversation continued: ‘So, why don’t you and your people move down in the valley, and we can all live together? When we’re running low on food we’ll get everyone together and go off hunting.’ Tork replied: ‘Sounds good to me. There’s no point in hanging around – I’ll go and tell everyone to pack up.’ Grunt smiled: ‘And I’ll tell my people to make room for you and your relations.’

Analyzing what Tork and Grunt decided What could they have done differently? Now examine the situation, using the five rules of preparation. 1. Timing: Tork and Grunt had an ongoing problem but they had lived with it for years. The issue was important but improving matters was not a matter of urgency.

73


2.

3.

4.

5.

➣ What they did: they acted impulsively and took a major decision without considering all the implications ➣ First mistake: they didn’t need to rush into a decision Motivation: Both groups had a difficult and dangerous way of life and wanted to find an easier way to have enough food. ➣ What they did: they decided they would live together and hunt as a combined group, then share the food they trapped ➣ Second mistake: hunting together did not mean they necessarily had to live together Results: They wanted to hunt together – and share the spoils. ➣ What they did: they planned to have the two communities living together ➣ Third mistake: they had never tried working together and could not know whether hunting together would work – let alone the idea of living together Flexibility: They both wanted a fair share of the hunt. They thought this would work well if they combined their living arrangements. ➣ What they did: although Tork and Grunt were laid back about the idea of living together, they saw it only from their own point of view, and did not take into account the opinions of all the other people involved. As for sharing out the food, they did not establish whether this should be on the basis of numbers, seniority, gender, hunting ability, or any other criteria ➣ Fourth mistake: hunting together would mean establishing new rules and procedures that everyone could agree on. Living together would mean embracing major changes and readjustments. They did not consider either of these areas in any detail Walk-Away Option: There was none! ➣ What they did: they went ahead and agreed on the plan, leaving themselves without any option to think it through and consult the others ➣ Fifth mistake: by doing this, they would probably later lose face with each other and lose the respect of their own communities if they were subsequently forced to back down

74


Five simple questions set the basis for change To summarize the mistakes that Tork and Grunt made: ➣ They made a quick decision when there was no urgency to change the existing situation ➣ The solution they decided on went much further than was necessary ➣ They had no idea whether the idea they proposed would work in practice ➣ There was no pressure to agree on the first idea they came up with since they had the ongoing option of continuing as they had in the past ➣ They were left without any face-saving option if either their own or the other community rejected their proposal

75


From this simple example, you can see that lack of forethought and inadequate preparation can back-fire on the negotiators, the outcome and the prospect of resolving the issue at a later stage. Now assume that Tork and Grunt have done their preparation and approach the negotiation more carefully. This is how the conversation might continue: ‘Suppose we got a crowd of us together and tried to separate the mammoths, then we could limit the risk. What do you think?’ ‘If we involved all our people who can run fast, it could work. Mind you, we’d have to work closely together.’ ‘But then we could have enough food for all of us.’ ‘How could that work?’ ‘There’s a lot to discuss, you know, and we’re each going to have to talk to our people about it before we go ahead.’ Then their conversation could have continued, covering the five areas of preparation: 1. Timing: ‘Well, there’s no rush to change things; it’s been this way for years and both our communities have survived up to now.’ 2. Motivation: ‘Life here is a struggle; it would be good if we did not need to spend so much time out hunting.’ 3. Results: ‘We could try hunting together, to see if we can work well together and find out whether we can develop a new joint strategy.’ 4. Flexibility: ‘We will have to decide how the food should be shared, whether it should be divided equally or whether some people should have a larger share than others.’

76


‘We need to talk to our people and see whether they are willing to try it as an experiment. Maybe later we might even move together into one big settlement.’ 5. Walk-Away Option: ‘If it doesn’t work out and our people can’t get on together, then we can always go back to the way things are at the moment.’

Summary Before you enter into a negotiation, you need to be prepared. You can do this by making sure you know the answers to five questions: Considering your position When

When must you finalize this, is it urgent, what is your timescale?

Why

Why are you negotiating – what is the background?

What

What do you ideally want to get out of this?

Where How

Where can you be flexible and where must you be rigid? How will you proceed if the negotiation fails, what is your WAO?

Now you are prepared … but what about the other side?

77

5

Establishing what the other side wants

Why don’t you want what I want? When Tork spoke to the community about the plans to combine their living arrangements, he was surprised to find that his family did not share his enthusiasm for the project. He jeopardized the project by rushing in without any preparation, and subsequently the only way to repair the damage was to start the negotiation all over again, rethinking the way he presented the proposition that he and Grunt had initially rushed into. What is the best way to start a negotiation? You could just state what it is that you want to do, and see if the other party agrees to this course of action. Often that’s the way people announce a decision: they simply say what they are proposing without having considered what the other party might think, and certainly without leaving an opportunity for discussion. Tork and Grunt both told their colleagues what they proposed to do in cold factual terms: ‘Listen, everyone,’ Tork shouted. ‘We are going to join forces with the people who live on the other side of the valley and work together to trap mammoths. We’re going to live with them as one big community.’

78

ESTABLISHING WHAT THE OTHER SIDE WANTS

Meanwhile, Grunt sat down with his family group, smiled broadly and announced: ‘The people up on the mountain are going to come down here and live with us.’ Imagine the reaction of the family groups. Here was a proposal to make a fundamental change to the living arrangements, apparently on a whim and with no thought to the social and organizational upheaval this would represent. The immediate reaction of the two groups was similar: ‘Why should we want to move?’ When someone suggests making changes, people are more interested in the effects of the changes than in the detail of the changes themselves. In classical sales language, they are more interested in ‘Benefits’ than they are in ‘Features’. In the same way, when you instigate a negotiation, you need to explain and demonstrate to the other party the benefits of the course of action you are proposing. The detail – the mechanics and logistics of the change – are very much secondary to seeing what the advantages are. When you were considering the way people look at the elements of a negotiation, you saw that people put different values on different aspects of the benefits package. Even if the transaction is purely financial, the two parties may put a different value on the amount agreed depending on their personal circumstances. When an organizational change is being negotiated, such as the change in living arrangements that Tork and Grunt have in mind, benefits alone are rarely sufficient reason for people to accept the proposals. Whereas people may always say they want a better life, the reality is that they are generally quite contented to let things stay as they are, because people resist the upheaval of change. The only thing that truly motivates them to risk the uncertainty of making changes is when they are significantly dissatisfied with their lot and strongly concerned about specific issues.

79


They are more likely to accept change if it promises to remove something they dislike, than if it simply promises improvement. People are most likely to react favourably when a proposal counteracts an inconvenience or eliminates a problem. When companies go through mergers, acquisitions and takeovers, when government departments go through re-organization and when new staff members join any organization, there is usually resistance to the changes. Even though the changes are always presented as improvements to the previous organizational structure, they are rarely welcomed with open arms. The most effective way to gain acceptance of such developments is by highlighting a number of difficult issues and suggesting that the changes may resolve the problems these create. Another tactic is to highlight an opportunity that is particularly appealing to the other party. Here, Robert and Rosemary are facing a decision about their garden. Firstly, Rosemary makes the mistake of negotiating without thinking about the reaction her proposal might have from Robert. ‘Robert, this garden is a real mess, and now that the weather is improving it has got to be sorted out. I think we should extend the paving and have a proper patio. Then we should build some decking so it looks tidy and less of an eyesore. It shouldn’t be too expensive.’ Robert looks up from the sports section of his newspaper: ‘I’m not sure we would get much use out of it, you know. We’re away quite a few weekends in summer and we manage at the moment with the garden furniture and our old barbecue. I think it would be an awful lot of work and quite expensive.’ ‘I don’t think it need cost too much. You could lay the paving and fix the decking. I don’t think it would be extravagant.’ ‘But Rosie, that’s a major project we’re talking about here …’ ‘Well, if we don’t tidy up the garden then we certainly can’t have your new boss round for drinks or for dinner.’

80


Rosemary has a vision of sitting out in the summer enjoying her glass of wine and a barbecue with the children. All Robert can see is either a substantial price-tag or himself working weekends as a garden designer and contractor. Suppose Rosemary had focused on the benefits to Robert and approached things slightly differently: ‘Won’t it be lovely when we can sit out in the garden in the summer? Perhaps you could have your new boss round and entertain some of your golfing friends. Outdoor entertaining is very informal and laid-back. Do you like the idea?’ ‘Yes, I’d like to show our new house to some of the guys from the Golf Club. And you’re right, it is time you met my new boss ...’ Immediately, Robert sees significant benefit to himself, in the idea of entertaining in the garden of their new home. Then Rosemary moves on to emphasize the value to Robert: ‘We could have a barbecue when the weather gets warmer. You know how people always love your barbecued chicken, Robert.’ She is painting a picture of Robert enjoying the benefits of an improved garden as he demonstrates his culinary skills to his boss and his friends. Then Robert realizes the picture is not quite right … ‘We will need some more outdoor furniture, and that garden needs sorting out. I can’t let them see it the way it is now. It’s such a mess and it’s a lot to maintain.’ At this point, Robert has created the opportunity for Rosemary to introduce her ideas: ‘You know, Robert, the garden would be a lot more manageable if we put down some more paving. If we did that then you could have a proper built-in barbecue area.’ Again, she highlights the benefit to Robert – a proper built-in barbecue area – which leads him on to think about the practicalities of the idea:

81


‘We could only put down a small area of paving because the ground is too uneven. But then we could lead from the paved area to some decking where the land slopes down. That would save the back-breaking job of mowing all that grass.’ ‘I love the idea but I am not sure we could afford all of that. These landscape contractors charge a lot for paving.’ By this time, Robert is so keen on the idea that he is prepared to give up some of his leisure time to turn the dream into reality: ‘Well, Rosie, it can’t be that difficult to put down paving slabs. Maybe I could do some of it and that would keep the cost down.’ ‘I would like you to be able to entertain your boss properly. Let’s go down to the garden centre this afternoon and get some ideas.’ Finally, Rosemary reiterates the key benefit to Robert: ‘to be able to entertain your boss properly,’ and then moves straight on to instigating action while Robert is in complete agreement and before he changes his mind. In this example, not only has Rosemary let Robert identify both the problem and the solution, she has also let him come up with the idea without her even mentioning it, allowing him then to take ownership of the project. In the first conversation Robert saw Rosemary planning to spend money on the garden and him having to work hard in his leisure time. In the second conversation, Robert saw himself entertaining his buddies. When Tork and Grunt tried to communicate their new ideas, neither of them focused initially on the difficulties that beset their communities. So, the immediate reaction was: ‘Why do we have to move?’ Tork could have started by saying: ‘We must find a way to increase our supply of food. If we don’t do this then we are in danger of starvation.’ In this way he would have focused the minds of his community on a real problem that needed urgent action. He would have gained their

82


attention and, provided they agreed that there was a real problem, they would have listened to his proposals. Alternatively, Tork and Grunt could have started by listening to what their community thought about their general situation before explaining what they had in mind. If they had done this, the negotiations might have gone very differently. Suppose Tork had taken this approach: Tork rushes back to the cave, excited about the news he has for the family: ‘Gather round, everyone, there’s something important I want to talk about. I think I have found an answer to some of the problems we have, living up here on the hillside. I think I have found a way that we can all live more comfortably and not need to work so hard.’ His wife, brother, sisters, uncles, aunts, in-laws and all his relations look at him quizzically, and come across to join him. ‘Have you found a new spring of good, clean water?’ asks his wife. ‘It would be so much easier if we didn’t have that long climb back up here every time we go to fetch water.’ Tork’s sister joins in the conversation: ‘It would be wonderful if we weren’t so isolated up here. I never meet anyone, and I would love to see some new faces.’ Tork’s father sighs and rubs his stomach hungrily: ‘There’s always a worry about food. If only there was some way to increase the supply, but there just aren’t enough of us to get organized. I know how hard it is for you Tork, out there hunting day after day, tracking and chasing. It’s tough on you, and it doesn’t provide us with enough to eat.’

83


Tork focuses on the key issues Here are three issues which were all problematic: 1. The location of the settlement was some distance from a source of drinking water. 2. The community was isolated and lacked social connections. 3. There was a problem with the food supply. Tork had been thinking only about the third problem area, whereas in fact he has now come up with a potential solution to what would appear to be three of his community’s major concerns. In the original example, Tork presented the outcome he envisaged (living with the neighbours in the valley) without first explaining the problems they had and the way that he saw his solution would overcome these.

84


Even if he had started off by talking about the food problem and the hardship of hunting alone, he would have been arguing primarily from his own personal point of view, rather than from the standpoint of the whole community. If Tork had let his colleagues have their say and let them reveal their hopes and fears, he could then have presented his arguments in a way that addressed these concerns and demonstrated how these problems would be alleviated. In the last chapter, you looked at the initial preparation for a negotiation. You saw the importance of the five questions which need asking before you get into the negotiation itself: ➣ When: When must you finalize this, is it urgent, what is your timescale? ➣ Why: What is the background to this negotiation? ➣ What: What do you ideally want to get out of this? ➣ Where: Where can you be flexible and where must you be rigid? ➣ How: How will you proceed if the negotiation fails? In this chapter, you consider the same five areas in a slightly different order. This time, you look at the information about the other side that would be useful in your negotiation: ➣ When: How urgent is this for them? When must they finalize this? Do they have a fixed timescale and does the timing work to your advantage? ➣ What: What do they ideally want to get out of this, and what can they offer you? ➣ Why: Why should they agree with your ideas – and why should they not? What’s going on inside their heads? Is there a hidden agenda? ➣ Where: Where are they willing to be flexible? What is important to them and where are they rigid? Do they and you have different critical factors? ➣ How: How strong are they? How far can they push their argument? What are their options if the negotiation fails?

85


In all of these areas, the most important factor is to be aware of the differences between what you find important and what the other side considers important.

When is the right time? Throughout this book you will come back to two things. One is the importance of choosing the right time to negotiate. The other is appreciating whether or not timing is important from your own point of view and from the point of view of the other party. Negotiation is not just about what you say and how you say it; it is critically about when you negotiate and when you intend to conclude the negotiation and implement the agreement. Timing does not rely on eloquence or argument. Timing is ultimately common sense and is dependent only on the ability to be sensitive to the other person’s thoughts and feelings. Once again, you need to think from both points of view and to consider four critical timings: 1. When is the right time for you to negotiate? 2. When is the right time for the other party to negotiate? 3. As far as you are concerned, when would be the right time to implement the agreement? 4. As far as the other party is concerned, when would be the right time to implement the agreement? And, of course, even more important … when are the wrong times? As a general rule, you want to commence implementing an agreement promptly after the negotiation is completed. You saw a good example of this in Rosemary’s decision to get Robert down to the garden centre to look at paving and decking as soon as he had reacted positively to her ideas. When things are delayed they tend to revert to the way they were before. To quote the Scandinavian proverb: ‘Make haste slowly.’ Take as much time as you need to make the right decision, but once it is made, implement it swiftly. Even if the decision is to implement

86


changes slowly, over a long period, it is important to start the agreed programme once the negotiation is completed.

What’s it all about? In his alternative approach, Tork introduces the discussion by stimulating their curiosity and imagination: ‘Gather round, everyone, there’s something very important I want to talk about. I think I have found an answer to some of the problems we have, living up here on the hillside.’ Immediately they hear this, members of the community will be thinking about their own particular problems. As you see, they come right out and tell Tork exactly what they are unhappy about: ‘It would be so much easier if we didn’t have that long climb back up here every time we go to fetch water.’ Tork’s sister joins in the conversation: ‘It would be wonderful if we weren’t so isolated up here. I never meet anyone, and I would love to see some new faces.’ Tork’s father sighs and rubs his stomach hungrily: ‘There’s always a worry about food. If only there was some way to increase the supply. But there just aren’t enough of us to get organized.’ In addition to Tork’s prime concern – food supplies – they mention water supplies and social connections as being major issues for them. This gives Tork the opportunity to use their declared problems as the basis for what he is about to propose. He could continue by saying: ‘What could we do that would give us a more secure supply of food, and easier access to water?’ In doing this, he is encouraging them to come up with the idea he and Grunt have already considered: the possibility of living and working together. You need to remember precisely what it is that

87


you want out of this negotiation. Do you want the kudos of having come up with the idea, or do you want to see the changes happen? It is often easier to achieve the desired outcome if you can lead the other party into coming up with the idea themselves, as Rosemary did with Robert. You may have to swallow your pride – but it is a powerful and effective strategy when applied skilfully. Where the other party suggests an idea, it already has their endorsement. However, if you cannot manoeuvre the other party into initiating it, you need to try and work out what their reaction to your proposal will be before you present it. Of course, you can prepare yourself for logical arguments that respond to the thought process you have been following. But when it comes to this stage, you must be prepared for a reaction that is quite unrelated to the way you see the issue. Other people see things differently. They have their own perspective.

Why, and why not! If you have prepared your negotiation well, you know what you want to achieve and why you want to achieve it. When you face the other side in a negotiation, you must try to work out what their likely reaction will be – not only to negotiating, but also to your final objective and all that is entailed in achieving that final objective. You also need to work out what false ideas they might have about the reasons for your ideas. Look at how Grunt’s sisters react to his ideas. Grunt sits down with his family group, smiles broadly and announces: ‘The people up on the mountain are going to come down here and live with us.’ His two sisters, who both have teenage daughters, exchange sly glances. One turns to the other with a look of shock and dismay on her face:

88


Men don’t always see women’s point of view

‘Well, you know what those mountain men are after, don’t you? They want our daughters!’ People often have prime concerns which affect their reaction to any proposed changes. Frequently they are not directly related to the negotiation itself, and are often connected to personal, cultural or religious considerations. In this instance, even if Grunt had been far more careful in the way he made his initial introductions, the women’s first thought could well be to consider how the changes and upheaval would affect their children. This is their prime concern in all aspects of their daily lives. For this reason, when you approach a negotiation and are confident that your timing is appropriate, your first thought must be to consider what are the prime concerns of the other side, with the knowledge

89


that they may be totally unrelated to the issue you are seeking to resolve, as in the case of Grunt’s sisters and his teenage nieces. In the second example, where Tork is addressing his community and highlighting the hardships of living on the mountain, you can see how he is attempting to address what he sees as the prime concerns of his community. His clear intention is to align his position with theirs and then move from a common, agreed position – the existence of some major problems with living in a small group on the mountain – towards his proposal for a solution.

Where can you negotiate? It is important to know where you are prepared to negotiate and where your position is fixed. Similarly, you need to find out the same points for the other party, so that you know where you can manoeuvre. When you are talking about a straight financial transaction, you would think that both sides would place an equal value on the deal. However, there are frequently other issues which may be of little interest to you, but are critically important to the other party. Even a stalled negotiation can open up and move forward once you start to be creative and look for additional options.

