« July 2006 | Main | September 2006 »
August 6, 2006
Negotiating Tactics
Everyone talks about negotiating tactics. I prefer to think of tactics as tools to resolve problems. The term "tactics" often connotes efforts to manipulate another into agreeing to something they don't want to agree to do. That may be shortsighted as agreements forged on reluctance have a habit of falling apart as soon as the oppressed side has an opportunity to go back on a prior agreement.
The best agreement is a lasting agreement.
Tactics that coerce compliance are best reserved for last ditch efforts to save a deal that has all but failed.
The tools of negotiation are those tactics and strategies that work to bring the parties together. Such tactics serve to:
-Inform
-Reinforce
-Clarify
-Restate
-Concede
-Conform
-Contribute
-Demonstrate
-Illustrate
-Educate
-Amplify
-Bracket
-Acknowledge
-Appreciate
-Direct
-Redirect
Tactics that tend to be coercive attempt to:
-Intimidate
-Control
-Confront
-Deny
-Cajole
-Coerce
-Threaten
-Embarrass
-Ridicule
-Manipulate
Consider the tenor of the negotiation and your tactical intent before employing any negotiating tactic.
Posted by Bill at 9:41 AM | Comments (1)
August 5, 2006
Bluffing is a dangerous negotiation tactic.
A pack of wolves can smell your fear. Yelling and shouting is better than running, but not as good as firing your rifle if only you had remembered to bring it!
Do not employ bluffing as a tactic unless you are prepared to have it called. Bluffing can be a strategic mistake if you can't back it up.
A bluff is a venture into the unknown. You are calculating the other side will back down or not take the challenge. If you are wrong, you will have to perform or be caught in a bluff. Once you are caught bluffing, the other side will tend to assume you are always bluffing. It is essentially being caught in a lie.
Strategically it is safest to bluff when you have nothing to lose. Sometimes last ditch bluffing pays off. Sometimes it doesn't. The odds, obviously, are in your favor of improving your position as compared to doing nothing and accepting defeat.
There are times when you know you have cornered the other person. If the person then proffers an obvious bluff, you may want to consider it.
It can be strategically prudent to grant a minor, ancillary concession to shore up the transaction rather than see the deal collapse and try to make the deal again.
Posted by Bill at 7:48 AM | Comments (0)
August 4, 2006
Blame can hurt a negotiation
When confronted a great-white without your spear gun, don't waste time dwelling on who forgot to pack it.
Blame is something we do to make ourselves feel better about something bad that has happened. Usually we seek to blame someone else for something that has happened to us. Blame may be comforting psychologically but it does not change the reality of what has happened.
In an argument or negotiation, casting blame heightens tempers and causes embarrassment. It does not help resolve anything.
If you blame a third party, you merely reduce your credibility. If you blame the other party, they will likely stiffen their resolve. At the very least, they will be unlikely to want to cooperate with you.
Blaming is an attempt to displace guilt. It is not an attempt to resolve a situation. Don't get caught up in the blame game if you sincerely want to find a viable accord. People granting concessions from guilt don't really want to do so. As with any coerced concession, they may later change their mind.
While casting blame is often a useless exercise, there can be situations that call for assessing blame. When a mediator conducts a mediation session, he does so as a arbitrator between upset people. One aspect of the mediation process that makes it effective is that the parties are provided a chance to confront each other directly. They get to say all the things about the other person that have been festering since the legal process started.
An adept mediator will seek to get both the facts and the feelings on the table at the beginning of the mediation session. In many instances, simply being able to confront the other person relieves so much of the frustration that the mediator is then able to start the constructive process of rebuilding trust between the parties. Often a settlement is not possible without this airing of feelings.
Blame can be used as a tactic in negotiations. Don't be afraid to take some of the blame. Taking blame can create an empathetic environment from which collaboration can emerge. If a discussion is heated and at an impasse, taking blame for some aspect of the difficulty often results in the other person recognizing your attempt to take responsibility and eases the tenor of the argument. If there is a misunderstanding, assuming part of the responsibility for that misunderstanding can diffuse an otherwise tense, non-productive environment.
Be sensitive to the climate of the negotiation and don't be afraid to intervene to improve the situation. Your ego is a small concession for a major gain.
Posted by Bill at 7:03 PM | Comments (0)
Bartering is a tactic, not negotiaitng.
Never venture into the jungle without something of value, like your guide or your mother-in-law, to barter with if you encounter a prowling, indigenous tribe of headhunters.
To barter is to effect trade by the exchange of commodities. Bartering is an important part of negotiations. The non-monetary commodities of the transaction are often more important than the actual monetary settlement.
While bartering is seemingly commodity driven, effective negotiators and mediators know to look for ways to leverage the human psyche to create commodities of intangible value in the form of apologies, respectful recognition, and pain infliction within the bartering framework. The more skilled the negotiator or mediator the more complex the physic negotiating arena can become.
As an example, often corporate negotiators approach landlords seeking contracts or leases bartering solely with their primary commodity, money. They know how much they can afford to pay for a given location and seek to pay a little less than that amount. It is fairly easy math, easy to explain to the home office, and easy to discuss with a landlord. It may not, however, be the best approach. They are apt to forget the value to the landlord represented by the security of their company's financial ability to service the lease or how much value their use may add to the center as a whole. More experienced negotiators would approach the same landlord on behalf of the same company with a quiver full of commodities with which to barter. These commodities could include the quality of the proposed use, the prospect of multiple transactions with the landlord, the ability to move swiftly through the permitting and construction process, a strong national advertising campaign that will make the shopping center more known within the trade area, the potential of increasing the rent value of the adjacent spaces, the strength of the tenant to potential lenders, and so on. This extraordinary-value oriented approach serves to inform the landlord about potential benefits above and beyond rent with this tenant. If any of those arguments are meaningful to the landlord, the tenant should be able to offer less rent than another tenant.
Unless the negotiating arena is expanded, the primary focus will remain on the base commodity. Without other incentives, there will be little reason for the party with the most power or strength to compromise. This tactic of adding commodities of value to the negotiation applies to almost every possible human interaction.
Understanding the full range of your available assets is a critical part of the strategic planning of a negotiation. In many cases, something that seems of little value to you may be perceived as very valuable to the other person. You need to uncover what is of value to the other person to be able to properly leverage its full value. You need to understand the needs and wants of the other party as well as your own goals and objectives.
No one said this was an easy process. It requires time, patience, interviewing skills and research. Then you might be ready to sit at the table. Once seated at the negotiation table, do not become so intent on winning that you offer more than you can afford to pay.
The objective is NOT to win the negotiation, but to achieve your goal; a cost effective resolution.
Posted by Bill at 1:11 PM | Comments (0)