You can Win the Negotiating Game! (But first, what do you mean by “Win”, and what do you mean by “Game”?) Part 2

When I was leading Karrass negotiation seminars, I’d run into people who’d enthusiastically say, “I love negotiating. It’s a game to me.”
I often wondered about that. Negotiation is a critical element of business. Was this attitude wrong in any way, or would it be advantageous? What could I, and others, learn from it?

When I examined that, the first thing I noticed was that these folks frequently achieved their goals in the practice negotiations we did in the workshop. Did their treating it like a “game” have anything to do with that?

After chewing on this and talking about it for several years, here’s what I’ve come up with. Approaching negotiation as a competitive game probably helped them:

Define “winning” in an achievable way.
Focus their thinking during planning in a strategic and then tactical way.
Take greater risk.
Relax enough to consider alternative strategies as the negotiation progressed.
Enjoy the process.

Those sound like good and admirable things. What could be wrong with all that?

It turned out that the people who voiced this attitude tended to be more strictly competitive. Attributing a game-like, competitive attitude tends to de-personalize the experience. This allows for the self-focus and a relatively low concern for the needs of the other party. When the goal was “just get as much as you can from the other party” they did very well. And some negotiations are like that. (I think of car purchases, for example. But that’s a topic for another day.)

But any individual negotiation that affects a longer-term relationship or has the potential to effect individual or organizational reputation, benefits from a more cooperative perspective.

If you’ve got to come back another day to deal with an entity whose trousers you have previously beaten off, you may be in for a rough business negotiation. If I feel you took too much from me last time, I may be defensive at best or even aggressive in trying to “get you back”- either to balance the score sheet or to punish you for taking advantage of me the last time.

I’ve actually seen people “win” in the first several practice negotiations in the seminar, but by the end of the workshop no one wanted to deal with them. How winning a strategy is that? (Happily, this is a very rare occurrence. But you’ve got to wonder about those people’s childhoods…)

Beyond that, these “game” folks were limiting themselves in terms of their vision.
They didn’t do well in big picture, cooperative negotiations, wherein it was important to align their goals with the needs of the other party.

Interestingly, as I looked at what these folks did for a living, they seemed to be in positions that benefited from their ways of approaching deal-making. Simple one-off deals were their specialty and there was little or no call for complex, long-term agreement-making. Their personal negotiation ceiling was in achieving exceptionally good deals for their side, or themselves.

There’s nothing wrong with this. A very comfortable professional and personal life can be built of these types of successes. But they were never going to have an effect on business or social evolution. They weren’t visionary. They couldn’t see the next level in the big picture.

Until next time... think about it.

You can Win the Negotiating Game! (But first, what do you mean by “Win”, and what do you mean by “Game”?)

Over time, a connection has been made in our thinking and literature between negotiation and games.

For example, the term “win-win” comes to negotiation from mathematical game theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

In game theory a win-win game is one in which both parties can (guess what?) win.

That seems like a logical term to subsume into the lexicon of negotiating, but there’s a huge potential flaw, a logical shortcoming. In games, winning is clearly defined. In a business deal, there may be no clear definition of a win for either (any) party at the beginning of the interaction. The parties learn from each other during the course of the discussions, and very often discover a “winning” outcome that could not have been imagined at the outset. If we are fearful and unfamiliar with the process of negotiating, sometimes just closing a deal becomes a “win”. So a Win-Win deal could be any deal that closes. That’s why in Dr. Karrass’ definition of Both-Win, each party must come out with greater concrete value than they considered at the outset,which goes way past just closing. This is a huge distinction.

Clearly, consideration goes into the Dr. Karrass’ choice of words.

One of his most powerful early works on the subject of business negotiation is The Negotiating Game. What does he mean by the word, “game”? How does it connect with the very serious, often critical, business function of negotiating agreements? Where do the concept of play and the concept of business overlap or intersect? Is Karrass’ title a clue to his attitude toward negotiation? Does this guru take his subject lightly?

Hardly.

As one of the world’s leading experts on Negotiation, he has a passion for his work that has led him to over 40 years of pioneering work in the field.