How far can you push them, and where would they go? Assuming you have prepared yourself well, you will have a ‘walkaway option’ clear in your mind. Not just a price limit at which the negotiation collapses but an alternative, a ‘Plan B’, which will be a different route either towards achieving the same overall objective or else at least avoiding an unfavourable outcome. The other side, if they are serious negotiators, will probably have done the same. It will be greatly to your advantage if you can get some idea of what they are thinking. If you have no clear idea about this, your cautious course of action would be to imagine yourself in their position, wanting to strike the

90


best deal for yourself. In their shoes, what would you have plotted as your ‘Plan B?’ In the first example, of Rosemary’s plans for the garden, Rosemary’s ‘Plan B’ is that if the garden is not to be improved, Robert’s boss cannot be entertained. If Robert had come back and reconsidered his objections in the light of this, there is a chance that her plans would have gone ahead. A strong ‘Plan B’ can often be a lever which persuades the other party to reconsider their position. In this instance, Robert might have started to compromise and negotiate a simplified version of Rosemary’s plans for the garden. A good ‘Plan B’ is a real walk-away option that you genuinely propose to carry through if negotiations break down. The next section of the book looks at the tactics of using bluff and threats to force the other side to move. As you will see, this is not a safe strategy and can back-fire with serious consequences if your bluff is called. One of the main reasons why pressure can be dangerous is that you may not be aware of all the options available to the other party. Let’s suppose you are negotiating a distributorship agreement for your products in a territory. Both parties have a number of options apart from a straightforward deal. Both parties could be negotiating with other potential partners. Both parties could be considering a number of variables such as the method and level of remuneration, the length of the agreement, the minimum performance requirements and so forth. You need to be ready with your own walk-away options; whether it is you or they who decide that no more concessions can be made and that what is on the table is the best and final offer which can be achieved. Just remember that a negotiation is always taking place in the context of the current situation, and things may change overnight. Even if you are unable to reach a decision at the moment, there is always the possibility that critical factors may change within a matter of days, or even hours, and you might find yourself back again at the negotiating table.

91


If you do not bear this in mind, and end a meeting with angry words, you may have to make significant concessions to rebuild the relationship – should you find yourself back in negotiation at a later date. Through the When, What, Why, Where and How of the negotiation you are constantly looking for ways to create more options, demonstrate alternative solutions and find opportunities to bridge the gap between you and the other party. This is the process that expert negotiators use to find their win-win solutions.

Can they make enough to go round?

Enlarging the pie Negotiators sometimes say they are sharing a pie, and that this pie is a fixed size, so nobody can increase their share without someone else losing.

92


Before you consider ways of increasing the size of the pie, here is a summary of the key points for both sides:

Considering your position

Considering both positions

When must you finalize this, is it urgent, what is your timescale?

When is the right time for both parties in terms of talking about this and putting it into effect?

Why

Why are you negotiating – what is the background?

Why would they not agree, what are they thinking and is there a hidden agenda?

What

What do you ideally want to get out of this?

You know what you want to get out of this, but what do they want, and what can they offer you?

Where

Where can you be flexible and where must you be rigid?

Where are they willing to be flexible, and are the same things important to both parties?

How

How will you proceed if the negotiation fails, what is your WAO?

How far can you push them, how strong are they and what are their options if the negotiation fails?

When

93

6

Information and opportunities

Creating choices There is usually more than one solution to a problem. Sometimes you are so focused on the first idea you come up with, that you never consider the possibility of any alternatives. The reality is that most negotiations have many possible solutions. Some will benefit one party more than another but some may actually benefit both parties without diminishing the benefit to either one of them. In the example of Wizpa and Chat arguing about sharing the mammoth, the reality was that their demands were perfectly compatible: Chat wanted the meat to eat while Wizpa wanted the skin and bones to make clothing and tools. The cartoon at the end of the last chapter showed Grunt looking very concerned at the prospect of having to share the pie between five hungry people when he had divided it into four portions. Let’s eavesdrop on the subsequent conversation: Grunt looks up apprehensively as Tork approaches: ‘Can I help you, Tork?’ he says. ‘I was wondering if we could borrow your pie dish as ours is broken. I can let you have it back tomorrow.’

94

INFORMATION AND OPPORTUNITIES

Sometimes the ‘pie’ is bigger than it looks. In this case Tork did not want any part of the pie itself; he just wanted to borrow the dish the pie was in.

Sometimes everybody gets what they want

Even when a negotiation is purely financial, there may be other issues apart from the price tag: ➣ Extended credit payment terms or cash discount ➣ Delivered and installed or cash-and-carry ➣ Extended warranty or ‘sold-as-seen’ ➣ Basic specification or with ‘optional extras’

Making a bigger pie The smart way to prepare for a negotiation is to start by working out all the alternative packages which could be up for discussion. In

95


other words, you increase the size of the pie before you start to calculate the size of the portions. Obvious as this may seem, people are often blind to the variety of alternative options that could be discussed. Their eyes will scan down to the price tag and they will focus on negotiating around the price. To put it another way, they will look at the detail of the proposal rather than consider the end objective the other party wishes to achieve. Let’s consider this example, where both parties end up with a larger slice of a bigger pie. George and Mary want to sell their house but they know it needs smartening up if they are to achieve the best price and sell quickly. They talk to an estate agent and are told that repainting the exterior and tidying up the garden would certainly make the house look more attractive and help it to sell. However, if they really want to maximize the price they achieve, they could add 15,000 to the market valuation simply by installing a fairly basic new kitchen. George and Mary reckon they could afford to spend 5,000 and talk to a couple of specialist kitchen companies. The first proposal works out at 10,000, twice what they have planned to spend. But the second company produces an attractive layout which would work out at a total price of 7,000. George looks at Mary nervously, then turns to the sales consultant: ‘We are planning to move this summer and we want to do this so we can get the best price when we sell. We can only afford 5,000. How could we save on these plans?’ The consultant sees an opportunity and puts the plans on one side for a moment. ‘When do you want to have the kitchen installed, and when do you plan to put the house on the market?’

96


‘We’d like to go ahead as quickly as possible – in the next few weeks – and then we’ll put the house on the market once we’ve finished decorating. The sooner the better.’ The consultant looks at her calendar. ‘So, that would be around the beginning of April. From your address, I can see you live in an up-and-coming part of town. I would imagine that a new kitchen would add at least 15,000–18,000 to your valuation.’ Mary responds quickly: ‘Yes, but we need to make as much profit as possible on our sale so that we don’t overstretch ourselves buying our new home. We simply cannot afford to lay out more than our 5,000 budget, what with all the costs of decorating and generally sprucing up the place. Everything costs so much money, doesn’t it?’ The consultant nods sympathetically, then explains: ‘My point is this: a house in your part of town, smartly presented with a really beautiful kitchen, will probably sell before September, don’t you think?’ George looks puzzled. ‘Well, yes, I’m sure it will. We want to be settled in our new place for the summer. I would think it’s realistic in the present buoyant market conditions. But what has that got to do with the cost of the new kitchen?’ The consultant smiles, knowing she is about to clinch a goodsized sale. ‘The point is that we have a special promotion this month on our Geneva range of kitchen units. If you place your order for that range before next weekend, we can offer you interest-free credit for six months. You will have sold the house well within that time, so you won’t need to touch your savings to pay for the kitchen. You’ll be able to settle up when you have the proceeds from the house sale. In fact, rather than the basic design we have been

97


considering for your house, I would suggest we look at something rather more luxurious, so the kitchen becomes a major selling feature. What do you think?’ George and Mary need little persuading. They seize the opportunity, upgrade their ideas and invest 10,000. This increases the market valuation of their home by over 25,000. Looking back, you will see that when they went into the negotiation they were focused on the fact that they had allocated a budget of 5,000, which proved to be too small for even a basic renovation. The consultant explored the options, and when Mary told her that they were planning to move within the coming months, she knew she could make a proposal that would not only conserve their bank balance, it would also both give her a bigger sale and give them a larger profit. Both parties get a larger slice of a bigger pie. Everybody wins because the kitchen consultant established that the motivation for George and Mary was not to spend their savings and create a beautiful kitchen they could enjoy themselves, but to make an investment in their property in order to increase the profit on the sale of their home. In establishing the motivation behind the action she could produce a deal that directly addressed their needs. How did this happen? In essence all this came about because the consultant asked questions.

The power of questions Questions can work for you or against you. When a simple negotiation about a straightforward transaction starts, it is a formal process of responding to enquiries with factual information. The questions are direct, specific and to the point: ‘How big is your kitchen?’ ‘What styles can you offer?’ ‘What appliances do you want?’

98


‘How soon can you deliver?’ When the questions go beyond immediate issues and start to involve other related factors, you start to see a development in the nature of the interaction. One positive development is relationship-building. After the initial formality of an exchange of information, talk moves on to chatting and the exchange becomes less formal. When this happens, the parties start to develop an emotional connection, and while this creates warmth between them, it also arouses fear on both sides. You remember the old warning: ‘Don’t get too close or they’ll take advantage of you.’ Whenever two parties start a negotiation, they put up a barrier that keeps them apart. Both parties know what they ideally want as the outcome of the negotiation. They also know what they must have as a bare minimum and what they want to avoid at all costs. They are caught by a need to bring down the barriers so they can negotiate, and a need to keep up their defences so that they protect their interests. In the end, the process itself has to be a compromise. If they are too far apart they cannot communicate, but if they come too close they both threaten and in turn are themselves threatened. The way to remove this threat is by transforming the relationship into a partnership in which both sides are working towards a common objective. By understanding the feelings of the other party you can stimulate a real dialogue which moves both parties towards the outcome both parties want. George and Mary wanted to buy, and the consultant, Sheila, wanted to make a sale. From that analysis you see there was a clear common objective. What was not immediately clear was that each party had a hidden agenda. Uncovering this agenda created a better result for both parties. For Sheila, the hidden agenda was that the company was running a special promotion on the Geneva range of kitchen units. This gave her the opportunity to increase the value of any sale she made, and thus increase the value of her commission.

99


For George and Mary, the hidden agenda was that they were investing in improving their home so they could increase the profit they would make when they put it on the market. Whether you are asking questions or making comments, you always risk revealing more of your position than you need to. Sheila was very careful in the questions she asked. She said nothing about her particular interest in selling the Geneva range, except to the extent that it was of interest to George and Mary. When Mary told Sheila: ‘We are planning to move this summer …’ Mary revealed her position. This could have worked to her disadvantage, since Sheila then knew it would not matter whether or not the units were particularly longlasting. George and Mary were mainly concerned only with outward appearances, and even if there were any complaints or quality issues in a year or so, George and Mary would probably have moved on. Similarly, when Sheila commented: ‘I would imagine that a new kitchen would add at least 15,000–18,000 to your valuation …’ Mary might have taken offence at a comment about their personal affairs. Fortunately, she was instead curious to know why Sheila had asked the question. In order to broaden the discussion, Sheila used a proven tactic of making a statement with which she knew George and Mary would agree. This tactic is often effective in negotiation: making statements with which the other side will agree, or asking questions to which you already know the answer. In doing this, the active party automatically sides with the passive party. Without any perceptible change in tone, both parties are now on the same side of the negotiating table. Before you start asking any questions in the course of a negotiation, you must think through what the answers could be. Lawyers always advise their junior colleagues: ‘When you are in court, never ask a question to which you don’t already know the answer.’ It is very

100


important that when you ask questions you are aware that there is a delicate balance between pulling the parties closer together and pushing them further apart. You cannot just blurt out your thoughts without considering several possible outcomes: ➣ What will your question or comment reveal about you or your position? ➣ Will it change the other party’s opinion of you, and if so, how? ➣ Will it force the other party to adopt a firm position and reduce their flexibility? ➣ Will their reaction or response be positive or negative? When in doubt, wait for the other side to do the talking. Whenever you talk, you must remember that it can be just as easy to sabotage the outcome as it is to achieve what you want. How much information do you need to share in order to get the result you want? Look at what Sheila told George and Mary about the Geneva promotion: she only mentioned the six months interest-free purchase deal. Perhaps the range was being discontinued, possibly because it was rather old-fashioned or maybe it had a minor design fault. Perhaps Sheila received an extra bonus each time she sold the Geneva range. It would not have been in her interest to reveal any of these factors in her negotiation with George and Mary. This is the central question of this chapter: how much information should you share when you negotiate?

Recognize the value of information You live in a society with communication policies pulling in opposite directions. With the increased dissemination of information through investigative journalism, proactive media, satellite communications and, of course, the Internet, you have access to limitless quantities of information and disinformation.

101


On the other hand, despite this openness in everyday life, most government departments and commercial operations run on a strict policy of Need to Know. Government or corporate employees are told only what they need to know in order to do their work. Information is power, and you can control the balance of power by what you choose to say and by what you choose to leave unsaid. In your preparation for a negotiation, you should classify the information into three categories: 1. What the other party needs to know in order to negotiate with you. 2. What you are prepared to divulge in addition to this in the course of negotiation. 3. What information you will hold back and not reveal under any circumstances. You can have soft borders between these categories, with headings such as information you absolutely must disclose, details you might reveal under certain circumstances, and so forth. When you are negotiating alone, you need to be clear in your own mind about this. If you are part of a negotiating team, you must ensure that you all agree on what the boundaries are. Controlling a negotiation is all about controlling the balance of information. This is where careful questioning becomes the vital tool. As the questioner, you talk less. You reveal less while encouraging the other side to reveal more. In this situation, you maintain control and must remember that you are ‘thinking outside the box’ – exploring all the possible options. So far in this section, you have looked at putting together your own case, evaluating what the other side wants and expanding the options and opportunities. You now need to find a way of agreeing with the other side about whether the solution is acceptable to both parties. You need to agree how you will agree. This sounds complicated but it is in fact straightforward.

102


Summary: ➣ Information is power ➣ Look for a hidden agenda ➣ Ask questions to uncover motivation ➣ Probe to reveal additional information ➣ Categorize your information and be strategic in the way you disclose it

103

7

Establishing a measurable way of judging the outcome

Rules are rules When you looked at ‘How do you handle this?’ back in Chapter Three, you set out the process of Directional Negotiation: 1. You set the scene. 2. You acknowledge the position of both yourself and the other party. 3. You define the issues. 4. You identify the desired outcome. 5. You explore possible solutions. 6. You establish how you evaluate the various options. In Chapters Two and Three you had already looked at positions and issues and in Chapter Four you considered what Tork and Grunt wanted to get out of the negotiation. In Chapter Five you looked at how Tork and Grunt might prepare themselves for what the other side might be looking for. In Chapter Six you considered how they might find answers which satisfied both sides by being creative in the way they explored alternative options. Now look at the last of the six points listed above. Consider how you can measure whether any of the solutions you are evaluating actually meets the objectives of both sides.

104

ESTABLISHING A MEASURABLE WAY OF JUDGING THE OUTCOME

What tends to happen is that, when you think you have an agreement, you rely on your interpretation or ‘reading’ of the arrangement. This can be dangerous, because the only sort of reading that is reliable in a negotiation is to read what is written down. Generally speaking, a verbal contract is not worth the paper it’s not written on! Lip-reading is for mime-artists and mind-reading is for psychics! But there is not always enough time to draw up a document that clarifies everything, before you start talking. So, how do you resolve this? Sometimes, one party thinks a negotiation is over and an acceptable solution has been reached – only to find that the other party does not agree. It comes back once again to different perspectives, and the way in which people see things differently. What is needed in advance of a negotiation is an agreement on what will constitute an acceptable outcome. You need objective criteria against which you can judge what has happened. You need ‘rules’ that really are ‘rules’ so there is no misunderstanding. Otherwise you may end up in the sort of mess that Wizpa and Chat got themselves into, as you shall now see. In Chapter Three, Wizpa and Chat were arguing over the carcass of a mammoth. As they negotiated it became clear that while Chat wanted the meat for food, all Wizpa wanted were the fur and the bones to make clothing and tools. At the end of the example it looked as if the matter was resolved, but in fact they never agreed on detailed objective criteria in their negotiation. Look at what happened as they tried to cooperate: Chat has been trying to work out a solution, having discovered what Wizpa wants: ‘What about the carcass? Once you’ve skinned it you’ll have enough fur to keep you warm. What about all that meat? There’s too much there for your group to eat and we like to eat meat.’ Wizpa looks for a further deal.

105


‘The meat is tough and hard. We don’t eat that but we always need the bones.’ Chat is surprised. ‘If you put the meat on the fire it is very good to eat. But why do you want the bones?’ Wizpa shakes her head in disbelief. ‘Bone is perfect for harpoons, of course. That’s how we catch the fish.’ The conversation continues. Chat smiles broadly. She thinks she can see a solution. ‘Right then. To start with, we’ll have the meat and you can have the skin and bones. And I’ll show you how to start a fire to keep us warm, and I’ll cook some meat for us to eat – all this work will make us hungry. You can start cutting up the front end, and I’ll take the back end.’ The two cavewomen start work, but unfortunately each is thinking only about her own side of the bargain, not about what the other party wants out of the agreement. The ‘rules’ they have agreed on are too vague and imprecise. Chat doesn’t bother to remove the skin in one piece. She attacks her half of the carcass and hacks the meat into big joints, smashing and splintering the bones as she does so. Meanwhile, Wizpa carefully slices the meat off the bones, leaving a heap of slivers of meat lying in the dust and dirt while she trims the bones clean.

The danger of misunderstandings This is an example of what happens when the criteria are not clearly established. For Chat, all that mattered was butchering the carcass so there were large joints of meat. For Wizpa, on the other hand, the

106


important thing was to remove the skin in one piece and then trim the bones clean. Each was focusing on what she wanted out of the bargain, without taking into account why they had been able to reach a deal. They had not agreed on objective criteria that defined what they each understood the agreement to be. Neither Chat nor Wizpa finished up with what they wanted, even though they thought they had agreed. When it comes to the sort of negotiation you might find yourself entering into, you need to set non-controversial, objective criteria so that what you get is what you wanted in the first place. Many readers will be primarily concerned about financial negotiations, and may be wondering how one can achieve objective criteria in agreeing on a price for a product or service. This is a scenario everyone faces when they decide to sell personal possessions, and is never more pertinent than when relocating and moving house. Here is the dilemma that Jack and Jill faced when they were planning to move after selling their house to Robert and Rosemary. Jack and Jill are looking at the 100-year-old long-case clock that stands in their hallway. Jack sighs: ‘You know, my love, it just isn’t going to fit in the new place. I think the time has come to sell it and put the money into a new lounge suite.’ Jill is particularly attached to the old clock she remembers from when it stood in her grandparents’ house. As a child she loved to stand and watch the pendulum swing steadily to and fro, and was fascinated by the loud tick-tock and the chimes that struck every hour. She inherited the clock when her grandmother died, so there is a personal connection with it. She would definitely miss the family heirloom. Reluctantly, she agrees with her husband: ‘I know you’re right, Jack. But what would we get for it? How should we sell it? And look, we’re probably moving within a month, so there’s not much time.’

107


What are the key issues that Jack and Jill are considering in preparing for their negotiation with a potential buyer? The two main points are timing – always a fundamental consideration in any transaction – and price. The timing issue might be avoided if Jack and Jill can enrol friends to help out with storage, by looking after the clock if they cannot complete the transaction before they move house. The valuation is less easily resolved. Let’s consider how you can establish the value of any article, and what principles affect the decision.

