Negotiation Space

A year ago on Negotiation Space, we discussed how civility can save your negotiation. It is worth revisiting this now as the country marks Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday on Monday, January 17 and also deals with the aftermath of the horrible tragedy in Tucson, Arizona.

It is hard to escape the calls for increased civility in political discourse. Although in the case of the Tucson shooting it is not clear that political rhetoric led the shooter to execute his rampage, it is easy to see how angry, heated exchanges can lead to violence. In terms of the civil rights movement, Dr. King advocated for civil disobedience—using quiet resistance instead of violence.

The issue for business negotiations is that attacking and creating an “us-versus-them” dynamic does not lead to agreement. Any negotiation starts with the premise that the parties are seeking to reach agreement. Insulting the other party is not going to result in compromise and finding common ground.

Dr. Chester Karrass writes:

“There are people who try to get what they want by becoming emotional, by embarrassing the other person or becoming a nuisance. Most of us become defensive when we encounter such behavior. We are not prepared for people in business to display emotions or act in an embarrassing way.”

Dr. Karrass goes on to say that people who act this way in a negotiation are using an intimidation tactic designed to make you less assertive in supporting your position.

To deal with incivility, you first must recognize that if the other party is being rude or otherwise unpleasant, it may be a negotiation tactic to put you on the defensive. Take the higher ground, but also stand your ground.

How do you deal with incivility in a business negotiation?

You’ve probably heard that getting through life is more like running a marathon than a sprint. That is because to succeed in a marathon you need endurance more than speed.

Marathon negotiations require endurance and focus and they often produce agreement. These types of long–usually overnight –negotiations, are seen often in diplomacy, international trade talks and in union-management bargaining.

Why are marathon negotiations so successful?

• The more time you spend with the other party, the better you will get to know each other.
• It isolates the parties at the table from their larger organizations, creating an “us versus them” dynamic.
• Repeating an argument many times makes both sides tired of it and more likely to want to compromise.
• Working on something so long makes the parties want to succeed (that is, to reach agreement)

Marathon sessions are more likely to be successful if you have very defined goals. It also may be that more highly charged issues benefit the most from the marathon treatment

However, as we said before, marathons are all about endurance. If you don’t have the stamina to hammer out an agreement over a very long stretch of time, you may actually be the party that buckles in or you may force a deadlock.

Most negotiators would probably prefer shorter sessions. Many would opt to have breaks and time-outs if the negotiations draw long.

In the end, it will depend on what is being discussed and who is discussing it to determine whether a marathon session will bring about agreement.

In order to be a better leader, you must also be a good negotiator. We could also argue that good negotiators must have leadership skills. The bottom line is that leadership and negotiation are closely linked.

Being a successful negotiator is a steppingstone to being a great leader. When you succeed in negotiations, you are drawing on many skills and talents. You are knowledgeable about your market and product. You are able to understand other people’s motivations. You plan successful strategies and tactics to attain your goals.

Perhaps one of the most necessary skills for both negotiation and leadership is the ability to be persuasive. If you are able to persuade people to support your viewpoint, you will certainly get ahead in business negotiations and in the executive suite.

According to the article “Negotiation Skills for Leaders,” written for the Washington Post by Joyce E. Russell, several negotiations tactics and strategies are considered essential for those in leadership positions. Some of these are:

• Doing your homework (being prepared)
• Building trust
• Always having a Plan B (alternative scenario for the negotiation)
• Knowing when to talk and when to listen (communication skills)
• Controlling emotions during difficult negotiations
• Having a flexible, friendly personality

How have your negotiation skills impacted your leadership ability? Have you found that you use negotiation strategies to further your career?

In his latest blog post for Harvard Business Review, Anthony Tjan argues that in order to “win” at negotiations, you should “play stupid.”

Tjan writes:

“[Playing stupid] …is a real skill, since in general, the brain lags the mouth. Our impulse is to speak our minds, talk first, think and act later.”

Instead of speaking up right away during a tough moment in the negotiation, Tjan counsels that you should pause:

“The act of pausing to contemplate the various scenarios that are likely to play out is critical. As in physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The key is to avoid any unwanted consequences.”