I believe that Dr. Karrass’ book title uses the word “game” not so much in terms of “an amusement or pastime”, as “a business or profession: e.g. He's in the real-estate game.” (Remember “The Pajama Game?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzv4jOTuwjw

How could we as a civil society have allowed that to occur? What were we collectively thinking?)

The word "game" also has a lot of other interesting, related meanings – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game

trick, prey, or pluck or spirit. These all have applicability to negotiating, as in:

He “gamed” me.

This piece of the market place is “fair game”.

I think they’re “game” for my idea.

But some business people do think about negotiating as a game in the sense of “an amusement or pastime”. Is this legitimate or helpful???

Until next time….think about it.

Have a Nice Win-Win Depression, BFF!

The Depression has hit here in California as hard as almost anywhere.
Yet on any given day I'm likely to hear at least one person say, "Have a nice day!" (New Hampshire has "Live Free or Die", we're stuck with "Have a Nice Day!")

Figures of speech are important. They send a message. The message of "HaND" is supposed to be, "I'm actually thinking about you. I care about your welfare. You have some level of importance to me." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_A_Nice_Day)

Have you ever negotiated with someone who said, "I'm a Win-Win Negotiator!"?
What does that mean, "I'm a Win-Win Negotiator!"?

It's intended to communicate, "I'm actually thinking about you. I care about your welfare. You have some level of importance to me." (Are you getting where I'm going here…?)

So what does "Win-Win" mean in negotiation?
Try asking people what they think.
My experience tells me you'll get a lot of:
"Uh, well, it, uh" (Jaw goes slightly slack, mouth breathing begins) “It means, uh, Win-Win kind of means, well, uh…" (Voice fades…eyes roll back in head, slight drooling from corner of mouth.)

The BEST most people can come up with when asked this question is that both parties walk away from a deal happy.

Happy is nice.

But any negotiator worth her salt ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary ) can leave you happy in a negotiation, even if she beat the stuffing out of you. In that case, you'd be happy because she's a good negotiator and she's happy because she got everything she wanted.

SOOOOOO...

Be wary of the person who claims to be a "Win-Win" negotiator.
Are they really interested in improving the value of your side of the deal, or are they simply blowing happysmoke?
This can be a truly disingenuous way of getting you to take down your guard or it can be a simple signal of good will with no real, quantifiable goal attached.

Or, like, "Have a Nice Day" it can be completely on-target and heartfelt.

But given its overuse and general weakened meaning and impact (I'm pretty sure I don't even actually hear "HaND" most of the time when it's said) do you really want to be the person saying it?

So, until next time Have a Nice Day:)

and...Think About It.

Strategies for Recession Negotiations

Today’s ghttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giflobal recession is causing a lot of negotiations. Many of you are having to re-negotiate agreements you thought were settled.

Now is the time to review these negotiating strategies. If you have attended the Karrass Effective Negotiating Seminar, refer to your seminar workbook, the text books and the CDs.

1.Leave yourself room to negotiate --but don't be ridiculous. Always give a reason for your position.

2. Be stingy with your concessions. Always consider your concessions as a "message" or information you are sending the other side.

3. Always tie a string to your concession and ask for something in return. This communicates to the other party that you don't have a lot of room to move; it communicates good will and your willingness to cooperate; and it introduces a talking point that might gain you additional information regarding their position. This new information could lead to a totally new solution. A solution you might have not considered before.

4. Patterns or rates of concessions are important. Always use declining numbers; don't always use whole numbers/percentages; don't match the other person's concessions-----instead say: "I can't afford to match that, because . . ." (If you attended the Karrass Effective Negotiating Seminar, review the Atlantic City real estate negotiation -- remember the video?)

5. Always provide reasons for the positions you take. This communication to the other party can encourage them to introduce new information that could create better paths to agreement and a better solution.

6. If you can, always get the other side to state their position first/make the first concession/or put out the first number. You may be surprised to find that the situation is better than what you anticipated. This information permits you to modify your response and change your negotiating strategy.

7. Consider the pressures 'Deadlines' can cause. Can you relieve your pressure by changing the Deadline? Can you cause pressure on the other side by enforcing a deadline?