Is it worth what it cost? An obvious place to start when you fix a negotiating price is to identify what an item cost originally, or would cost to replace today. In the case of a manufactured product, the accounts department of a company will calculate the cost based on the sum of the inputs – materials, labour and overheads – plus a profit margin based on the expectation of a certain volume of sales. But price, cost and value are three different things. What it costs to produce a DVD of a movie that has already been released around the world bears little relation to the price at which it will be sold. Typically, the manufacturing costs of CDs and DVDs are a tiny fraction of the selling price. The entertainment industry approaches the price from the marketing standpoint of what the market expects, or else what the market will bear, and then fixes its price accordingly. Another consideration is the question of volume. If a product is expected to be sold in thousands, the initial costs are amortized over a large number of units. The unit production costs will be substantially higher if there is to be only a short production run. In most business, price is fixed according to market expectations. Cost is based on actual inputs together with a forecast of anticipated sales volume revenue.

108


But for Jack and Jill, cost does not enter the equation. The item is over 100 years old. What it cost originally is simply not a consideration in fixing their notional price. What if they had been selling their four-year-old car? Would that have presented a different set of criteria? In this case, you would definitely be considering the original cost, and reducing this by an allowance for depreciation. This calculation would depend on the condition of the vehicle, its mileage, and how it had been maintained. As with the market for DVDs, there would also be a market expectation of what such a car would fetch. Small cars in many countries tend to depreciate more slowly, quite apart from their actual cost. Small cars hold their value better than big cars because in the usedcar market there is more demand for small cars than for large executive cars. The market price does not move according to a simple percentage of depreciation or basic calculation of wear and tear. This is why car dealers will generally keep a close eye on market trends, relying on constant market analysis statistics to keep them abreast of what particular models are likely to fetch in the marketplace, with detailed calculations that take into account age and condition. So, in the case of a consumer product like a car, there is a strong reliance on what the market will fetch rather than the simple calculation of cost and depreciation. And such a calculation is never simple. Suppose Jill had finally persuaded Jack that it was time to sell his treasured classic 1969 Mercedes 280 SL sports car. He had bought it in a shabby run-down state, years ago, spending the bonus cheque from his first job. He spent months restoring it to showroom condition and only takes it out on the road for the occasional summertime spin. In this case, there is no point in considering either what he paid for it or even the cost of his time and the materials he invested in renovation. The 69 Mercedes 280 SL is now a collectors’ item worth tens

109


of thousands of dollars and the potential market is global, rather than the local car dealer. When you look at pricing this beautiful roadster you are not only looking at price plus inflation, rather than price less depreciation. You are also looking at the global market opportunity. And there is one further factor. So much for cost, and so much for price – there is a much more nebulous consideration. The concept of value.

Establishing value Jack is attached to his Mercedes, just as Jill is attached to her family heirloom. This emotional attachment adds to the value as far as Jack and Jill are each concerned, even though it is irrelevant to the market price of the product. Emotional value can add to the market price or it can detract from it. If Jack’s Mercedes had at one time been owned by a Hollywood film star, it could significantly increase the price he could ask for it. And if Jill’s clock had once chimed the hours for a famous author or composer, it could also add to its desirability, and the price it might demand. In a similar, opposite way, notoriety can detract from value, such as in the case of a property that has been the scene of violent crime or personal tragedy. Nothing has changed the bricks and mortar, the location or the condition of the property – but its history could affect what a vendor can expect it to fetch on the open market. The home of Fred West, the British serial murderer, was demolished after his conviction and the land cleared and left as an open space. There would never have been any value in a home built on that site.

How much time do you have? Finally, you return to the factor that has recurred throughout this book: time.

110


Supposing Jack and Jill need to sell the clock quickly; they may have to sell to an intermediary such as a dealer, rather than to the final customer. The dealer then takes on the financing of the time lapse between his purchase and the eventual sale. If they go to auction, they may have the opportunity to present their clock to a number of interested dealers and perhaps some final customers as well – but equally, there may be no interest on the day of the auction sale and they may have to resubmit the clock at a later date, incurring additional expenses in auctioneer’s fees and storage costs. All of these considerations are absolutely valid in our attempt to define objective criteria to fix a ‘fair price’ for Jill’s heirloom. When you enter into a buying or selling negotiation, you need to prepare yourself with a number of questions before you can determine a reasonable expectation of a final settlement which will satisfy both parties: ➣ How urgently do you need to complete the negotiation, and are there creative alternatives (such as temporary storage) which will quite literally ‘buy time’? ➣ Assuming it’s relevant, then what was the cost, depreciated or inflated, or alternatively what is the replacement cost? ➣ Are there other factors which could affect the market value of the item? ➣ Are your demands or expectations influenced by emotional considerations about the value of the item? ➣ What will the market expect to pay? – to a dealer – to the final purchaser ➣ What is the state of the market for such items? Now Jack and Jill can decide whether their expectations are realistic, and whether they can enter negotiations with a clear idea of what the item is worth to them, and what the market is likely to deliver. What’s more, they can approach a negotiation with a confident attitude and from a strong bargaining position. Let’s see what happens when a local antiques dealer visits their home, and let’s look at how each of the negotiating points can be confidently countered by Jill.

111


‘This was my grandfather’s. He bought it after the First World War from a second-hand furniture store. We were wondering what you would give us for it.’ The dealer glances at the clock but does not want to appear too interested: ‘It’s not an antique, probably early twentieth century.’ Jill has done her research but she decides to play her cards close to her chest for the moment: ‘I know it’s not particularly old, because if you look carefully you can see the date: 1901. It’s an heirloom, and I hate to sell it, but we’ve decided it won’t fit in our new home.’ The dealer is confident that he can press his advantage and try to get Jill to set the price: ‘You’re absolutely right. This sort of piece won’t fit in with modern décor. What were you expecting to get for it?’ Jill isn’t yet going to reveal she knows what it is worth: ‘Well, you’re the local expert; you must know what you could expect to sell it for. What would you say it would be worth to a collector?’ ‘Well, I’m a dealer, not a collector. I need a fair mark-up if I’m to pay you and then keep it in store. I must admit it’s in good condition. I am prepared to offer you 400. I’m sure you weren’t expecting that sort of sum, were you?’ Jill pauses for a moment: ‘Indeed not, but then you are the expert. You can see that this is a Winterhalder & Hofmeier. I am very surprised that you would offer me 400 when I know that a similar clock was sold at auction in the city just three months ago for almost 4,000. So let’s agree on some comparables …’

112


As she says this, Jill reaches into a folder and takes out a sheaf of papers she has printed out from the websites of dealers specializing in long-case clocks.

Setting benchmarks Let’s pause here for a moment. You can see the criteria each side has been working to. Jill decided she would let the dealer suggest the price rather than disclose what she already knew. He started by suggesting it was ‘second-hand’ rather than antique. He wanted to set a ‘usedgoods’ benchmark, in the hope that he could push the price down. When Jill said that the clock wouldn’t fit in with the décor of the new house, the dealer moved his negotiation sideways. Now he ignored the age of the clock and focused on the criteria of current market fashion and expectations. He suggested there was a limited market for such items. Finally, he pointed out that there would be a significant margin between what he would pay for the clock and what he might expect to sell it for. Jill knew this, but she wanted to push him into naming a starting figure, and when he said 400, she knew he was either ignorant of the clock’s true value, or else he was trying to get a bargain. At this point she came in with what she had established as her benchmark for setting a fair price: she was working on the basis of auction prices achieved recently for similar items. This was neither her personal valuation, nor was it derived from what the clock cost. Her valuation was based on objective criteria which were clear historical records of fact. Up to this point, she had been careful not to disclose what she knew about the true value of the clock. From now on, both parties knew where they stood and had objective criteria on which to base the negotiation. When a negotiation concerns a straightforward financial transaction there are generally three crucial factors involved: 1. What is the product or service? 2. What is the price? 3. When is the delivery?

113


In a simple retail environment, the product is identified, the price is fixed, the purchaser pays the price and then takes the product home. Since everything is visible and tangible, there is no need for ‘agreed objective criteria’. These criteria are part of contemporary retailing convention. When you are dealing with a non-standard product – as in the case of Jack and Jill with the long-case clock and the classic car – objective criteria help both parties to establish a market value for that product. These criteria might include cost price and depreciation. Equally, they will probably reflect current market value and whether there is a need to make the sale quickly. But what about more complex negotiations, such as a service contract or a building permit; what objective criteria can you then use? One proposal is to cite external factors which affect both parties and are outside their individual control. Examples of legislative restrictions that limit your individual negotiating power would include: ➣ Employment law – in the case of a contract of employment ➣ Building regulations – in the case of construction work ➣ Health and safety legislation – in respect of either or both of the above ➣ Currency regulations – in respect of a foreign trade contract In addition to legal obligations, there are also common practices and conventions which affect negotiations, or established procedures that are always followed in particular situations. The way to avoid misunderstanding and further conflict is for both parties to state clearly what the proposed solution looks like to them. With a little forethought, it could have gone differently for Wizpa and Chat … Chat smiles broadly. She thinks she can see a solution. ‘Right then. To start with, we’ll have the meat and you can have the skin and bones. You can start cutting up the front end, and I’ll take the back end.’ Then she adds: ‘Keep the joints as big as possible, even if it means smashing the bones.’

114


Wizpa considers Chat’s proposal, then responds: ‘If I smash the bones, how will I make harpoons and fish hooks? I like to keep the bones as large as possible and scrape them clean. We can’t carve the bones if they are all covered in grease and gristle.’ Chat is surprised. ‘Well, that doesn’t help me. We want the meat in big pieces otherwise it can’t be smoked or salted. We’re not bothered about the bones because we only chuck them away!’ Wizpa pauses, realizing they will have to agree on how they handle this – otherwise, neither of them will be happy. Once they can see the other point of view (back to Chapter Two’s discussion of perspective) they appreciate how they can work together so that they both achieve a workable outcome.

Often, both parties can get what they want in negotiation

115


Chat turns to Wizpa. ‘Suppose we say we will cut up the meat so that: ➣ the skin is in one piece for curing and making clothes ➣ the joints of meat are mostly at least as big as a wild gourd ➣ the bones are kept whole and scraped clean That would satisfy both of us, wouldn’t it?’ This proposal works, and the reason is that there can be no argument about whether or not they are doing what was agreed. Chat and Wizpa set objective criteria based on something they can both agree on. When agreeing criteria, ‘give and take’ are very important. We should be reasonable, especially at this early stage of the negotiation. Any disagreement should be based on principle rather than result from argumentative pressure. After all, you are not yet discussing the matter you want to negotiate; you are simply trying to find a formula that works for both parties, and it is in both interests to work towards making this happen. The only golden rule at this stage in the negotiations is – once again – time. Where time is critically important – one party insists on rapid completion of a negotiation – this can overrule any other considerations. At times of war, when people want to make urgent and instant decisions, theoretical values of all types of property become grossly distorted by the realities of the situation. Having said that, it is generally true to say there is no single rule that outweighs another; two principles, such as depreciated cost and current market value, can both be valid objective criteria for a negotiated settlement. The two parties will argue in favour of one or the other way of measurement, and will finally need to find a measure they are both prepared to accept. After protracted discussions, if you still consider that the other side is being unrealistic, you can choose either to walk away, or to proceed even though you know you will be measuring the outcome in a way

116


you consider to be inappropriate. It could still work – it might even work in your favour – but you need to be aware that you are competing on an uneven playing field. This is why the WAO is critically important. Establishing that walkaway option is one of the ways expert negotiators demonstrate their skills. The next section looks at the skills of the negotiating table, body language, and the use of both forceful threats and gentle persuasion. It considers what tactics are appropriate if the other side plays dirty and – most importantly – how to end the negotiation with a realistic alternative when it seems it will be impossible to ‘do the deal’.

Summary Set objective criteria to measure the outcome of a negotiation: ➣ What is the cost in material and other terms of doing nothing and simply maintaining the status quo? ➣ In a financial transaction, what was the original cost of an item, depreciated or inflated? ➣ Again, in a financial transaction, what is the cost of replacing the item? ➣ Are there any external factors that affect the negotiation – political considerations, global conditions, social pressures? ➣ What are the market conditions that affect this negotiation? Be aware of personal or subjective criteria which could be affecting your decision: ➣ How urgently do you need to complete the negotiation? ➣ Can you ‘buy time’ one way or another? ➣ Do you have personal reasons affecting the value you place on the deal?

117

8

Knowing and believing your Walk-Away Option

From theories to tactics Previous chapters have looked at theories, and at the Who, the What and the How of negotiations. They have considered the factors that keep the parties apart and the factors that can bring them together. Analysis of the negotiation process has shown ways of being more creative in the search for settlement, and the need for a way of independently evaluating the final outcome in terms of your prior expectations. These are all fundamental elements of negotiation. Once you know what you want and you believe you have a pretty good idea of what the other side wants, it’s time to focus on tactics. But what if you lack a strong bargaining position? The other party may be more powerful than you are; this could be a matter of size, wealth, or influence. How will you ever come to a mutually acceptable agreement?

Creating a safety net When the other party is more powerful, it’s natural to go on the defensive. You fear you might yield to this stronger power, and you try to find a way of ensuring that you give away as little as possible.

118

KNOWING AND BELIEVING YOUR WALK-AWAY OPTION

The way you would generally do this is to establish your ‘bottom line’, which is the point beyond which you will not negotiate. It is the highest price you are prepared to pay, the lowest sum you are prepared to accept, the longest delay you are prepared to endure or the least favourable terms that you are prepared to tolerate. It might be an unpleasant and uncomfortable place where you would definitely prefer not to go but, if you have to, you will because anything less acceptable would be even worse. On the other hand, it could be almost as appealing as your preferred option so you are spoilt for choice. To start by calculating an undesirable WAO hardly feels like the basis for a win-win solution, but it’s a vital safety net. It’s a bit like the lifeboats on a liner or the life jackets underneath the aircraft seat. They are not something you like to think about but it’s reassuring to know they are there. You saw this in the auction rooms, when Robert and Rosemary decided that they would not bid more than 2,000 for the dining room suite they had seen. In an auction situation, where the only variable is the price, it is always a sound policy to set a ‘bottom-line’ of the maximum figure so you ensure you are not tempted to pay out more than you were prepared to. However, the auction room was only one possible solution to the problem that Robert and Rosemary were trying to resolve. The objective was not to acquire the specific furniture on offer but to acquire a dining room suite, because their existing furniture was no longer suitable for their needs. In a single-solution negotiation, such as the auction of a specific item, the ‘bottom-line’ strategy works as a safety net. But very few negotiations involve one single possible solution. You are more likely to be negotiating around one possible solution out of many options. Let’s imagine you have been commissioned to put together an art collection for an investor with a budget of 10 million. You might not have sufficient funds to be able to purchase a painting by Picasso or a van Gogh, but there will be other paintings with investment potential that will fit within your budget. To think only in terms of Picasso

119


and van Gogh would stunt your ability to think creatively around the problem and come up with alternative solutions. All too often, the concept of a bottom-line number in a negotiation becomes just a way of saving face in the anticipation of probable failure. None of this establishes the right mindset for a negotiation. The important point about the example of Robert and Rosemary is that the ‘bottom-line’ was only one part of the preparation they did. They had also already determined what they would do if the auction bidding went over their budget: they had established their WalkAway Option – their WAO. Should they be unsuccessful at the auction, they would buy an alternative modern suite from a high street store. If they had not established their WAO, they would have been back at square one after the failure in the saleroom.

The importance of being realistic Robert and Rosemary might have been less specific about their options, and could have handled the situation differently. They could have decided that if, they didn’t manage to purchase the dining suite at auction, they could borrow one from neighbours for the parents’ visit. Or they could put two smaller tables together. Or they could buy something cheap from a second-hand shop. The trouble with this is that they are not really establishing a realistic alternative. They might be saying to themselves … ‘There are lots of alternatives if we don’t get the one we want at the auction,’ … but in reality none of these is a real, viable option they would want to proceed with. Psychologically, they would be adding together all the alternatives in their head and arriving at what seems like an aggregate solution. But it isn’t an aggregate and it doesn’t add up! The reality is that each of these supposed alternatives is actually just a part of the answer – but none is really practical.

120


When you establish your WAO it must be realistic and viable, and not just a list of vague possibilities. Another danger is to adopt the philosophy of: ‘We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.’ You can be so committed to one possible outcome that you cannot face the possibility that it might not happen. You have set your heart on the one option; you are so convinced this is the perfect outcome that you don’t want to consider any alternative. You are like the eternal optimist pinning the solution to life’s problems on buying a ticket each week for the national lottery. If you are in this situation, of having only one option in mind, you are in a weak negotiating position and in danger of paying a high price for your lack of preparation, planning and realism.

Creating a strong position Robert is finding the new house and growing family putting a strain on the family budget. He is successful in his job as an area sales manager on a salary of 40,000 but feels ready to take on new responsibilities. The annual salary review is coming up, and he has decided that before trying to negotiate a substantial increase in pay, he will test the market and see what other opportunities exist. In this situation, Robert is being creative. He wants to go into his annual review knowing what his market value is. When he looks at positions advertised in the trade press, he sees that his current salary is at the lower end of the scale. Pay levels range between 40,000 and 52,000 in various positions advertised over a one-month period. This gives him ammunition for his negotiation. However, his fall-back position at this stage is that he will have to accept whatever might be offered, and then start looking around if he is not happy with the new pay structure. He doesn’t have a WAO, and he needs to create one. Robert decides to test the market and increase his options by replying to an advertisement for the position of regional sales manager

121


with XY Technics, a company in a similar field. Having been successful at the initial interview, he is asked to come back to discuss the position in more detail and to see whether the salary package is attractive. The company is impressed with Robert’s record and is prepared to offer him 45,000 plus a bonus package that would add another 5,000 at the end of the year, based on current turnover adjusted for price inflation. He is delighted with the proposal and promises to give the company his firm decision within a week. Robert then has to evaluate all the pros and cons of the offer. The new post would involve more travelling, and hence more nights away from home. In addition, it would mean a cutback in holiday entitlement from 20 to 15 days. He decides to talk to his boss, Colin, before taking a decision. ‘You wanted to see me, Robert. What’s on your mind?’ ‘The thing is, Colin, I really enjoy my job but with the children growing up we’re finding ourselves increasingly stretched financially. You’ve seen my area turnover grow steadily and I’m looking for a new challenge. To be honest, I’ve been looking for a bigger opportunity and I’ve been offered a position which would give me more responsibility and more money.’ ‘I appreciate what you’re saying, Robert, and I was going to talk about this with you when it came to the review meeting. We’ve been pleased with what you’ve achieved and we are looking to promote you in six months, when Jack retires in September. That would mean taking over a larger area and we could certainly talk about more money. What’s the offer the other people are making?’ ‘They’ve offered me a total package of 50,000 including the bonus.’ ‘So, we would have to better that.’