Basically, to play stupid you have to remain silent. Instead of responding to the other party right away, you are taking a pause to reflect and think things through. It may seem to the other party that you don’t know what you want to say, but in truth, your silence is a tactic allowing you some negotiating flexibility.

We have previously discussed listening more than talking as a negotiation tactic, which is basically what Tjan is advocating. He is also advocating taking all the time you need before formulating any response.

As Tjan concludes in his article:

“By remaining silent, we could effectively play stupid and win smart. Having that knowledge gave us two pieces of valuable insight: first the other party showed how much they really wanted to do the deal…”

Do you use the “playing stupid” tactic in negotiations? How successful have you been being silent?

Many people view business negotiations as confrontational. However, negotiations should be about connecting and about finding where you intersect with the other party so you can reach agreements that are satisfactory to both.

Negotiation team leaders, and leaders in general, should focus on connecting with their team members, and avoid alienating them. Sean Silverthorne, author of the article “Leadership is about Connecting” on Bnet.com, writes:

“…business leaders need to connect with audiences, not establish dominance over them.”

How can you establish connection with your team and with anybody you are leading? According to Silverthorne’s article, there are several things you can do.

1. Project trust.
2. Project warmth to your audience: by smiling and using humor.
3. Use immediacy cues: move physically closer to people, be on the same plane.
4. Avoid showing a higher level of competence than others in the room.
5. Talk naturally—don’t sound as if you are reading from a script.

Keep in mind that neither leading nor negotiating is about domination. Domination—putting the other party down and forcing your viewpoint—does not result in win-win agreements. Domination is all about win-lose.

Good leaders—that is, leaders who can connect with others—will naturally be good negotiators. Finding ways to connect is at the heart of a successful negotiation.

How do you rate yourself as a leader? Are you good at connecting with others?

In the Facebook world, status is what you are doing right now. In negotiations, status is your position or rank in relation to the other party. Many times your job title confers your status: are you the vice president or a director? An account executive or an account manager?

People tend to separate themselves according to status. An entry-level person in the company may shy away from talking to the company’s president because a higher status can be intimidating.

In business negotiations you need to remember that status is not equivalent to power. A vice president may indeed sit across the table from an account manager and have no clear power advantage.

The problem with uneven status is with the feelings that are engendered in the people involved. Because in business hierarchy matters, people with a lower status FEEL uncomfortable with someone of higher status.

Dr. Chester L. Karrass writes about status in his book Give and Take:

“Status differences affect the way people act and make decisions. Status is part of the process that makes the deal and part of the deal itself.”

“My advice to those who face people of higher status is to take them on….The better you prepare, the more knowledgeable you are, the less status matters. Don’t be intimidated. Just work harder.”

Status is real and some people are higher on the feeding chain than others, but that does not mean they have more power in a negotiation. A higher status does not mean the other party will automatically get his or her goals accomplished in a negotiation. Both sides will have to work it out, regardless of who has a better title.

Lao Tzu, the philosopher and founder of Taoism, said about status:

“Pride attaches undue importance to the superiority of one’s status in the eyes of others; And shame is fear of humiliation at one’s inferior status in the estimation of others. When one sets his heart on being highly esteemed, and achieves such rating, then he is automatically involved in fear of losing his status.”

How do you deal with status differences? Are you intimidated when the person across the table has a better title than yours?

Whether you are the general manager, the negotiation team leader or a solo entrepreneur, you can always work to improve your leadership skills. Good leadership will have a positive impact on your business negotiations, as you are able to set the tone and pace of the negotiations, and if you have a team, lead them through the process.

It’s important not to confuse leadership with management. ChangingMinds.org has a comprehensive take on the distinction, boiling it down to the following:

“The biggest difference between managers and leaders is the way they motivate the people who work or follow them, and this sets the tone for most other aspects of what they do.”

The article continues to say that managers have subordinates and leaders have followers.

If you are the boss, you most likely want to be a good leader (and manager). Steve Tobak provides a list of “Ten Things That Good Bosses Do” on BNet.com. Among these are:

• Share praise
• Delegate responsibility, not tasks
• Challenge your people to improve their natural abilities
• Build team spirit
• Inspire your people

In essence, leadership is about inspiring people, sometimes by example. As John Quincy Adams said:

“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.”