8. It is generally wise to "Say NO once more" before coming to agreement. There usually is a way to make the deal a little bit better---for both sides.

9. When the opportunity presents itself, use the Considered Response, Limited Authority, Power of Legitimacy, the Bogey and the Flinch. They really do work and will provide you more negotiating power and create the opportunity for you to learn new information.

10. Remember "Catch Twenty-Two." Being real smart in the negotiation can be kind of dumb. Being a little dumb can be very smart. Don't know everything. Ask the other side to help you 'understand.' This conversation may open up avenues to agreement that you had not considered before.

Interview with Dr. Chester L. Karrass

I know there are a lot of seminars which present nothing more than prevailing wisdom. Information that is perhaps useful, but not really insightful. I want to offer people something different; knowledge that goes beyond what they already know.

My research focuses on one core question: What makes someone a successful negotiator?

One of the first things I turned to in my research was an examination of how the great industrial pioneers who built this country succeeded. I found that when you look closely at the activities of Andrew Carnegie or Henry Ford, or more recently, Sam Walton, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, they share an important trait. Each is highly entrepreneurial and they carry this entrepreneurial approach into their negotiations. This common negotiating approach is an important part of their success.

My research identifies the most successful negotiating approaches commonly used among people who consistently negotiate good agreements. A good deal of my investigation involves discussions with high-level executives from top American corporations. Once we start talking, most of these individuals are really amazed at how many negotiations they actually conduct every day.

I test my theories through a series of negotiating experiments and identify the most practical and successful negotiating skill sets. These specific negotiating skills are examined, explained and practiced in the Karrass Effective Negotiating Seminar. The result is that people learn how to apply these skills in their work. They become better negotiators. The results they are able to achieve immediately after attending the seminar prove this fact.

This new knowledge goes far beyond what people are able to pick up on their own. The seminar format and content appeals to business executives at the highest levels and also helps lower level managers understand how to think like top executives. The results of my research and experiments identify many practical negotiating skills that help people create better business agreements. These skills also help any business person look at business transactions in a different, more entrepreneurial way.

The Sound of Silence

A negotiation in progress:

Pat: And we’re also going to need XYZ….
Roy: (Silence)
Pat: (Thinking:) Well that stunned him. He doesn’t know what to say… I must be pretty good at this.
Roy: (Silence)
Pat: (Thinking:) He’s certainly taking his time. He doesn’t seem to feel compelled to respond… I wonder what he’s thinking…
Roy: (Silence)
Pat: (Thinking:) I bet he’s thinking he never expected to hear THAT.
Roy: (Silence)
Pat: (Thinking:) Maybe he’s thinking , “I can’t believe she said that. That’s nowhere near what I can do… we can’t make this deal.”
Roy: (Silence)
Pat: (Thinking:) Maybe he’s thinking , “I can’t believe she said that. Where does she get off? I thought she understood this business, but clearly she doesn’t. What a weird demand.”
Roy: (Silence)
Pat: (Thinking:) Do I have something on my lip?
Roy: (Silence)
Pat: (Thinking:)I’ve clearly blown this…
Roy: (Silence)
Pat: (Thinking:)Maybe I can save this… I should have taken that negotiating class..
Pat: You know, Roy, you’ve got a good point. We don’t need XYZ… we could settle for about, uh, half of that?
Roy: (Silence)
Pat: (Thinking:) And how about if we throw back that last concession you made, also, just to show how much I value this relationship… Deal?
Roy: (Thinking:) Definitely. I absolutely have to have Chinese food for lunch. Did she just say “Deal”?
Roy: Sure, okay, you’ve got a deal…

REMEMBER:
1. Watch your assumptions about what’s in the mind of the other party.
2. Silence is a powerful tool in negotiation

Until next time...think about it.

Doesn't "Be Careful" mean Be Careful?

Communication is a key element in Negotiation.

If you aren't understood, there's no way to negotiate your needs and find an agreement that meets them.

You know what you mean. Making sure the other party knows what you mean is a whole different thing. Sometimes what you say can be taken to mean something else. Sometimes it can be taken to mean exactly the OPPOSITE of what you intend.