122


‘Well, I’ve been very happy working here, but I have to think about the family and the longer term. What could you offer me if I took over from Jack in September?’ ‘Your bonus is pencilled in at 3,500 for this year’s review. Suppose we made that 5,000 and raised the basic from 40,000 to 43,000. Then, when you take the promotion in September, we could make the basic 47,000 with the prospect of a 5,000 bonus next time around. How does that sound?’ The strength of Robert’s negotiating tactic is that he went into his negotiation with a fallback position of 50,000 from the new company. He wasn’t keen on losing some of his holiday entitlement, but since Colin had not asked for all the details of the other job, he didn’t need to tell Colin the disadvantages of the proposal he had received. Colin knew that people are creatures of habit and avoid change. He calculated that the offer of promotion without the upheaval of changing jobs and with a significant pay increase was a good one. Now it would be down to how much Robert wanted to move companies. Robert now has an offer that gives him the same money in total over the next 12 months, and still gives him his 20 days’ holiday entitlement. However, he knows that Jack’s job isn’t much of a challenge, even though it has a larger sales territory. Robert really wants the potential of the job with the new company, and a few days later, the phone rings: ‘Hi Robert, this is Arthur from XY Technics. I wondered if you’d come to a decision about that job we discussed?’ ‘Well, Arthur, I am very tempted by your offer, but my company has just told me I’m in for promotion in September and it would mean a total package of 52,000. The other factor, which is important to me as a family man, is that I currently enjoy 20 days paid leave and your company only offers 15. That extra week is worth a lot to me.’

123


‘Hmm … I understand where you’re coming from on that one. Although, frankly, now my kids are teenagers I dread family holidays and almost look forward to getting back to my desk! I’ll have to call you tomorrow when I’ve had a word with my colleagues.’ Arthur now has a problem. He can see that Robert wants the challenge of working for XY Technics, but he can’t start making an exception over holiday entitlement and have one member of the sales department having more holidays than the others. On the money side, he can afford to be a little flexible if he keeps the basic salary about the same and increases the performance bonus. It would also give Robert an incentive to get his teeth into the challenge of a new job. The next day he calls Robert back. ‘You’ll be pleased to know I’ve been thinking about improving our offer to you, Robert, and I know how keen you are to step up to a new challenge. I am sure you’ll appreciate that we cannot make an exception on holidays because we have a policy across the board for all staff at that level. However, I can see the industry is moving towards increasing holidays and probably by next year we’ll have to change our terms for everyone … which doesn’t help you in the short term. ‘However, I have a proposition which I hope you will find attractive. At XY we have a policy of allowing up to two weeks’ additional leave on an unpaid basis to any of our employees who choose to take it. That week of extra holiday represents roughly 2½ per cent differential in financial terms; so if we increased your pay by 2½ per cent you could take an extra week unpaid and still be no worse off. ‘Now, the offer from your present employer, of rising from 43 to 47, plus a bonus of five, averages out at roughly 50,000 over the next 12 months. ‘I can offer you 46 as an immediate basic salary, with a bonus of 5,000 based on current turnover and the potential to double that

124


if you increase turnover by more than 15 per cent in the full year. How does that sound to you?’ Here was a classic win-win scenario. Arthur had made a small adjustment to the basic salary which gave Robert a substantial immediate increase. He then structured the bonus so that even if Robert did no more than maintain the territory sales, Robert would match the money his present employer was offering and give himself the ability to take the extra week unpaid without losing out. By structuring Robert’s package with a substantial performance bonus, Arthur gave Robert a great financial incentive to build sales in the territory from the moment he accepted the position. Robert’s walk-away option in each case was the other job – but did Colin and Arthur have walk-away options? Absolutely! If Robert left, Colin could change his plans for Jack’s succession and restructure Robert’s region. For Arthur, if Robert decided to stay with his current employer, it was simply a question of looking at the next person on the list of people he had already seen for a first interview. Both of these are strong walk-away options, provided Robert is an average sort of employee. If Robert were a highly specialized scientist, leading the world in cutting-edge research, Colin would have a problem in creating a walk-away option. Losing Robert could seriously affect the company’s R&D programme. In this situation the roles would have been reversed and the stronger party would have been Robert, not Colin.

Power is in the hands of the person who knows ‘What Next’? What is becoming apparent as you explore different negotiating situations is that the stronger party is not necessarily the one who is initially in the dominant position; it is the one who has the better walk-away option. Sometimes the WAO is expressed in the same terms for both parties. In the case of Robert, Colin and Arthur, it was money and terms of employment for all three of them. At other times the WAO may not

125


be in common currency, and the other side in the negotiation may not be able to influence the course of events. Let’s look at George and Mary facing a major decision about their future life together. They have no children and are both in their early forties. George is in a well-paid job but is weary of the commercial rat race and yearns to get out and be his own boss. He and Mary share an interest in holistic therapies. Mary is a qualified homeopath and George has been studying physiotherapy at evening classes. He has been with the same employer since leaving college and has built up a healthy pension fund. Every Monday morning the prospect of going to work at the office looks less appealing. One Sunday afternoon they sit down after lunch and discuss their future: ‘You know, Mary, I’ve been thinking we could take life more easily. I’m tired of working with Amethyst Holdings. I’ve travelled, I’ve set up new offices, I’ve worked all hours and quite frankly I am bored. How would you feel about doing something different?’ ‘Well, George, I love my little therapy business. I’m getting quite well known and you know that the national association keep chasing me to become an examiner on the national standards committee. You and I share an interest in health and fitness and with your physiotherapy we could build our own practice. How would you feel about that?’ ‘There’s no reason why we couldn’t sell up and find something smaller, maybe a storefront with an apartment upstairs or a little place on the outskirts of town. There’s not much outstanding now on the mortgage, I’ve got a healthy pension fund with the company and we could keep paying into that for a few more years. We planned to take some time off next month, so let’s have a look around and get some ideas of what’s on the market.’ A few weeks later, George and Mary tour around looking at properties and find the perfect place: a former bakery in a small village just a few miles from their present home. They immediately put their home on the market and in a couple of months they are able to

126


make an offer on the bakery, conditional on planning permission for alternative use as a health centre. George knows it’s now time to talk to his boss, Bradley, and explain his plans for the future: ‘So, George, you wanted to see me for a chat. Nothing wrong, I hope? Your department is turning in record results as usual. Is something bothering you?’ ‘Well, Bradley, Mary and I have been talking and come to some pretty major decisions. We’ve decided it’s time to move on and start our own business opening a health centre in the old bakery at Wolverton. We’ve exchanged contracts on our house and on the old bakery and we have planning approval. So, now it’s all in the hands of the legal people.’ ‘So you’re pretty set on this idea then? How do the numbers stack up?’

The Planning Committee was faced with a choice between seeing the old bakery stay in a run-down state until someone else came along and bought it as a food shop (the committee’s WAO – but an unlikely development) or accepting George and Mary’s proposal, which would see the property restored, occupied and generating property taxes. In the event, the committee accepted the proposal to develop the premises as a health centre, thus realistically facing up to general trends in high street retailing and ensuring that the property was once again contributing to council revenues.

‘I’ve got another nine months before I qualify as a physio, but Mary already has a thriving practice and quite a reputation. We’ve made a good profit on our home, so I reckon we can survive until I’m qualified. It’ll be tight, and there’s quite a lot to do on the property, but it should work out.’ ‘And this means you’re leaving us? I hope you’ll stay long enough to train up Bill to take over the reins?’

127


‘I’m not in a rush to go, but I don’t believe it’s healthy for a company if someone hangs around once a decision is taken.’ ‘I understand that, George, but maybe we can work something out to mutual advantage. After all, you’re going to need quite a cashflow to cover the building alterations, I imagine. Let me put a proposal to you.’ Bradley knows that George’s experience and expertise are valuable to the company and he would be sorry to lose that after all the growth George had helped the company to achieve. At the same time, he knows that Bill is snapping at George’s heels and eager for additional responsibility. He knows he will lose Bill to a competitor if he can’t find a new challenge for him soon. Bradley’s WAO is to accept George’s resignation and promote Bill immediately – but that could mean a lack of continuity and a difficult transition. He wants to minimize that if he can while keeping Bill motivated. For George, the negotiation seems simple. He will agree a period of notice with Bradley – hopefully two or three months – which will give him an income while he and Mary sort out their move and start on the structural work. There will be a lean period while the building alterations are being completed and he takes his final examinations – but after that the future looks promising. George’s WAO is that if Bradley decides to let him go straightaway he will have to fall back on the capital they have realized from their house sale. Bradley lays out his proposition to George: ‘George, we value your contribution and will be sad to lose you. At the same time, I know you and Mary are passionate about your interest in health and fitness and I believe you could be very successful with your new project. I also know Bill is looking for a more challenging position and I am sure you could induct him into your job without stunting his ideas. Had you considered cutting back for a few months, maybe working part-time or even leaving us but retaining a consultancy role to the company?’ George is taken aback. He had no idea the company would be open to such an idea. But Bradley is being creative and looking beyond the employer/employee box that George has been mentally locked into.

128


Bradley’s proposal is a win-win solution. George has time to devote to his new project, and he has an ongoing income over the next few months. Bill will get the promotion he is hoping for and Bradley has the security of George shadowing and guiding Bill while Bill is adjusting to his new role. Also, the company will continue to have access to George’s 20-years’ experience in the industry for at least a few more months. Bradley continues: ‘Obviously you want to think this over, George, and I need to see how this would work out in practical terms. But you never know, you might welcome the continuing association with the company that you have put so much into. I take it you’re in favour, in principle.’ ‘Absolutely, Brad, I’ll certainly be interested to see what this looks like on paper. You’re right about Bill. He has itchy feet, so we need to get this sorted out in the next week or so. Otherwise, he’s going to be taking more odd days off when he says he’s at the dentist but we suspect he’s talking to other companies!’ ‘I’ll have something drawn up and we’ll talk again in a couple of days. I think that, since it looks as if you’ll be leaving us one way or the other, you won’t mind if I start talking to Bill, will you?’ ‘I think it’s essential. And you know, I really look forward to coaching him into my old job.’ Of course, if George had been moving out of town, Bradley might not have been able to make such an attractive offer. In that situation there would have been little he could do to persuade George to stay. No amount of money could have persuaded George to stop pursuing his dream; the house was effectively sold and the new premises bought. George had apparently ‘burnt his boats’. But despite this, Bradley came up with a solution that worked to everyone’s advantage.

How to create the Walk-Away Option You have seen that the power in any negotiation is in the hands of whoever has the better WAO. Logically, developing a strong WAO is

129


a critical part of the preparation for any negotiation. Going back to our basic principles, this means: ➣ Establishing what alternative options you can develop if you are unable to get what you want ➣ Developing these ideas into real alternatives, not just vague ideas ➣ Working out what the other side wants and how they are likely to react and proceed ➣ Deciding on a WAO for the various decisions or attitudes the other side might take George had not really thought through his negotiation with Bradley. He went to see him just to hand in his notice. But if cashflow had been more critical for George and Mary, they would have needed to think through the negotiation much more thoroughly.

Working out the WAOs Here are some of the WAOs that George could have considered. These are based on the worst possible outcome, which would be that Bradley would accept his resignation and let him go there and then. George’s thoughts for a walk-away option might have been: 1. We will have to live on our capital until the health centre is generating a positive cashflow. 2. I could do most of the renovation work myself, using skilled trades people when I need them. 3. I could get a part-time job so that we still have some money coming in until I qualify. With a little analysis and forethought, George could have made plans for a situation in which Bradley tries to get him to stay. George’s thoughts then might have been: 4. I’ll withdraw my notice and hang on for another year while Mary gets the new business up and running. 5. I can see if Bradley will let me ease off and start handing over my responsibilities. 6. I can refuse to stay, and see what period of notice we can agree.

130


In the earlier example, George had probably already positioned himself at Option 6. He had not considered the possibility of Bradley just showing him the door and giving him the minimum financial entitlement, and he certainly hadn’t considered Option 4 as even a remote possibility. Look at the various steps to follow in working out the WAO: ➣ Step 1 – analyze all the possible alternatives George and Mary should have sat down and thought things through in more detail before George handed in his resignation. They needed a clear picture of what they could realistically take as their next step, in reply to the various responses that the company might make. ➣ Step 2 – develop the various alternatives to see exactly what is involved Having done that, George and Mary next needed to discuss and investigate their options in more detail. Here are just some of the points which would need to be talked through: 1. If George had to take another job for six months: i. What were the opportunities? ii. How realistic were they? iii. What could he have expected to earn? iv. Would he be better off delaying his resignation until their plans had progressed further? 2. As for doing the renovation work himself: i. How realistic was this idea? ii. Most of us can slap on a coat of paint and do basic DIY – but would this have been enough? iii. Would there be any complicated building work, electrical rewiring or essential plumbing that would need qualified tradesmen? 3. Would living on their capital seriously damage their security? i. How much would they need? ii. For how long? 4. Could George tolerate staying on at work, given the upheaval of the removal and all their long-term plans for the health centre?

131


➣ Step 3 – evaluate the possible attitudes and actions of the other side It is vital to try to determine what the other side’s position is likely to be. George needed to ask himself some critical questions: 1. Would Bradley react strongly and show him the door? 2. Would he be sympathetic and supportive to his plans? 3. Is there a policy about paying people off and not having them work their notice? If so, what might that mean in financial terms? 4. Would Bradley consider letting him reduce his workload and work on a different basis, part-time or as a consultant, during the transition in the management of the department? ➣ Step 4 – decide on a definitive option for each possible outcome Finally, George and Mary needed to determine their best WAO to match their judgement of the likely position of the other side. It is no good thinking vaguely in terms of ‘I have lots of options’ or the classic get-out clause, ‘I’m keeping all my options open’ which generally means ‘I haven’t thought about what might happen next.’ The WAO must be a serious alternative and it must be appropriate to a specific response from the other side. Unless you do this – if you have only a vague, generalized idea of what you might do next – you are no longer in control of your own future.

It’s all about staying in control And that is the nub of this chapter. When you know exactly what you will do if you don’t get what you want, you are in control. Nobody is going to push you into doing something you don’t want, or into settling for less than you are prepared for. Even if you face the worst-case scenario, you already know in some detail what your next step will be. So, you stay in control. George let his emotions get in the way of his negotiation. He was weary of working for Amethyst Holdings and had decided to quit. He was so focused on his new project that he was blind to the

132


opportunities that might exist in the interim. Given all the facts, what could he have done differently? If Bradley had been desperate not to lose Bill, he could have seized George’s resignation as a way of creating a job that would keep Bill in the company. By declaring all his intentions, George had made it very easy for Bradley to move quickly and replace him. A better course of action for George would have been to have an informal chat with Bradley, discussing his long-term plans, rather than laying all his cards on the table from the outset. Suppose he had said: ‘I wanted to tell you about Mary’s business. You know we’re both into health and fitness, and Mary has a flourishing practice as a homeopath. Well, we’ve decided to downsize our living-space and we’re in the process of moving out to Wolverton. We’ve taken over the old bakery, and we’ve been granted planning approval to turn it into a local health centre. I’ve been thinking about joining her sometime in the future but first I need to complete my physiotherapy studies. I thought we should have a chat to see how this might fit in with the development of my role in the company.’ At this stage George has not been negotiating. He is merely floating an idea, without any timescale and without any threatening implications. This gives him a chance to do what he was not able to do earlier, namely Step 3 of the WAO development process – to evaluate the possible attitudes and actions of the other side.

Realistically keeping all the options open This leaves all his options open. Under the employment legislation in most countries around the world (though not in the USA), Bradley would find it difficult to terminate an employee of 20 years’ standing with no cause, and without a substantial financial settlement, so Bradley’s options are somewhat limited. However, the knowledge of George’s possible long-term plans does give him an opportunity to discuss with him ways of gradually winding down his involvement in the company, if that would be of interest to George.

133


George could then go away, formulate his next steps and work out his walk-away options for any future negotiations about his position in the company. He has maintained the most valuable position of any negotiation: he is in control.

Summary Knowing your WAO is the single most important element of going into a negotiation. You should spend as much time on determining your WAO alternatives as you should in working out your ideal outcome. If you do so, you can be absolutely confident at every stage of the negotiation. If you fail to do this, you put yourself at the mercy of whatever outcome the negotiation achieves. ➣ Step 1 – analyze all the possible alternatives ➣ Step 2 – develop the various alternatives to see just what is involved ➣ Step 3 – evaluate the possible attitudes and actions of the other side ➣ Step 4 – decide on a definitive option for each possible outcome

SUMMARY OF PART TWO ➣ Know what you want ➣ Know what the other side wants ➣ Know and exploit the power and value of information ➣ Know and agree on how you will measure the outcome ➣ Know what you will do if you can’t achieve what you really want

134

PART THREE

Doing the deal

9

Playing games and handling gamesmanship

Playing by the rules By this stage you are probably about to ask the inevitable question: ‘But what if the other side hasn’t read the book? What if they just carry on with positional negotiation? I may understand the difference between position and direction but that doesn’t work unless they also understand and will play by the same rules.’ Negotiation is all about the to and fro of communication. It is not about winning a game; it is about moving towards a common objective. If it were about playing a game, you would often find that a negotiation is going nowhere because one side is playing football while the other side is playing tennis. When one side is playing by one set of rules and the other side is playing by a different set of rules, or doesn’t understand the conventions of the game, there is no communication, no game, no common objective and no result. A negotiation starts with the initial steps of acknowledging the mutual positions of the two parties involved and moving towards identifying mutually desirable outcomes. Having done this, the two parties can then explore possible solutions and evaluate the various options.

137


When the other side won’t play along with this, and insists on stating a position and then arguing around that position, you need to reappraise the situation. You have several options. In sporting terminology, you can try different shots, play soft or firm, or cry: ‘Foul!’ but as long as they are waving a tennis racquet and you are kicking a football there simply will not be any meaningful communication. In fact, there is not much you can do as long as they insist on doing things their way and ignoring what you are doing and saying from your side. People who are set on a particular sum of money or determined to achieve the specific outcome that they personally favour will often be blind to any alternatives. There is no point in arguing in circles around their position. This will only lead to a shouting match, each attack stimulating an ever fiercer counter-attack. Confrontation builds barriers around the positions and pushes the two parties further away from each other, with a diminishing hope of ever achieving a negotiated settlement. The harder you reject their ideas, the harder they push back, and in the end both parties are squeezed dry – and probably exhausted. What alternative options do you have? You can stop trying to get them to play the game your way, and instead you can let them play their own game.

Taking the wind out of their sails Once you realize that it is going to be difficult to have a mature and reasoned debate, you should encourage the other side to pursue their argument. What then happens is that both sides can see where this particular approach is leading and what the outcome is likely to be. When they strike out, you must pull them along rather than rebuff them. You must resist the temptation to argue and just let them have their say. What then happens is that once the other side has followed the argument through to its logical conclusion, they and you can both look at the likely outcome, and see how far it is from what you individually want to achieve.

138

PLAYING GAMES AND HANDLING GAMESMANSHIP

Often the other side will come to see that their proposal does not in fact achieve their objectives. This then yields the scope to discuss what might be mutually acceptable. When you are letting the other side develop their argument around their position, you must be careful to remain impassive, so you do not give the impression that you are agreeing as the debate progresses. Of course you want to argue but this is not the right moment. Let them elaborate their ideas and draw them out. Ask for clarification so they know you have been listening and that they have been heard. It may be contrary to your instinctive nature to bite your lip and let them put their case, but it propels them towards elaborating their ideas and talking these through to the logical conclusion.

Smiling and nodding When it comes to listening, there is a fundamental gender difference throughout Europe and North America in what people mean as they smile and nod when listening to the other person’s argument. Generally, men see smiling and nodding as a gesture of agreement to what is being said, whereas women smile and nod to show they have followed the argument and understand what is being said. In other words, when women listen and nod it does not necessarily mean they are agreeing to what the other party is proposing. As always in negotiations and all forms of communication, especially across cultural, age and gender boundaries, it is important to avoid giving out the wrong signals, and to understand the meaning behind the signals you are receiving. Let’s return to George and Mary, our forty-something couple with no children and a comfortable level of income. They are relaxing one evening, looking through holiday brochures and planning their summer vacation: ‘I really think the Algarve in Portugal looks great,’ says George. ‘The climate is excellent, there’s good food and wine, and plenty of things to see and do.’

139


Mary is studying a brochure of Provence, admiring the pictures of Avignon and Aix-en-Provence. ‘But surely France would be more enjoyable. We can fly to the south and pick up a car. It’s so sophisticated, with all those wonderful restaurants. Don’t you think the Algarve is, well, a bit rural?’ ‘Good Lord, no! This hotel looks superb; just look at all the facilities!’ ‘But the Hotel Europe in Avignon is famous, and has some very reasonable packages. It would make a wonderful base for touring around, and there’s a lot to do in and around Avignon.’ George and Mary are going to carry on, endlessly arguing from their positions, until one of them adopts the directional strategy I am proposing, and encourages the other to expand on their proposal. George decides to try this approach: ‘I don’t understand. What is so appealing about Avignon?’ Mary thinks she is making progress, and perks up. ‘There’s so much to do, even just in the town itself. Smart little bars to sit and enjoy a drink and watch the world go by, a traditional market and lots of picturesque backstreets where you could do your photography.’ ‘OK, but what would you do that you couldn’t do in the Algarve?’ ‘Well, I want to buy some winter clothes, and the shopping is wonderful in France. There are wonderful little boutiques with all the famous names at much better prices than here at home. Then I thought we might drive down to Marseilles one day so I can look at the big department stores.’ Now George has established that what is behind Mary’s preference for Avignon is not the scenery or culture but the shopping. This is why she prefers the idea of France as compared to Portugal. George has no interest in haut couture; he has his own reasons for preferring Portugal:

140


‘But I don’t want to be stuck in a city; I have enough of city life back here at home. That’s why I’d prefer Portugal.’ For a moment, George is back in his ‘position’. Then he realizes he will not make any progress unless he takes the discussion forward. Before he can pursue his discussion Mary draws him out into revealing his motivation … ‘Anyway, why are you so keen on the Algarve? What’s so special about that part of Portugal? Surely Lisbon would have more buzz and life?’ And now you can discover what is behind George’s negotiating position: ‘Well, it’s the golf. More top class golf courses than anywhere else in Europe, combined with a superb climate and top class hotels. One day I really want to play in Scotland, but I didn’t dare suggest Scotland with rain for climate and haggis and chips for dinner.’ Mary chuckled. ‘I don’t think you’re being fair to Scotland – but you’re right. I want sunshine after the awful winter we’re having this year. So it looks as if we’re both set on things we want from the holiday. I want to be able to shop-till-I-drop for sophisticated European fashion and you want to be out there on the greens hitting a little ball into a hole in the ground.’ ‘OK, you don’t appreciate golf, and I don’t appreciate your need to constantly change your wardrobe. But we both knew this before we were married. My dream was to play the top golf courses around the world and your dream was to afford to be dressed in the finest fashions. How can we ensure that we each get what we want out of this vacation?’ This impassive strategy – listening to the other side explain their position – demands a fair degree of restraint and self-discipline. In George and Mary’s case it works because they are used to discussing situations and working out solutions together. In a more formal

141


negotiation it is less easy for you to stand back and listen to something you find totally unacceptable. However, you are never going to make any progress until the other party believes they have had the opportunity to put their full proposal, and that you have listened, heard and understood where they are coming from. When Fisher, Ury and Patton outlined this situation in their seminal work Getting to Yes, they concluded that the other side would probably use three tactics when they negotiated with you. They would: 1. Forcefully assert their position and point of view. 2. Attack any ideas or proposals you put forward. 3. Launch a personal attack on you. The best way of responding to these tactics is to start by getting to the bottom of things.

Find out why they are pushing their proposition You can start by following the tactics that both George and Mary used when negotiating about their holiday plans. Let’s look at a rather different example when, back at JK Engineering, Robert is negotiating with a client, Alice, who is buying equipment for a new production line at her factory. ‘Well, Alice, it seems as if we’re still going round in circles and not making much progress. You’ve seen our offer. You have asked for the XK150, which is the unit you have on your other production lines, so you are familiar with its performance and reliability. For a bulk order of ten we could deliver them to you, as you request, in the second half of August, at a price of 15,000 per unit, including shipping.’ ‘The specifications are right but 15,000 is too expensive. I can get these from Mexico for 12,000. That’s a 20 per cent saving.’ ‘You know our list price is 17,950 and you know I’ve guaranteed the delivery date. That really is our best price.’ ‘I tracked down this dynamic new Mexican company. They can match your specification right down to the last detail. It’s no good

142


sitting there complacently. I want you to stop making fat margins and work with medium-sized manufacturers like us, helping us to build our business. We need to get this production line up and running straight after the summer break, and we need a more competitive price. You’re typical of the local companies: you just churn out the products and wait for someone like me to come along and pay your high prices. You’ve never had competition before, and now you don’t know how to handle it!’ Alice is getting angry and her attack is increasingly personal. Robert pauses for a moment to let things settle before replying: ‘I want to find a way to help you to get that new production line up on time and running profitably. There’s no way I can go any lower on price. We’ll be making a minimal margin, and I can only go this low because you are a valued long-term customer and we’d like to keep working with you. What I’m offering you is a very fair price and I cannot discount any more than we have done already. Let’s have another look at the project.’ This negotiation is going nowhere. Robert needs the answers to some questions. In particular, since they have always had a good business relationship, why has Alice decided to look for a new supplier? Why is Alice insisting on such a big price reduction? JK Engineering are market leaders for quality and value and Alice has never demanded major price reductions in the past. If the Mexican company is so good, why is she still talking to him? What’s stopping her from ordering from Mexico? Robert looks back at the quotation his company has offered and considers the key features of his proposition: the XK150, standard specifications. There is nothing else in the market in that niche; everything competitive is either too big or too small. Robert will have to start suggesting alternatives, and see where that leads. He needs more information from Alice, so he re-opens the conversation:

143


‘What’s going on here, Alice? We’ve always enjoyed an excellent business relationship.’ ‘Let me explain the situation. You remember the new Explorer product range we previewed at the International Trade Fair? It’s easier for us to produce, it’s much cheaper than our existing ranges and it’s getting a fantastic response from the trade. We have to get into volume production much faster than we anticipated. The timing is critical if we are to catch the winter sales, and we need to keep the production costs down. I must work to a very tight capital budget, which is why we have been looking at alternative sources. ‘On the one hand, we would like to continue dealing with someone we know and trust. On the other hand I am looking at the difference between a total capital cost of 120,000 and your price of 150,000. The Explorer is a volume market product at a budget price. You see the problem. Now, what can you do for us?’ ‘So, let me get this straight: you need to equip the production line for the new Explorer range within a capital budget of around 120,000 and have it fully operational in August, so that you can get the production running to meet the winter sales season. Have I understood you correctly?’ ‘There is no way we can stretch to 150,000. And apart from the capital cost, your XK150 is pretty heavy on power, so the running costs of those machines in energy alone will be a major element in the unit costings right across our Explorer product range.’ ‘I hear what you’re saying, and I understand you need to control costs. Suppose we could come up with a way to reduce the energy costs, but keep your production level the same?’ ‘That would be great! But you know the energy consumption of the XK150. Do the sums and you’ll see why we’re concerned about the costs with ten units all working long shifts.’ ‘You are quite right, Alice. But my point is that the Explorer production line doesn’t need the XK150! You’ll have more than enough output if you take the XK135, and it’s much cheaper to

144


run. When we discussed this you were talking about setting up a new production line, and our quote was naturally based on your traditional manufacturing process and the old product range – which simply wasn’t cheap to produce. If you set up the new production line based on the XK135 you can make energy savings with no loss of capacity. Let me put some figures together and get a detailed specification to you this afternoon, then you can go through it with your technical people.’ ‘What about delivery? That’s the other big issue; I can bring the Mexican machines in under budget but delivery is as critical as price on this whole project. You know what it’s like, dealing with a new supplier: you’re adding an unknown into the equation.’ ‘We can deliver ten machines as early in August as you can take them. We can also look into putting one of our engineers on a placement with you, to work with your people on the installation. As far as your budget is concerned, I am sure we can give you an attractive package. Does that give you what you’re looking for? ‘Put it all in writing. I think we might have the outline of a realistic deal. It looks as if we can do business.’

The power of listening Alice had been arguing about the price of the XK150, when her real objective was to set up the new production line for the new product range, on time, within a fixed budget. When Alice saw that Robert was inflexible about the price, she became angry and frustrated. Robert’s tactic was to practise Active Listening. He had to draw out the argument and let Alice know she had been heard before he could effectively respond and make a fresh proposal. He did this by feeding back her own argument to her, so she knew he understood her point of view: ‘So let me get this straight: you need to equip the production line for the new Explorer range within a capital budget of around 120,000 and have it fully operational in August, so you can get the production running to meet the winter sales season.’

145


He shows that he wants to understand her position by then asking her: ‘Have I understood you correctly?’ By doing this, he is no longer in opposition to Alice, but (metaphorically speaking) he has moved around the negotiating table, and joined alongside her, identifying with a common objective. Of course, he might have had to apologize and admit defeat if there were no way he could provide the right equipment in the right timescale at the right price. On the other hand, he might have been able to be creative in his response by suggesting some other financing arrangement, such as a leasing deal, that would meet Alice’s concerns about working within the restraints of her capital budget. In the example here, Robert is able to come up with a win-win solution. He can offer Alice a unit that is more than adequate for this particular operation, at a lower capital cost and cheaper to run. Now that he knows both her budget and her delivery requirements, he can produce a detailed proposal incorporating added value, such as technical assistance during the start-up period for the new production line. ➣ The first rule of not playing their game Don’t try to attack a position by maintaining your own position. Try to find out what is behind the opponents’ position by drawing them on, letting them have their say and making it clear that you have heard. Once you know WHY they are so adamant about their position, you can start to identify their underlying aims and respond with a proposal which addresses these specific objectives.

Find out how deeply-felt or realistic their objections are The next tactic you are likely to see from the other side is that they will attack any ideas or proposals you have put forward. Any parent will vouch for just how demoralizing this can be when children become ‘difficult’. In commercial negotiations, it can be every bit as frustrating. You may find yourself in a situation in which both parties

146


feel unable to say anything to which the other side will give any credence! In this type of negotiation, you instinctively want to defend your position and argue right back. But you can, in fact, be far more effective if you take a very different approach and encourage the attack. When you invite more criticism and push the other side to expand on their objections, they are forced to clarify their thinking and produce solid, reasoned debate. You have to dismantle your defence and let the opponents try to destroy your argument. George and Mary’s discussion could have gone rather differently: ‘I really fancy France. I love the idea of Provence at that time of year.’ ‘But Portugal would be so much better and cheaper.’ ‘Just a minute – what have you got against France? Tell me why my idea is so wrong.’ ‘For a start, France is full of the French! Remember that weekend in Paris? The French are rude, arrogant, and they hate foreigners.’ ‘You’re quite right: once you land in France it feels very foreign. And I agree, when we went to Paris back then, we quickly learned how snobbish some of them can be. Everyone knows the French can be very individualistic. And it doesn’t seem to make any difference how hard you try to speak their language – they’ll either pretend not to understand or just talk back to you in English. But there’s so much more to France than Paris, and the people are very different outside the big cities. Apart from the undeniable fact that France is full of French people, what other objections do you have?’ ‘France is so expensive.’ ‘Yes, it would be more expensive than Portugal. But if we’re staying at the Hotel Europe you’ve got to remember it has a Michelin star and the standard is going to be much higher than the sort of roadside motel we stay at when we’re up north visiting your

147


parents. We’re not back-packers any longer, George, and it’s about time we spent some serious money on a holiday! The Euro is a strong currency so we’re going to find continental Europe pricey – but we will get superb service, gourmet food and beautiful accommodation. I think it’s worth being extravagant. Do you think we should be roughing it? Don’t you think we deserve a little luxury?’ ‘Well, I suppose you’re right about prices across Europe, but that’s not all. You’re talking about staying in Avignon and frankly, I don’t like the idea of being stuck in a town. I spend too much of my life in the city and I like to get out and about.’ ‘I agree with you. I want to be out and about, I don’t want to spend all my days in the grounds of an hotel, lying on a sun-bed by a pool eating over-priced club-sandwiches for lunch. But it’s good to have a comfortable base to come home to, and in the evenings we want some sophistication, different places to dine out, maybe a nightclub, or the cinema. Hotels can be very dull places in the evenings. Of course we want to tour around, and Provence is the perfect base. You couldn’t ask for more to see and do, all within an hour’s drive of our hotel.’ ‘But that’s the point! If I want to do anything, I am going to have to get in the car to go and do it!’ ‘I’m like you. Back home, I hate driving. What I like about the idea of Avignon is that we can walk everywhere in the town. As for a car, I thought it would be rather fun to pick up a convertible at the airport rather than a boring ordinary saloon car. There’s a lovely coupé available at a very reasonable price if we book it all as a package with the flight and hotel. You’ve always wanted a convertible and we’ve always said we didn’t have the weather for it at home. You know you’d enjoy that!’ ‘Well, that is rather appealing, but it still seems that if I am going to do the things I want to do, I am going to have to spend a lot of time driving around.’

148


‘So, what is it you particularly want to do? I just don’t see what you’re getting at. We can have a wonderful hotel with superb facilities at an excellent package price, in a beautiful, sophisticated town with all the attractions the region offers. What is wrong with that idea? What more could you ask for?’ ‘Well, er, golf, actually.’ Eventually, Mary’s persistence pays off and George reveals that what he really wants is a golfing holiday. He has never mentioned this – but he has made two sweeping generalizations: ‘The French are rude, arrogant, and they hate foreigners. ‘France is so expensive.’ He also had some specific complaints about Avignon: ‘If I want to do anything, I am going to have to get in the car to go and do it! ‘I spend too much of my life in the city and I like to get out and about.’ Mary does nothing to counter these arguments. In fact, she agrees with him: ‘You’re quite right: once you land in France it feels very foreign. And I agree, when we went to Paris back then, we quickly learned how snobbish some of them can be … ‘Yes, it would be more expensive than Portugal … The Euro is a strong currency so we’re going to find continental Europe pricey … ‘I’m like you. Back home, I hate driving. ‘I agree with you. I want to be out and about. I don’t want to spend all my days in the grounds of an hotel.’ Mary’s strategy drew out his objections and she kept asking him for his opinion: ‘Tell me why my idea is so wrong?

149


‘I think it’s worth being extravagant. Do you think we should be roughing it? Don’t you think we deserve a little luxury? ‘You’ve always wanted a convertible and we’ve always said we didn’t have the weather for it at home. Wouldn’t you enjoy that? ‘What more could you ask for?’ Throughout the conversation, she constantly agreed with him and encouraged him to come up with new objections. As a result, she could then uncover what was behind his argument … a desire for a golfing holiday. In the initial phases of the negotiation it looked as if George was immovable. Once Mary had let George have his say and often agreed with him in much of what he said, she could defuse the debate and lead him to the realization that: ➣ He would actually enjoy staying in a good hotel ➣ He would appreciate a degree of luxury ➣ It would be pleasant to have the sophistication of a stylish town to wander around in the evenings ➣ He would relish driving a sports car in the sunshine Later, she found the one piece of persuasive evidence she needed to clinch her argument. Her master stroke was a leaflet she downloaded from the French Tourist Board: Golf Pass Provence – enjoy the freedom of our 15 fine golf courses. ➣ The second rule of not playing their game Support and encourage the opposing party to spell out their objections. Don’t try to argue with them. Keep asking them for clarification, and agree whenever you can. Ultimately, you will uncover the real reason behind their objections.

Switch their personal attack back to the problem In the last example, Mary let George have his say and spell out all the reasons why he didn’t fancy her idea for their summer vacation. Should the discussion get personal, the same strategy works equally well. Don’t defend yourself; let the other side be angry and get it off

150


their chest. What is really happening is that they are frustrated about the situation and are taking it out on the only visible, tangible representation of the problem … you. Now take another look at Robert’s negotiation with Alice, where we saw a good example of this. Alice was frustrated and started to insult Robert and his company: ‘It’s no good sitting there complacently … You’re typical of the local companies … you’ve never had competition before, and now you don’t know how to handle it!’ Robert said nothing by way of self defence; he believed that, deep down, Alice liked dealing with JK Engineering and that this anger was frustration arising from the complexity and challenges of setting up the new production line. Consequently he deflected her comments: ‘I want to find a way to help you to get that new production line up on time and running profitably … Let’s have another look at the project.’ Having vented her frustration, Alice comes back to discuss the problem in a less personal way: ‘Let me explain the situation ... We have to get into volume production much faster than we anticipated … and we need to keep the production costs down. I must work to a very tight capital budget, which is why we have been looking at alternative sources.’ The reality of the situation was that Alice wasn’t really upset with Robert and his company. She was overwhelmed by the scale of the project she was working on and the budget constraints she had to work to.

The power of silence Faced with an angry and vindictive opponent, the first important rule is to keep cool. You have to ignore the personal insults and forget them as fast as they come.

151


At the same time, you can pause and use silence to let the temperature drop. The other party may use your pause to repeat themselves or become even more worked up – but you can just give them time to say what they want to say. Silence is not passive; silence is a very powerful way of forcing the other side to keep talking. They will carry on, expanding on their argument in more detail which, as you have seen in the previous examples, gives you more information about their position and gives you time to formulate your response. By keeping quiet after asking a question, you force the other side to give a detailed answer, expand on their reasoning and justify their response. While silence may appear to be a stalemate it is in fact a dynamic and pressured phase of a negotiation. ➣ The third rule of not playing their game Don’t take anything personally. See any negatives as the other side’s frustration about the issues and not as criticism of you or your colleagues. Understand the other side’s frustration, and pause. Use silence to move the discussion along.