Take a look at this confusion:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/30/american-idol-judges-mist_n_162473.html

In a business negotiation you would certainly never want your friendly gesture to be taken as a threat. So, avoid regional colloquialisms, unless you think the other party understands or is happy to give you the opportunity to translate.

I was tempted to end this post with a made-up "saying" just for a grin, but I got nervous that, because this is not a face-to-face communication, it might not be understood or taken the wrong way. Which brings up another point: the danger of irony or sarcasm in electronically transmitted communication. Remember, when you are being facetious, you're jokingly writing exactly the opposite of what you intend. If they don't get it, it can create massive confusion and sometimes bruised feelings.

So, until next time, think about it…In a business negotiation you would certainly never want your friendly gesture to be taken as a threat.

Think About It

Hi. I’m the new blogger at Negotiation Space.

I’m using the name Considered Response.

I picked it not only because I hope that’s what you’ll get from me when you chime in or ask a question, but because it’s one of the negotiating behaviors that I consider most important.

When a question hits the negotiating table, is it wise to answer immediately?

(Note: There is no answer to these behavioral questions that is always right in every negotiating circumstance. There are no slam-dunks, no “cookie-cutter” methods in negotiating. Otherwise, we might be able to have computers no it for us. But it’s always the top folks, the important people in an organization or department who make the deals. That’s because negotiation requires critical thinking and discernment, an ability to judge context and behave appropriately in the given circumstances. So you probably won’t see me using the words ‘always’ or ‘never’ very often…)

But let’s look at the question this way: you ask your negotiating counterpart a question, or you lay a proposition out for their consideration. How do you feel if they come back with an immediate answer? Probably like they have an automatic response to that inquiry ready, so you’re getting their stock reply. Or like they don’t care to give the issue any special consideration for some other reason. Either way, your position hasn’t been given much weight in the discussion, and often that doesn’t feel too good. How would most people negotiate if they were dealing with someone they thought didn’t respect them? They would likely become more competitive and entrenched in their own position.

How about if they take some time – overnight or a week, or two weeks- to respond?

Don’t you feel like their answer has more weight, that it’s the product of consideration rather than improvisation? Doesn’t that consideration have some value to you, whether or not the response matches your expectations or desires? And, importantly, aren’t they giving you more time to think about the negotiation and consider possibilities you might not have if they’d answered right away? Such as alternatives or even why their position might not be so bad after all…

Our world is moving faster and faster. Sometimes we trap ourselves into thinking the quickest response to a negotiating question is best. Not always true.

The next time you’re in a negotiation and somebody asks you something or asks you for something:
Think about thinking about it.

Until next time…

Considered Response

Time Outs in Negotiations

In the USA we just held our annual “Super-Bowl” football game.

If time-outs are so critical to a football coach, they ought to be even more important during a negotiation. The stakes are far higher!

When and how a time-out, or caucus, is called can affect the final outcome. Diplomatic negotiations are usually 10 percent conference and 90 percent time-out. Most business deals reverse this time relationship. I am in favor of lots of time-outs. They make more sense than long talks and short breaks.

I have found time-outs useful for a wide variety of purposes:

* To review what was heard or learned – new information may impact your strategy, targets, or tactics.
* To think of questions
* To develop new arguments and defenses
* To explore possible alternatives before you present them
* To develop better proof statements
* To discuss possible concessions and what will be asked for in return
* To determine the best way to react to new demands
* To determine if you should make additional demands
* To consult with experts
* To check on rules or regulations
* To analyze changes in price, specifications, costs, time or terms
* To just buy you some time

A time-out gives you time to think, to make a point more effectively, to check your facts, or to show your resolve. It provides you an opportunity to get others to help you work on an issue.

Research indicates when negotiating pressures increase, tension can be reduced before a crisis develops by having short sessions and long time-outs.

Remember, never negotiate an issue unless you are prepared for it. Something unforeseen always seems to come up in most negotiations. When it does—a time-out is called for. It might just be a caucus with yourself (i.e. Please excuse me I need to use the restroom), or a meeting among your own people to discuss the new issue. Don’t “shoot-from-the-hip” and plunge into negotiating an issue you are not prepared to negotiate.