Breaking the deadlock In all the examples of this chapter you have been encouraging the other side and not delaying the process with argument. Another way of resolving a negotiation is by raising and exploring the issues through the involvement of a third party facilitator. The facilitator’s role is rarely proposed as that of a mediator. In general the facilitator is seen as an expert, who is engaged to find a solution which meets the objectives and criteria of all parties. This is important as both parties need to feel that the facilitator has their individual personal interests at heart, and has been engaged to help them get what they want. Suppose George and Mary had started their vacation plans by calling in to consult Shirley, their local travel agent:

152


‘Hello there, what can I do for you today?’ ‘We’re starting to think about our summer holiday.’ ‘We’ve got as far as agreeing that it will be two weeks and it will be in continental Europe.’ ‘Well, that’s everything from the Arctic Circle to the Greek Islands! Let’s start with one or two details.’ Shirley now sets out some of the parameters, establishing travel dates and some broad categories of holiday: ‘Were you thinking of a beach holiday, a touring holiday, lakes and mountains, cultural sights …?’ ‘I like to have a base so I don’t feel I am living out of a suitcase.’ ‘I would like to be surrounded by lots to do. And I do like to buy clothes when I’m abroad.’ ‘I enjoy my games of golf, and I would like to play some different courses while we’re away.’ ‘I think we both agree we’re old enough to enjoy a bit of luxury and sophistication.’ ‘And I guess you’d like some sunshine, too? Give me a couple of hours while you do your shopping and I should have some ideas if you call back this afternoon.’ In this situation we are developing an independent solution, or a shortlist of possible solutions, around which the parties can negotiate. You have seen several examples of people building their own ideas together to create their own fixed position, and then each arguing around and about. When you use a professional to perform a specialist function – such as an architect, a wedding planner, a business consultant, an interior designer or a travel agent – you don’t have two diverse positions to debate; you have a single source of options. The specialist creates these choices based on the requirements of the two parties. At the

153


same time the specialist performs the role of being a third-party facilitator between the opposing parties. At each stage the parties look at the specialist’s ideas in terms of the extent to which their own personal objectives are met. When George and Mary return to continue their discussions with Shirley, George is looking for golf courses and Mary is looking for comfort, sophistication and shopping. Shirley is not doing her job properly unless she is able to show how her proposals meet both of these criteria. In an earlier chapter you looked at the need to establish independent criteria for judging an outcome, and in a sense the use of a thirdparty specialist invokes similar principles. Both parties see the specialist as able to represent their individual interests in an objective way, and are open to being persuaded that their interests are being acknowledged and incorporated into the single solution. ➣ The fourth rule of not playing their game Avoid conflict and argument by appointing an expert who will produce an independent solution, that can be modified in discussion to take account of the individual criteria of the two parties. Keep the initial brief as broad as possible to avoid stunting the specialist’s creativity and be open to exploring new ideas in the course of the consultations.

Summary In this chapter you have considered how to deal with an opponent who wants to play a different game. You have seen how you can progress the negotiation by letting the other side fully develop their argument without your interruptions. You have also seen how you can progress the negotiation by letting the other side attack your proposal with no defence from you. In both situations, you have seen how this serves to clarify the other side’s position and gives you scope to explore alternatives and compromises.

154


You then saw that it is important to separate the personalities from the problem and not take personal attacks as serious accusations. You need to realize that such insults stem from frustration at the complexity of the problem, and that your best response is to deflect the attack from yourself and on to the basic issues of the negotiation. In all these cases, the common element has been to encourage the other party to expand on and clarify the key points of their argument – whether proposing their own ideas or attacking yours. Another way of exploring the issues and options is to appoint a specialist who is briefed by both parties on what they want to achieve. This specialist is effectively a mediator who has to come up with an independent solution which will satisfy both parties, within set parameters. Here are the four principal courses of action which work when you cannot persuade the other party to move from Positional Negotiation to Directional Negotiation. 1. Let them argue their case and don’t interrupt them. 2. Support and encourage them to attack your case. 3. Don’t defend yourself if they attack you personally – but do redirect this attack from yourself and on to the problem. 4. Appoint a professional specialist to work on an independent single solution which takes account of the criteria of both parties.

155

10

Handling personalities and working as a team

People are different There is something of a fashion in the twenty-first century to treat people as if they were all the same. Part of this is the result of major changes in social organization. Society has gone to great lengths to undo the injustices of discrimination. The public environment is designed with convenient access for everyone, regardless of any physical disability or impairment. And increasingly, society is moving towards offering equal opportunity of employment and advancement to everyone, regardless of gender, race or creed. This is a huge development from the unjust legislation, discrimination and practices of past centuries. But people are different. In the attempt to be just and fair, individual preferences are often overlooked and there is a move towards total standardization in the way things are done. The consequence is that there are sweeping generalizations about what people expect and these overlook essential differences in human personalities. Everyone has their own perspective, and this viewpoint is the result of an accumulation of factors and influences. The fundamental basis of all interpersonal communication and negotiation is that people are different.

156

HANDLING PERSONALITIES AND WORKING AS A TEAM

Are you Head, Heart or Gut? There are many classifications of personality type and just as many books that attempt to categorize behaviour patterns. This chapter will focus on just three basic types, following a principle that is some 5,000 years old. It can be seen in many ancient religions and is still practised today in the traditional teachings of Ayurvedic medicine. This is a very simple demarcation, according to whether people are principally motivated by their logic, their emotions or their instinct, and which I shall refer to as Head, Heart and Gut people. Head people are the logical, methodical thinkers, who love detail, facts, and analysis. Typically they are accountants, engineers, surveyors, scientists: people who deal with factual information and who need to know all the background and statistics before they can come to a decision. Heart people are always influenced by human considerations; they are people-people. Typically they are teachers, nurses, human resource executives and social workers. They tend to base their decisions on the human factors and social impact of any negotiated changes. Gut people want action. They are get-up-and-go people who want to get on with the job. Often they are in positions of authority in society – such as Police or the Armed Forces. Or they may have sales and marketing jobs where they are measured by their results. They like challenges, they move quickly to reach a decision and they expect instant action. They dislike delays and hate having to attend to detail.

The author confesses Nobody is a pure, 100 per cent Head, Heart or Gut person. Most of us are predominantly one type, with elements of one or both of the other types. Personally, I am very much a Gut person. I tend to be impetuous and often charge into projects without thinking through the

157


consequences in the way a Head person would; or considering the full effect my actions would have on others, which is what a Heart person would do. I am far from methodical in my daily routine, and by nature very untidy. In contrast to this, when it comes to holidays, I will spend weeks reading and planning with maps and guide books with all the dedication of the most devoted Head person. So, while nobody is purely one particular type, you do have your essential personality traits to the extent that your friends and colleagues will have some initial expectation of how you will react to any given set of circumstances. At this moment you can probably categorize people with whom you come into contact every day. You probably find it much easier to fit neighbours and colleagues into a category than you do to categorize yourself. When you do decide, you will probably tend to consider that your own type is the ‘right’ one. However, there are no rights and wrongs in this, no better or worse categories. Everyone has their own particular strengths, and everyone contributes in some way to the overall mix that makes team-working effective. What is important is to learn to identify the core characteristics in others. What motivates them? What is important to them? What principles govern their decisions?

Know your enemy When negotiating, you will achieve your objectives more easily if you can identify the core personality type of the other party and play to this. If the other party is a Head person, they will want facts and figures, logical analysis and a cautious approach to changing the status quo. A Gut person will want action, and will be keen to see an outcome which offers a quick solution so everyone can move on. A Heart person’s main consideration will be the human impact of the outcome.

158


Identifying the personality type, even in this simple form, is an effective way of seeing things from the other person’s perspective rather than your own. This means you can construct your negotiation around the sort of things that are important to the other side. Of course, you may not be able to offer all that they are hoping to achieve – but at least you can empathize with their prime motivation. Take the example of Tork and Grunt again. In a further attempt to achieve local harmony and bring the tribes together, Tork and Grunt have teamed up with Chat and Wizpa and are planning to make their case to a mass meeting of the local inhabitants. The four of them meet up in advance to discuss tactics under the leadership of Tork. See if you can decide whether each of them can best be described as a Gut, Head or Heart person. Tork starts things off by saying: ‘I called this meeting after my discussions with my friend, Grunt, because I know we all share a common belief that we can build a better future for ourselves and our children if we come together as one large community – including those of us who live up on the hill, those of us who live down in the valley, and those of us who live on the other side of the mountain and by the lake. Do I have your broad agreement that we want to create a wider community embracing all these territories?’ Tork looks around the group who are all nodding in approval. Chat says: ‘It’s the only logical way forward. We can either hide away on opposite sides of the mountain, worrying about people on the other side whom we consider foreigners, or we can come together and cooperate. Each community has one or more skills it can share; that’s what Wizpa and I found out. We can teach each other, but more importantly we could start to trade our specializations.’

159


Grunt: ‘You mean you want to steal our hunting secrets! That doesn’t seem such a good idea. My people have learned their skills over generations. I just want to avoid anything that gets in the way of getting on with day-to-day life.’ Wizpa: ‘It’s not a matter of stealing. It’s all about sharing for the greater common good. I can’t see my people wanting to dig pits and spear mammoths. Please! That’s gross! What we’re talking about is basic economics. If we share, we all benefit.’ Chat: ‘I don’t see it that way at all, either of you. What I see is a better life for our children. I don’t want them to grow up frightened of the people on this side of the mountain. I want them to be able to play anywhere without us mothers worrying that strangers might capture them to be used as servants and slaves. I want my daughters to choose their own husbands, not be carried off by a band of hunters.’ Tork: ‘Now, just a minute, let’s not get heated about this. Why don’t we take this one step at a time? I want to finish all this talking and get back to more important things.’ Grunt: ‘I know you do, Tork. So, let’s follow a proper negotiating procedure: ➣ What is the present situation? ➣ What are the issues? ➣ What do we want to achieve? ➣ What options are available to us? ➣ How do we measure the outcome?’

160


The tribes seek a solution that serves everyone In this example, Grunt and Chat are both Head people, both wanting to be logical and methodical. Tork is a Gut person, who wants to get on with hunting, while Wizpa is a Heart person, concerned about the children of the tribe. Different personalities – but they all want the same outcome. So far you have looked at negotiations in one-on-one scenarios. But in business and diplomacy, negotiations are frequently undertaken between teams and may involve three or more parties, each arguing for their own particular interests. In the examples of negotiation you have looked at, the conclusion has been that the ideal way to progress and resolve an issue is through Directional Negotiation. But how can you continue to adopt this strategy if you are working in a team? You may be only one party amongst several competing interests. Let’s look at how multi-party negotiations operate in practice.

161


Multi-party negotiations Major negotiations generally represent a number of interests on each side. It is important that each team initially prepares its own position amongst themselves, so they can develop a basic proposition that covers all of their interests. There are examples when there will be more than two teams, as in a building development project. If the project is for you to construct a garage beside your house, there will not be many interests other than those of yourself, your neighbours, and the local council (planning officials, building inspectors, etc). Where this is a commercial project, the negotiation could involve a commercial developer, local government, the environmental lobby and other competing commercial interests – together with local residents, trades unions or pressure groups with particular social concerns such as environmental or conservation groups. Here are some examples of projects that could be highly controversial and are likely to involve a number of other parties in negotiations: ➣ A medical research establishment testing drugs on animals would immediately attract the attention of animal rights activists and local residents on the one hand, as well as pharmaceutical companies and scientific research companies on the other ➣ A nightclub and casino in a mainly residential area could attract the attention of religious groups who object to gambling on the grounds of religion. Local residents might also object at the prospect of late night noise disturbing the peace of a residential area ➣ A marina and holiday resort development on the site of coastal marshland would arouse objections from naturalists wanting to maintain the wildlife habitat of the wetlands and the resident bird population

The importance of being prepared All negotiations involve proposals for change and objections to change. That’s why there is a negotiation.

162


Projects that are going to make fundamental changes to how you live or to your environment, or which involve behaviour that is contrary to some people’s personal ethical beliefs, will attract objections from pressure groups. In your preparation, you must do your best to explore every possible area of objection the other side – or other parties – might come up with, so that you are prepared in advance to deal with issues raised. Nothing in a negotiation is more important than being prepared for the unexpected. In a multi-party negotiation – which in government matters can develop into a Public Inquiry lasting weeks or months – the main difference from other formats of negotiation is that the discussion forum is largely removed. Much of the analysis and examination lies in the hands of the independent chairperson. The Chair’s role is to consider the arguments of each party and help to find common ground, as well as identifying individual interests. The Chair will have to consider all the arguments and the impact of alternative outcomes. At the end of the hearing, he or she will analyze all the arguments that have been put forward and make recommendations to whatever authority is responsible for making a ruling and reaching a final decision. In a multi-party negotiation there is limited opportunity for interaction. As a result, the tactic comes down to producing a detailed proposition that is sufficiently comprehensive to persuade the thirdparty arbitrator of the appropriateness of one particular solution. In many two-party negotiations you are also concerned with a team of negotiators rather than just two individuals. So, let us now consider the whole subject of how to negotiate as two teams confronting one another.

Team play This book deals primarily with a negotiation between two parties. In a major negotiation, each side will be represented by a team. Each team will have a leader who attempts to coordinate all of its interests into one proposition. The team will comprise various team

163


members who can each represent a particular interest which is at stake. The leader must always be aware that without strong leadership there is the possibility that the negotiations could break down into a number of petty disputes over special interests, with the result that the bigger picture – the need to achieve a workable and lasting settlement – is pushed to one side. What are the general tactics of negotiating as a team? How does directional negotiation work when your case is being presented by a team of two or more? Should the tactic be to rally all the team towards the common objective and present a united front? Given the difficulties of establishing an outcome which is acceptable to all parties, should the team all follow the same process? Or should they adopt different approaches in order to achieve the best result?

The united front Just imagine for a moment that you are facing a united front of a team of four negotiators, all saying the same thing in the same way; do you think it would be easy for either team to arrive at a mutually acceptable outcome? I doubt it! Flexibility is essential if there is to be a mutually acceptable outcome and the constructive approach is to acknowledge and appreciate differences so that ultimately you can find common ground and the foundation for a solution.

Black hat – white hat When you operate as a negotiating team, you should allocate different roles and functions to different team members. Even if there are only two members in your team, there are two different roles these two people should adopt: the ‘Good Guy’ and the ‘Bad Guy’ or, to use Hollywood terminology, White Hat and Black Hat. In every old Hollywood cowboy film, the ‘good guys’ wore white hats while the ‘bad guys’ wore black hats. In a tough negotiation you probably start off by thinking of yourself in white hats and the other side in black hats. However, within your own negotiating team you

164


should allocate different strategic roles to team members, and the Black Hat and the White Hat are just two of the key roles that need to be cast in your team.

Leader This is the person who has the prime responsibility for contact with the other side. It will not always be the most senior member of the team – but it will be the person who, more than the other team members, will have to live with the outcome and make it work. It could be a sales manager. The sales director might also be a team member since, as a director, he or she will take the ultimate responsibility on behalf of the company. But he or she should allow the manager to lead the discussions.

Scribe The Scribe is the person who takes notes and keeps a record of the various points raised in the course of the negotiation. He will speak less than the other team members but is in a position to pull the negotiation back on course if it starts going back over ground that has already been covered.

Black Hat The person who ‘wears the black hat’ will play rough and tough and argue in a positional style, always stressing the side’s point of view and arguing against any concessions which the other side may try to win.

White Hat The person ‘wearing the white hat’ will argue soft and sweet, and try to identify most closely with the ideas that the other side puts forward. White Hat will be constantly positive about the negotiation, while Black Hat will often appear difficult and unwilling to cooperate.

165


Boffin The Boffin is the technical expert who can bring in technical considerations that may expand or limit the discussion. This person could be a scientist or, equally, a legal or financial expert. If there are just two on each team, Black Hat and White Hat are the roles they should adopt, incorporating other roles as needed.

Members of the negotiating team each have their own roles

Switching roles The Leader’s role is to find common ground and identify the sticking points. He or she will open the negotiation but will leave much of the discussion to White Hat and Black Hat. These two key members can be most effective if, at least once in the course of the negotiation, they ‘change hats’ and swap roles. A good time to do this would be when the other side introduces a new idea or element into the discussion. Unexpectedly, the other side may find that Black Hat is sympathetic to their proposal, or even in

166


agreement. At the same time White Hat starts to find reasons to object. The other team has no sooner found a friend and ally than it finds it has a new adversary. The benefit of this tactic is that the other team has established a trusting relationship with the person who was previously White Hat and it is therefore predisposed to listen to this person, even though he or she is now Black Hat. As for the former Black Hat, with whom they had been having some difficulties, the other team is now obliged to reconsider its opinion since this person is in the role of White Hat, and is now listening to new ideas with a positive attitude. Jack and Jill demonstrate this when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of negotiating to sell their antique long-case clock: ‘This was my grandfather’s; he bought it after the First World War from a second-hand furniture store. We were wondering what you would give us for it.’ Charles Jackson, the dealer, glances at the clock but does not want to appear too interested, ‘It’s not an antique, probably early twentieth century.’ Jill is currently in the role of Leader. She initiated the negotiation and is ultimately the person most affected by the outcome. She had done her research but she decides to play her cards close to her chest for the moment: ‘I know it’s not particularly old, because if you look carefully you can see the date: 1901. It’s an heirloom, and I hate to sell it, but we’ve decided it won’t fit in our new home.’ Charles is confident that he can press his advantage, and tries to see whether he can get Jill to set the price: ‘You’re absolutely right; this sort of piece won’t fit in with modern décor. What were you expecting to get for it?’ Jill isn’t yet going to reveal that she knows what it was worth.

167


‘Well, you’re the local expert; you must know what you could expect to sell it for. What would you say it would be worth to a collector?’ ‘Well, I am a dealer, not a collector, and I need a fair mark-up if I am to pay you and then keep it in store. I must admit it’s in good condition, and I am prepared to offer you 400. I’m sure you weren’t expecting that sort of sum, were you?’ At his point, Jack steps in, wearing the White Hat, ‘Well, that’s a tidy price for an old clock, Jill, and 400 will come in very useful at the new house.’ Charles now feels he has an ally in Jack, but he hasn’t reckoned that Jill would have spent an evening on the Internet researching longcase clocks. Jill pauses for a moment, and puts on the Black Hat: ‘I don’t know who you are trying to fool, Mr Jackson. I thought you were an expert. You can see this is a Winterhalder & Hofmeier, so I think you’ve a nerve offering me 400. You do follow the local auction prices, don’t you? And you know that a similar clock went for almost 4,000 at auction in the city just three months ago. So let’s stop messing around. Either you clearly don’t know your business or else you’re trying to rip me off! Which is it?’ Jack then steps in, discarding his White Hat and also becoming a Black Hat: ‘That’s terrible! I had no idea this was so valuable. How dare you make such an insulting offer?’ Charles has only one option; he has to plead ignorance. ‘Let me have a closer look. I had no idea it was a Winterhalder & Hofmeier. I do apologize for not being more professional. Yes, I can see the signature, and you’re quite right. My apologies to both of you.’

168


Jill now grasps the White Hat role, not wanting to have both her husband and herself adopting an adversarial position which would only lead to confrontation: ‘Well, I must admit, it took me some time to find the markings. But given the design, the timekeeping movement, and the signature, you can see that it does all tie up, doesn’t it? Don’t you think it’s a rather fine specimen? I’m sure you know collectors who would be interested, and if you take it off our hands it will save us the delays and frustrations of the auction house.’ In this brief negotiation, the Black Hat – White Hat strategy quickly established that Jack and Jill were not going to be put at a disadvantage and Charles was forced to make an apology. You can also see the benefit of preparation, since Jill’s research paid off when she was able to show not only that she knew the clock was an antique – but also that she knew the market price, thus establishing independent criteria on the basis of which the negotiation could be assessed.

Who sits where? Chapter Two recounted the negotiations at the end of the Vietnam War, when procedures were subjected to a lengthy delay because of a lack of agreement over the shape of the table around which delegates would sit for the formal sessions. Even in a less formal meeting, the decision as to who sits where is tactically important. If there are five in each team, this should be the seating plan: Boffin White Hat Leader

Leader

Scribe Black Hat

169


While you cannot dictate where the other side sit, it is probable that the other side’s Leader will sit opposite the Leader of the home team. Black Hat and White Hat should be separated, with White Hat sitting next to the leader and the Scribe sitting at the other side of the Leader.

The negotiating team in position and ready for the kick-off

This looks like a soccer formation with a solid, positive ‘centre’ formation to the team, and the attacks likely to come from the wings. The leader will ‘kick off’, supported initially by White Hat with the Scribe keeping the proceedings on course. As the negotiation develops, both Boffin and Black Hat will join the play. While the essential strategies remain the same as in a one-on-one negotiation, the main difference comes from the formality of a team

170


negotiation. The Leaders should make the first move and introduce their teams. The ‘home’ side should offer appropriate hospitality and start the conversation with polite social chat. This breaks the ice and sets the mood for more serious matters. When you are the ‘away’ team, visiting the other side on their ‘home ground’, it is important not to allow the home team any advantage. You can achieve this by taking the initiative: start the conversation with social small-talk and establish a friendly context. Alternatively, if you foresee a hostile negotiation, you can politely decline their hospitality and suggest that you get straight down to business. Whether you are at home or away, you want to start the negotiation from a position of strength.

Rehearsals In a major negotiation you will have thoroughly prepared your team and know what it is that you want to achieve. You will have in mind a number of key issues you want to cover and you will know your WAO. It’s a good idea to rehearse some of the possible scenarios in advance, with your Leader on one side of the table and the rest of the team on the other. The Leader will then present his case and the other team members will role-play in opposition, countering the Leader’s arguments as they hear them from the perspective of the other side. It is useful if all team members stay ‘in character’ during this exercise, and make a genuine attempt to find fault with the Leader’s proposals. Often you can discover aspects of the situation that you had been blind to when you were totally involved in your own arguments and seeing things only from your own perspective. To enable the team to make the most of a rehearsal, they should play their roles convincingly and be difficult, truculent – perhaps losing their temper or being totally unreasonable at times – so the whole team can work out how they might handle a number of different situations.

171


Once the role play ends, the team should discuss and analyze what they have learned, and decide whether they need to amend their own proposal. They can also discuss whether they need to adopt specific tactics if the opposition should decide to follow a particular line of argument. In the rehearsal process, it is not merely a matter of rehearsing what you want to say, it is also very important to be aware of how effectively you are communicating. This brings us to the subject of paralanguage.

Paralanguage Paralanguage is human language that is not conventional verbal language. It includes gesticulation, intonation, facial expression and, in particular, body language. Understanding and using paralanguage is a useful additional communication tool which you can incorporate as part of your strategy. An additional benefit of rehearsal is the opportunity to assess all the communicating messages you are transmitting, both verbal and non-verbal, and to ensure that your paralanguage sends out the same messages as your verbal language. I know I personally have a tendency to look too stern and not smile much. As a public speaker I can be too forceful in my delivery, and come across as being dogmatic, almost hectoring the audience rather than conversing with them. In the finals of the 2003 World Public Speaking Championships, this distanced me from my audience when I should have been relating more closely with them, and probably cost me a place in the top three. However, I did walk away having learned a lesson I will never forget, about the importance of paralanguage. There is a lot of discussion around the importance of paralanguage. Much of this is centred on NLP – Neuro-Linguistic Programming – which was created by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in the early 1970s from what they called ‘modelling’.

172


The central premise is that people learn and communicate in different ways, either aurally through hearing, visually through seeing, or kinaesthetically through physical experience. To communicate most effectively with people, you need to use all three modes. Body language can be used, with gesticulation and expression to accentuate these modes and hence increase effective communication. At the heart of NLP is the principle of modelling and this is a technique which is easy to learn and can be incorporated into your communication tactics in any negotiation.

Modelling – the art of copycat communication To achieve a rapport with someone, you can improve your communication by modelling or mirroring their behaviour. When they cross their legs, you should cross your legs. When they lean forward, you should lean forward and if they smile, you should smile back. The first time you try this, you will probably feel rather self-conscious but it will soon become a habit, and you will find that communication does become easier. Some of these are things you do instinctively from an early age, such as laughing when someone else laughs, or yawning when someone else yawns. Other modelling is easily learnt once you overcome your initial embarrassment.

Understanding body language Body language, like NLP, is a vast subject and one on which there are many books all claiming various degrees of scientific authenticity. Personally, I find excessive gesticulation distracting, and avoid trying to match all my words with appropriate gestures. I would recommend concentrating more on the words you use, than focusing too intensely on making all the right physical movements to accompany your message. There is however one simple rule I believe is worth remembering, and is easy to incorporate into the way you hold yourself in a negotiation.

173


Whether you are talking or listening, you generally want to appear to be open. When you maintain an ‘open’ posture, with the shoulders back and the head upright, you encourage openness in your own manner and project this openness towards the other party. Sometimes, when you are deep in thought, you will hunch your shoulders and look down, which closes up your posture and makes you look unreceptive. This is certainly not the message you usually want to put across. When you look across the table to the other party, you can easily identify openness or a lack of receptiveness from their posture. And when you see them turn to one side, or fold their arms, you know they are avoiding what you are saying or resisting your proposition. Without a word being spoken by them, they have already given you a response to which you can reply confidently.

Making it an occasion … or not! Every detail of the negotiation is communicating something, and needs to be evaluated in terms of the messages it sends out. Where there is a choice of location, should the meeting be in a modest meeting room or in the company boardroom? Should the coffee come from a beverage machine or be freshly brewed? Should the team be ‘suited and booted’ or more casually dressed? Would it be appropriate for a senior executive to welcome the visitors, even if he or she is not involved in the actual negotiation? Most of us will at some time have been to see our bank manager about raising money. The psychology of this meeting can be quite complex. If, as a student looking for a loan, you dress too smartly, will the bank manager think you are living an over-extravagant lifestyle? On the other hand, if you appear scruffy or unkempt will the bank manager see this as being disrespectful? Every aspect of a negotiation contributes to setting the scene and will ultimately influence how you are heard. In every detail of the way you conduct yourself, you are projecting a degree of willingness to negotiate openly and a desire to reach a mutually acceptable outcome. It is rarely to your advantage to come to the table with an aggressive and uncooperative attitude.

174


However, the same may not be true of the other side. In the next chapter we shall look at how you can deal with a difficult adversary who is determined to drive a hard bargain – to the extent of using what you might consider ‘dirty tricks’. So, a summary of the key points about personalities and team negotiations:

Summary People are different. Just because they are different, this does not make them any better or worse than you are. Everybody has one dominant personality trait, described here as Head, Heart or Gut. When you can identify the key trait in your adversary, you can develop your argument to relate to that trait. When a negotiation involves a number of parties, you will probably not have an interactive opportunity to discuss your proposition. You will have to draw together every aspect of your argument and proposal into a formal case, which you will probably have to present to an independent assessor. It is the assessor’s job to evaluate all the interests and submissions and draw up recommendations to the authority responsible for taking the final decision. In this situation, detailed preparation is of the highest importance since there is little if any opportunity to debate the issues at a later stage. In a two-party negotiation, where more than one person is representing each side, different team members should adopt different roles. The two basic roles are White Hat and Black Hat, representing the nice guy and nasty guy, or soft and hard approaches. Additional roles in a larger team can include Leader, Scribe and Boffin, each with specific roles that give a balance to the team’s presentation. Rehearsals give a team an opportunity to act out their proposals and to gauge the possible reactions from the other side. In doing this they should practise, not only the words they propose to use, but also their non-verbal communication. The team should be aware of

175


and practise some of the basic principles of modelling and body language and should, in general, present an open and willing demeanour. Finally, it is essential to remember that every detail of preparation has some impact on the negotiation and should be carefully considered; from the room, hospitality and protocol right down to whether business or casual dress is appropriate on this occasion.

176

11

Strategies, tactics and handling foul play

Starting on the right foot There are many tactics you can adopt to gain an initial advantage, and others you can adopt in the course of a negotiation, to ensure that you are not pushed into an unsatisfactory result. Before you look at handling how you should deal with a difficult opponent, let’s first consider your initial stance in any negotiation.

High moral ground When you are negotiating you want the other side to concede – either because you know your cause to be just and that what you are asking for is fair and reasonable, or because you want to give yourself an advantage you do not currently have.

Visible goodwill is the strongest negotiation strategy. Don’t let somebody else determine your behaviour. DR. S.U. SUNREI – SONY CORP.

Given this basis, it is logical to appear utterly reasonable and levelheaded in the way you start to present your case.

177


Even if you are entering into a negotiation in which the other side has initially appeared difficult, you should ignore this and start afresh, on a friendly and ‘grown-up’ basis. By doing this, you take the high moral ground and project a perceived intention to be fair. At a later stage you may need to be more brusque in your style, and this will be looked at later in the chapter.

Establishing an advantage Robert has a meeting with Alice to negotiate the details of the contract discussed in Chapter Nine. The meeting is to be at Alice’s offices and so, to ensure that Alice does not have too great an advantage from being the ‘home team’, he makes a phone call in advance to sort out some details. ‘Hello, Alice, I’m calling about our meeting on Friday. Have you got a minute to go through a couple of things? ‘Fine! Firstly, there will be four of us; I’m bringing along someone from the research department who has been designing the modifications you asked for, and one of our finance guys who’s been re-costing everything to take account of both the modifications and the high value of the order. Then, my director will be in tow – just to make sure I don’t sell the family jewels. ‘Can you email me to let me know who’ll be there on your side?’ Robert has set the scene and made sure there won’t be any surprises. He will see from Alice’s email whether she is fielding a heavyweight team, and if she decides to be flanked at board level he can always bring more senior people to support him. Robert continues: ‘One other thing: here at JK we relax the dress code at the end of the week and have a ‘dress-down Friday’– although we don’t allow jeans or shorts. I was wondering, what’s the rule at your offices? I’d hate to arrive in a sweater and find you and your colleagues all in suits!’

178

STRATEGIES, TACTICS AND HANDLING FOUL PLAY

Again, Robert is pre-empting the possibility of being made to feel uncomfortable. If his team had arrived dressed formally and found that Alice’s offices also had a ‘dress-down Friday’ policy, he would have started with a disadvantage. Alice reassures him that they too opt for casual wear on Fridays. ‘Just one other point; I think we’ve agreed ten o’clock till twelve. Is this still OK with you? We have a management meeting back here at one, and it would be very convenient if we could be away from your offices by twelve fifteen. Does that present any problems?’ Robert is making sure he is not caught out by Alice dragging the meeting on through the lunch break and into Friday afternoon. But Alice has other ideas: ‘Well, Robert, we had thought we would bring in some sandwiches and carry on through lunch. Then, after lunch we would rather like to show you the factory and how the new machinery will fit into the production flow.’ Robert has a problem, now. He knows that boardroom lunches at Alice’s office are usually more than ‘sending out for sandwiches’ and generally include beer and wine – especially on a Friday afternoon. If the negotiation is tough, the generous hospitality could make it hard to get the best deal. By offering hospitality, Alice is upping the stakes in her attempt to appear generous and reasonable, and she knows full well that alcohol could lubricate the negotiating machinery in her favour. ‘That would be a great way to end the week, but I’m afraid we have a rather heavy agenda for our meeting back here. On the other hand, while I’ve come to know your factory quite well over the years, I’m sure it would be really useful to familiarize my colleagues with your operation. How would it be if we arrived at nine-thirty and had a quick look round before the meeting? That way they will be able to put things into context and have a better picture of exactly what the contract entails. I’d also like Bruce, my director, to see how you’re expanding.’

179


‘I understand. Let me check up and get back to you.’ Next morning, Robert finds the following email in his inbox: Hi Robert, Regret we cannot do an earlier start. Maybe there will be an opportunity at a later date. Alice Robert is surprised at Alice’s response and curious as to whether the relationship is cooling off. He makes a mental note and decides to take no further action until the meeting on Friday. Meanwhile, Alice is taking a hard line. Her initial plan to soften up JK Engineering with generous hospitality has been unavoidably thwarted by Robert’s other commitments and so she decides to try other tactics to retain the upper hand. She knows that being the ‘home team’ is not always an advantage. For one thing, Robert has now set a fixed timescale for the meeting. However, she has one or two other ideas to try, to force Robert’s hand. Like Robert, she now decides to wait until Friday before taking any other action. The old saying is that ‘attack is the best form of defence’. When the other side is confronted by a cool and calm negotiator, some opponents will disregard decorum and will attack and become aggressive, or start using dishonest tactics in order to try to undermine the other side’s position. Robert may be faced with a difficult opponent, and in this situation he will need to follow a four-step process: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Realize what is going on and identify the tactic. Resist the temptation to respond in kind. Challenge the other side about their actions. Finally, take a step back from the subject of the negotiation and re-establish the rules of procedure if the other side starts to play tough.

Below-the-belt tactics from the other side are designed to put you at a disadvantage. They include physical factors, psychological pres-

180


sure, factual inaccuracies and personal attack. You must be alert to any signs that the other side are breaking the rules of the game – and the first thing you have to do is identify exactly what’s going on. At the same time, if you are unjustifiably over-sensitive it will reflect badly on you. While Alice will know whether she is being tactical, Robert has to work out what she and her team are up to. This is not an easy game to play, especially when you are on the receiving end.

What’s going on? When you find that your team is seated uncomfortably, squeezed between the table and the central heating radiator on the wall, you should immediately ask yourself whether this is just the unfortunate layout of the room, or whether you are being manipulated. It is perfectly reasonable to ask, right at the outset, if the table can be moved over, or if there is an alternative meeting room, rather than start the meeting feeling uncomfortable. The effect of raising the issue straightaway is to cancel out any advantage the other side might believe they have achieved by this tactic. The general rule for dealing with all types of foul play is to address it quickly, or pre-empt it if possible. Robert took steps in advance to pre-empt Alice gaining an advantage in respect of who would be at the meeting, and to establish a fixed time-frame for the meeting. You cannot pre-empt everything without appearing unreasonably controlling but you can take swift action when you suspect you are being manoeuvred, and in doing so you cancel out the effect of the other side’s tactics.

Don’t take it personally! When you react to a tactic by responding personally, you project a lack of self-confidence. This comes back to the importance of separating the personalities from the problems, which applies just as much to the subject under discussion as it does to the process of the negotiation. Look at the alternative outcomes in the above example about the seating in the meeting room. Robert could have taken the matter personally and said:

181


‘Look, Alice, are you trying to roast us here, pushing us up against the radiator?’ Alice might then become angry, especially if she has struggled to find a meeting-room available and has not had time to check the layout. Her annoyance or even anger will then gnaw away throughout the meeting, poisoning the atmosphere. On the other hand, Robert could say: ‘We’re a bit cramped over this side of the table. Do you think we could shift it over a foot or two? There seems to be plenty of room over on your side.’ This response makes no accusations. If Alice has been trying an underhand tactic to make Robert’s team uncomfortable, the effect is neutralized. If not, no harm is done by Robert’s words and the situation is resolved so that Robert and his team are comfortable. At the same time, provided Robert chooses his tone of voice very carefully, his comment: ‘There seems to be plenty of room over on your side,’ communicates to Alice in the gentlest possible way that if this was a deliberate ploy, it has been noticed. He sends out a discreet message to Alice that he and his team are not going to be manipulated. In an extreme case, Robert could take polite but decisive action: ‘Since all your other meeting rooms are booked this morning, Alice, and this means there isn’t anywhere here where we can meet comfortably, then I suggest we jump in our cars and go down the road to the Black Horse Hotel and have our meeting there. I know the manager and I’m sure he’ll let us have one of the small private dining rooms. We often use them for business meetings.’ Robert is being polite and practical in his suggestion, and at the same time he has cancelled out any advantage Alice might have hoped to achieve if she was, in fact, being tactical. Furthermore, if there was a genuine shortage of meeting-room space at Alice’s offices, Robert has come to the rescue.

182


Being economical with the truth It is usually easy to spot lies, or else to verify whether or not a bald statement is true or false. It is less easy to spot partial truths, where a statement is designed to imply more than it actually says. The language of estate agents is often joked about and can offer us many examples of partial truth and misleading language: Bijou Cosy Homely Deceptively spacious Scope for improvement Development potential

Small Cramped Cramped and cluttered Looks cramped Needs renovating Derelict

The whole truth and nothing but the truth? In negotiations you are not obliged to be so honest and open that you put yourself at a disadvantage. The old Latin maxim of caveat emptor (‘let the buyer beware!’) applies in negotiations, just as in all buying and selling transactions. However, you must remember one of the basic rules, the need for a lasting outcome: if you are to continue in a relationship of some sort with the other party you should not create ill will by being deliberately misleading. This is another example in which you need to follow the principle of watching the process carefully, to be quite sure you see and understand what is going on. When a statement appears incomplete, you must ask for clarification. This is shown in these examples, going back to Jack and Jill in Chapter One, selling their house to Robert and Rosemary. Jill made a bald statement: ‘The rewiring set us back 1,000.’ And Rosemary immediately sought to clarify the information: ‘Was that a complete re-wiring or just part of the house?’

183


Rosemary verifies the extent of the renovations. Later, Jill is talking about the kitchen: ‘The kitchen fixtures and fittings are all included.’ And again Rosemary makes sure the information is precise: ‘Obviously that includes the built-in appliances like the hob and twin ovens, but what about the dishwasher? That’s not built-in. Is it included?’ When any factual statement is made, it is your responsibility to make sure both parties have the same understanding of what has been said. You should never assume that the other side is being deliberately misleading. Any response should be a polite request for clarification, not an accusation of attempted deception. If there is attempted deception, once again, you will have pre-empted it. Another part of the negotiation process that needs delicate handling is to know when you are going to have final agreement. It is not easy to establish this at the outset of a negotiation without appearing to be pressurizing the other side – but it is critical to establish this in your own mind so you do not reach your final position while the other side intends to carry on negotiating. You may be deceived into thinking that the other side is empowered to make a final agreement, when in fact they need higher authorization or might insist on more time to consider their proposal. Time is important throughout the negotiation and it is critical in determining the conclusion of the process.

I’ve come out of my way to see you Salesmen who make home visits have a standard way of negotiating, pressing consumers into making high value purchases like kitchen renovations or other types of major home improvement in the course of one visit. The technique is legal but high-pressure, starting with an advance telephone confirmation that both husband and wife will be available for the appointment. Having established that, the technique is to start early in the negotiation with the question:

184


‘If I can answer all your questions so you are completely satisfied with my answers, are you willing to make a decision tonight?’ The salesman then refuses to start discussions until he has their agreement – so the first part of the negotiation is determine the process of the negotiation itself. If they say they want time to think things over, or if they say they intend to see other potential suppliers, he will probably respond along these lines: ‘I’ve come out of my way to see you this evening and it’s not worth my while to spend the evening explaining to you how we can offer you the best products at the best prices if you’re not prepared to come to a decision once I have answered all your questions to your complete satisfaction. Also, I can give you a substantial discount on our list price – but only if you keep your side of the bargain and sign up tonight. After all, if I meet all your objections, how can you possibly want to delay finalizing your purchase?’ I am certainly not advocating that you should handle a serious business negotiation in this highly pressurized way. However, the principle is valid, as you can see when you observe how Robert opens his negotiation with Alice: ‘Well, Alice, we’re finally getting down to the details. You’ve met my sales director, Colin. This is Julian who joined us recently from Harvard Business School. Then I’ve brought Jack from engineering and Naomi from finance along with me, so we can iron out all the details and ensure we get the new machinery manufactured and commissioned to suit your production schedule. Let me run through what I see as the agenda for this meeting, and then I’d be grateful if you would see if I’ve left out anything we need to cover.’ In essence, Robert is saying exactly the same thing as the homeimprovements salesman, but saying it in a more acceptable way. He is establishing all the points that need covering in order to clinch the deal, in a way that is neither forceful nor offensive. He can even go one stage further:

185


‘I am hoping we can finalize and agree everything with you and your team today, Alice. Does that fit with your plans?’ While he cannot prevent Alice from going away to think about it, he can judge to some extent how far he should go in making concessions if he has a clear idea as to what Alice wants to cover and how final Alice perceives the day’s meeting is going to be.

Insults and tantrums In some cultures, negotiations will be less restrained than in others. In some discussions, such as divorce proceedings or trades unions’ negotiations, emotions may run high. You might be kept waiting, or distracted by deliberate interruptions. You might find that the other side treats you as inferior or ignorant. In every case where there is some sort of discourtesy, it will only be an effective tactic for the opposition if you are seen to be affected by it. All human communication relies on some degree of reciprocity. You are in control of how you react, and you can choose how you respond. When you are driving in traffic and another motorist yells at you or gesticulates obscenely, it will only have an effect if you react to the insult. If you ignore it, it will have no effect whatsoever. When it comes to heated emotions and flare-ups of temper, the same golden rule applies as in all tactical fouls: you must notice it and you must ensure that the other side knows it has been noticed. But you don’t need to let it have any impact. Accept that something may be said in the heat of the moment or as a deliberate ploy, and then choose a calculated response, not an emotional one.

The walk-out In tense negotiations, the other side might call your bluff and call a halt to negotiations. They might gather up their papers and get up

186


from the table. How can you rescue the process if the other side threatens to end everything? Firstly, you must realize that this is not a declaration of an actual decision; it is a deliberate tactic. They are ignoring the process and trying to get you either to change the process, or to change your position significantly – or both. They are not trying to end the negotiation; they are trying to extend it on their terms. Just be aware of what is going on and make sure not only that you know what they are up to, but also that they know you know and understand their game. Secondly, you need to pull them back from the brink and debate the benefits of the broad outcome you are both hoping to achieve. You must reassure them that you are committed to reaching a solution which satisfies everyone, and you need to explore alternative options which might break the present impasse. Perhaps they need to consult further with their colleagues. Perhaps they need to see your outline proposals in more detail, possibly submitted in writing so they can go away and study them further. Everything you will say must be based on the premise that both sides want to reach an acceptable outcome. It will rapidly become clear to the other party that they cannot get the outcome they want if negotiations are discontinued. Having established this key principle, you need to see whether the current process of negotiation needs to be reappraised. In particular, you should ensure you have definitive ways of objectively measuring the outcome. It may be that you need an independent arbitrator, or that both sides need more information from each other. At the end of the day, perhaps there is no scope for a mutually acceptable outcome, and both parties prefer to return to the status quo. But this can never be more than a short term hiatus in the process of resolving the unsatisfactory situation which drove the parties to the negotiating table in the first place. Even when you are told to take it or leave it, you always have your WAO, and you always have the final choice.

187


Summary All negotiations are tactical. The more work you do before the actual negotiation – by way of preparation of your arguments, your WAOs, the details of the process to be followed and the basis for evaluating the final outcome – the less scope there is for surprise tactics when the parties meet. When you reach the negotiating table you may be confronted with foul play. You should confront tactics with tactics: ➣ Realize what is going on Identify the tactic, be on your guard and notice what is going on. ➣ Resist the temptation to respond in kind While you keep your cool and are fully prepared, you will occupy the moral high ground. If you descend to the level of the other side, you will lose this advantage. ➣ Blow the whistle on foul play Firmly but politely, challenge the other side about their actions. It’s possible you are being over-sensitive, and for this reason you must couch your words carefully, to avoid fencing-in the other side and making unjust accusations. At the same time, if they are hitting below the belt, you need to make sure they know you have spotted their ruse. ➣ Call timeout When the other side starts to play tough, and things have come to a head, you must get the negotiations back on course. Take a step back from the subject of the negotiation and re-establish the rules of procedure. Back on the hillside, 20 years on, Tork and Grunt are talking to their grandchildren.

188

PART FOUR

Summarizing the process

12

Tork and Grunt pass it on

The meeting of the elders Tork, Grunt, Wizpa, Chat and all the members of the enlarged tribe are meeting on the hillside. All the families are present for this community meeting. The toddlers are running around playing tag, laughing and squealing. The teenagers are teasing and flirting, and the youngsters are playing games with pebbles and sticks or racing beetles across rocks. Tork stands to address them formally: ‘I have been invited by our noble chief, Alto to start our gathering and address you today. I have chosen to take this opportunity to highlight learning from which the tribe might benefit. So it is that I choose to talk to you about the time when Grunt and I first met, and how we came to live not as separate tribes but as a common group. We developed what we called our Mammoth Strategy, a new way of working together, sharing the work, sharing the spoils of our hunting and foraging and sharing our knowledge and skills. ‘When we first met, we saw things only from our own point of view. We argued for what we wanted, and there is nothing necessarily wrong with that. When we face our enemies from across the water, we fight for our people, for our families and for the sake of the next generation. But when Grunt and I met – just as when Wizpa and Chat first met – we could not see that if we understood what each other wanted, we might find a way that we could both be happy with the outcome of our negotiation.

191


‘We learned some things that have been very useful to us over the years, and this is what I want to share with you at this time: ‘Discussion starts when someone’s got something you want. If you can understand each other, then you can talk about it. When you do, you need to make sure that whatever you agree is going to work, not just there and then, but into the future. ‘When you start talking, the proposals you put forward must be Sensible : Straightforward : Sustaining : Satisfying. ‘You need to think about the person you’re dealing with: ➣ Are you similar, and does this help? ➣ Is this the right time and place for both of you? ➣ At the end of the day, are you both looking for similar outcomes? ‘Once you’re clear about this, and are ready to proceed, you need to set the scene. You respect each other and acknowledge your differences. You agree what you want and you start to talk about what the options are. Most importantly, you agree on how you will measure the options and the outcomes. It’s no good if you have a different view of how things will turn out. ‘All the time, you keep respect for each other. That’s how we have managed to resolve our differences and all sit down here together today. ‘Once all the parties have agreed about how they are going to negotiate – and that can be quite a complicated process – then you can get down to the serious business of working out a solution.’ Chukka, a fine young hunter with a reputation for being hot-headed, jumps up and seizes the talking post that any speaker steps up to when they wish to address the group. He is clearly confused and wants to make his point: ‘Mr Tork and honoured elders! I cannot understand how you can spend so much time talking, talking, talking when you are faced with an enemy. Surely the important thing is to protect your own

192

TORK AND GRUNT PASS IT ON

Chukka demands action interests, attack before you are attacked, look after your own people and loved ones. How can you insist on all this soft talk?’ Tork smiles wryly and glances across to Grunt. It is Grunt who steps forward to respond. ‘Young Chukka, I remember when I was your age, swift of foot, sure of sight and steady with my hunting spear. Like you, I too wanted to settle differences quickly, without all this talk. But what we elders have all learned is that there is often a way for all parties to have what they want without giving up what they value and wish to protect. That scar on your shoulder is an honourable mark for your fight to defend your honour last year – but remember that your attacker, Jellus from across the valley, misunderstood what you were doing when he saw you holding his wife in your arms.’ Chukka nods.

193


‘You’re right, she had fallen and hurt her leg, I was running back home so that Wizpa and the other women could attend to her injury. Jellus jumped to the wrong conclusion.’ Tork turns to respond: ‘And the reason Jellus jumped to the wrong conclusion was because there hadn’t been any of what you call “talk, talk, talk”. ‘Thank you, Chukka. You have given us a fine example of just why it is so important to establish understanding before we enter any discussion or precipitate any drastic action.’ He smiles and pauses: ‘When we start to negotiate, the power of our action does not come from shouting or threatening. There are stronger weapons than these. ‘Information is power. The more we know about the background to the negotiation, the better equipped we are to argue. Maybe the other side are not telling the whole story; perhaps they have a hidden agenda. Keep asking questions, keep checking what they say and don’t automatically reveal everything you know. Remember, and I’ll say it again: Information is Power. ‘Another important point is that you have to agree on how you measure the result of the negotiation. When we first moved down into the valley to live with Grunt’s people, we agreed that, if after two moons we were finding life easier and food more plentiful, we would plan to integrate our families and our way of life on a permanent basis. Everyone agreed on that. If we hadn’t had those criteria then we might have started arguing about whether or not we wanted to continue. And of course, when you set these criteria, you have to make sure you’re not letting self-interest get in the way of your objectivity. As it happens, we then all decided that the air was cooler up here on the mountain, and when Wizpa found the springs up here in the forest there was fresh clean water for everyone.’ A voice booms out from the row behind him. It’s his wife, Speek.

194


‘Timing! Don’t forget timing! You’ve forgotten how you and Grunt rushed into things in the first place.’ For a moment Tork almost loses his composure, and blushes from ear to ear at his wife’s interruption. He forces a smile. ‘Thank you, dear wife. I was about to say that it’s extremely important not to let Urgency overcome Importance. Sometimes we can be swept away by enthusiasm and rush into doing the wrong deal at the wrong time.’ He pauses for a moment. He has lost his train of thought but quickly remembers what he wants to say next. ‘Another vital part of any negotiation is the What if? It’s what Grunt and I call our WAO: our Walk-away Option. We all know what we’ll do if we get what we want from a negotiation – but it is very important indeed to be confident about what we’ll do if things don’t go the way we would like them to. Sometimes you’ll need a whole list of WAOs to cover all sorts of possible eventualities. It can be tedious – but you’re in a stronger position, the more you prepare. ‘I’ve talked enough. Let me hand over to my dear friend, Grunt, to say something about group negotiations, when the elders come to negotiate with the elders of another tribe.’ Grunt rises, leading a round of appreciative applause for his colleague. He decides to add a touch of humour and reaches for a large sack he has brought with him. ‘When there’s a team of you negotiating, it’s all a bit of a game. You decide who’s going to play which part in the negotiations, so let me show you how we line up. And I’ll need some help from some of you youngsters.’ Grunt picks out five children from the front row and lines them up facing the assembled group. ‘I’m going to give you all roles in this play. There’s the Leader, the Boffin and the Scribe. Then there’s the White Hat, who is very nice and polite, and there’s the Black Hat who is difficult and argumentative. Now, who wants to be who?’

195


The children shout and squeal, and Grunt finally allocates the roles and lines them up again with their hats. ‘The Leader takes the centre seat in our line-up with the Scribe on his right, to keep a record of everything. The White Hat sits on his left, friendly and supportive. Then on one end we have the Boffin, ready to answer any tricky technical points. And at the other end we have the Black Hat who can liven things up if they get stuck. This arrangement always works because each person takes care of a particular aspect of the negotiation. It’s very professional and ever since we adopted this system we’ve had no problems with border disputes or any other disagreements with the neighbouring tribes.’ Grunt gives a broad smile and lets the children take a bow. He then hands the stage back to Tork.

The children demonstrate the process

196


‘That really sums up everything from our side, when we negotiate. But it’s not always quite that easy. ‘Sometimes the other side can be very argumentative and not play by the rules. When this happens, let them. Just encourage them so they get it all off their chest. Don’t take it personally, make sure you keep the argument strictly about the issue and don’t be tempted to let personalities be dragged into it. If you can’t resolve it between yourselves, find an independent specialist you both respect and let him or her come in with an objective assessment. ‘Understanding. Patience. Respect. Information. Timing. ‘These are the lessons we have learned as we came together to form our community. We have never been afraid to negotiate, no matter how powerful the other side might be. ‘We have learned that you get what you want in life by giving other people what they want. Since most people are focused only on what they want, this strategy has enabled us to achieve what we want without anybody making any major sacrifices or concessions. One day we may need to make concessions – but we know that as long as we have our WAO we can discuss, debate and negotiate on any issue, and always know we are secure in having a future we are happy to live with. ‘That’s all I ever wanted in my life, and I am proud of what we have all achieved.’ Tork dabs his eyes as the emotion wells up, then takes his place with his fellow-elders.

Throughout this book, Tork has taught you everything you need to know about communication and negotiation, and summarized it in five words: Understanding. Patience. Respect. Information. Timing. Negotiation is the pathway to making changes for the better. In the famous words of John F. Kennedy: ‘Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.’

197

Acknowledgements First thanks must go to my publisher, Martin Liu at Cyan, who saw and liked the idea of Tork and Grunt as a vehicle for a series of books on different areas of modern business skills. The second book, Tork & Grunt’s Guide to Great Presentations looks at effective communications in presentations and speeches and more titles will follow, on leadership, successful strategies for life and other areas of communication. This book started when I was working as a coach with a CEO, tackling issues around inter-personal communication skills. I was fascinated by the research I did at that time into the Harvard Negotiation Project and I have drawn extensively on Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In written by Roger Fisher and William L. Ury with Bruce Patton as editor, published globally by Penguin Books. I would also like to credit the work of W. Roy Whitten and the late K. Bradford Brown, joint founders of the international More to Life project (http://www.moretolife.org). Their training programmes have taught me a great deal about the way people interact and, most importantly, the ways in which we so often misunderstand both others and ourselves. This book would never have been completed without the support and encouragement of many friends along the way. In particular, my thanks go to Eric Yang, who first asked me if I could write a book and Fi Law, who first told me that I could. The Book Cooks, Lesley Morrissey and Jo Parfitt and my editor Fiona Cowan contributed tremendous professional support and many friends have at different times read parts of the manuscript and kept my writing on track. My cartoonist, David Mostyn, embraced the concept with enthusiasm and has brought the characters to life just as I intended. Finally, my gratitude to Tony Neate of the School of Channelling, (http://schoolofchannelling.co.uk/) who taught me how to access personal creativity in a way that has made writing a pleasure and a joy, and has led me to be become a tutor in this field and start to pass this on to others.

198

About the author Bob Harvey is the author of two highly entertaining and informative books on cutting-edge communication techniques: Tork & Grunt’s Guide to Effective Negotiations Tork & Grunt’s Guide to Great Presentations. Bob graduated with an honours degree in Economics and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. In the past, he has held the title of UK Public Speaking Champion together with the title for Impromptu Speaking. His career has encompassed brand management, sales, writing for magazine columns and broadcasting. Today, Bob specializes in designing, scripting and delivering all types of corporate communications. He set up his company, Messages into Words, to help businesses get their message across and has worked with many of the world’s largest corporations in developing their corporate communications. He also runs extremely popular and successful workshops on communication techniques and personal management skills. Bob can be contacted via his company’s websites: www.messagesintowords.com and www.bobharvey.co.uk For those readers wishing to explore Tork and Grunt’s world, please visit www.TorkandGrunt.com

199

ALSO BY BOB HARVEY

Tork & Grunt’s Guide to Great Presentations is a story told through the lives of Tork and Grunt and their fellow cave-people where Grunt is standing for election as the new chief. With Tork’s guidance, he learns how to structure and deliver his electioneering presentations and speeches. Using stories from their Stone Age life, as well as modern-day examples, this practical and engaging book explores many aspects of speaking in public, from scripting to delivery, including the use of PowerPoint and Keynote. In this book you’ll discover: ➣ Content is the key to an outstanding presentation ➣ The risks of speaking are really great opportunities ➣ How to engage the audience in conversation; not bore them with commentary ➣ The fundamental structures of the Goldilocks Principle and the Beethoven Imperative ➣ How to develop a theme and tell a story ➣ The ten commandments for using PowerPoint or Keynote with dramatic effect ➣ The difference between ‘audience support’ and ‘speaker support’ ➣ Techniques for overcoming stress and creating your comfort zone ➣ The basics of stagecraft and projecting personal charisma You win with arrows, not bullets. You win by pointing the audience clearly in the right direction, not by hitting them with random and confusing ‘bullet point’ statements. ISBN 978-0-462-09924-8 / £9.99 Paperback

Tork & Grunt's Guide to Effective Negotiations

Tork & Grunt's Guide to Great Presentations (Tork & Grunts Guide)

Guide to Effective Daytrading

chemists guide to effective teaching

Guide To Effective Daytrading-Wizetrade

Chemists' Guide to Effective Teaching

Guide to Effective Day Trading

Imperial Grunts

The Manager's Guide to Effective Meetings

Effective Executive's Guide to Microsoft Office XP

The Manager's Guide to Effective Meetings

Effective Executive's Guide to Microsoft Word 2002

Effective Executive's Guide to Microsoft PowerPoint 2002

DocuNotes - Clinical Pocket Guide to Effective Charting

The manager's pocket guide to effective meetings

Manager's Pocket Guide to Effective Writing (Manager's Pocket Guide Series)

Guide to Effective Grant Writing: How to Write a Successful NIH Grant Application Writing & Journalism

Effective Java: Programming Language Guide

Effective Java: Programming Language Guide

Effective Java: Programming Language Guide

Effective Java Programming Language Guide

Negotiations: 1972-1990

Best Practice Workplace Negotiations

International Business Negotiations

Postcolonial Theory & Psychoanalysis: From Uneasy Engagements to Effective Critique

Sharing Knowledge: A Guide to Effective Science Communication

Effective Teacher Hiring: A Guide to Getting the Best

The Trainer's Handbook: The AMA Guide to Effective Training

VMware Cookbook: A Real-World Guide to Effective VMware Use

Pay for results: a practical guide to effective employee compensation

VMware Cookbook: A Real-World Guide to Effective VMware Use

Tork & Grunt's Guide to Effective Negotiations

Tork & Grunt's Guide to Great Presentations (Tork & Grunts Guide)

Guide to Effective Daytrading

chemists guide to effective teaching

Guide To Effective Daytrading-Wizetrade

Chemists' Guide to Effective Teaching

Guide to Effective Day Trading

Imperial Grunts

The Manager's Guide to Effective Meetings

Effective Executive's Guide to Microsoft Office XP

The Manager's Guide to Effective Meetings

Effective Executive's Guide to Microsoft Word 2002

Effective Executive's Guide to Microsoft PowerPoint 2002

DocuNotes - Clinical Pocket Guide to Effective Charting

The manager's pocket guide to effective meetings

Manager's Pocket Guide to Effective Writing (Manager's Pocket Guide Series)

Guide to Effective Grant Writing: How to Write a Successful NIH Grant Application Writing & Journalism

Effective Java: Programming Language Guide

Effective Java: Programming Language Guide

Effective Java: Programming Language Guide

Effective Java Programming Language Guide

Negotiations: 1972-1990

Best Practice Workplace Negotiations

International Business Negotiations

Postcolonial Theory & Psychoanalysis: From Uneasy Engagements to Effective Critique

Sharing Knowledge: A Guide to Effective Science Communication

Effective Teacher Hiring: A Guide to Getting the Best

The Trainer's Handbook: The AMA Guide to Effective Training

VMware Cookbook: A Real-World Guide to Effective VMware Use

Pay for results: a practical guide to effective employee compensation

VMware Cookbook: A Real-World Guide to Effective VMware Use

Recommend Documents