What makes a good leader? Do you think leadership can be learned? Tell us in the comments.

Merriam-Webster defines perfectionism as: “A tendency to set rigid high standards of personal performance.”

According to Mosby’s Medical Dictionary, perfectionism is “a subjective state in which a person pursues an extremely high standard of performance and, in many cases, demands the same standards of others. Failure to attain the goals may lead to feelings of defeat and other adverse psychological consequences.”

Both definitions point to some problems with perfectionism: rigidity, extremely high standards, and when goals are not achieved, feelings of failure.

Perfectionism in business negotiations could be manifested as setting unattainable goals, looking for the perfect deal or agreement, demanding complete adherence to certain standards. Perfectionism cannot accept alternative solutions because only one solution is perfect. In other words, perfection in business negotiations may be unachievable, and even detrimental. Perfectionism may also be the enemy to win-win negotiation.

Can you recover from perfectionism and change your ways? The first thing you have to do is admit that your perfectionism may be a problem.

On Bnet.com, Penelope Trunk wrote “Perfectionism is a Disease. Here’s How to Beat It.” One of her suggestions is “allow yourself to be wrong in front of others.”

On the Harvard Business Review blog, author Peter Bregman says that if you want to be happier at work, you should avoid perfectionism, and he tells you how in the article “How to Escape Perfectionism.”

Bregman observes:

“Perfectionists have a hard time starting things and an even harder time finishing them. At the beginning, it’s they who aren’t ready. At the end, it’s their product that’s not. …

But the world doesn’t reward perfection. It rewards productivity. And productivity can only be achieved through imperfection. Make a decision. Follow through. Learn from the outcome. Repeat over and over and over again. It’s the scientific method of trial and error.”

Are you a perfectionist? Have you found it helps or hinders your ability to negotiate effectively?

Have you ever wondered why some people create complex solutions for simple problems? It is because people mistakenly think when something is more complex, it seems more intelligent. But we all know that simple generally works better: is easier to implement and can be easily understood.

In business negotiations, look for simple solutions—those that can be easily understood. Dr. Chester L. Karrass tells us that there is power in simplicity. There may even be savings in simplicity. Karrass recommends using round numbers. For example, if a seller is asking $252,100 for a house, why not offer a round number such as $250,000? That is an easy $2,100 savings. Harvard researcher Thomas Schelling has researched the power of round numbers and found that they more easily command attention.

Sometimes during a negotiation, the other party intentionally creates confusion by being complex. It is definitely harder to reach a fair deal when you are confused about the terms and other details. Simplify matters to avoid confusion, and to make sure everyone clearly understands what is being discussed. Ask the other party to clarify, to make it simpler.

Extend the quest for simplicity to your choice of words and language. Has anything ever seemed more convoluted and difficult to follow than a contract written in legalese? People will be nodding their heads and agreeing to things they don’t understand. Use plain language to ensure everyone understands what is being said!

Take it from Leonardo Davinci who said: “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”

You are in the midst of a difficult business negotiation, and besides grappling with lots of details, the other party is acting aggressively.

What is your best response?

Is it to respond aggressively? Let things fly?

According to Dr. Chester L. Karrass, the best thing to do is to act unpredictably. Your strategy when dealing with a party that is overly aggressive is to mix cooperation with aggression. By mixing up your response to an aggressive party, you are communicating your desire to reach a mutually agreeable accommodation. You may respond in kind, but you may also be cooperative. The other party may also be thrown off balance because he/she will not know how you will respond.

Aggressiveness is an attitude, and as Dr. Karrass says, attitudes are hard to change because they are both emotional and rational. A negotiation cannot take place if the parties involved are not willing to change their attitudes sufficiently to be able to problem-solve. Dr. Karrass writes in his book The Negotiating Game: “It is therefore necessary to engage in attitudinal bargaining in order to assure that negotiations are conducted in a climate that results in final stable agreements.”

It is important you don’t confuse assertiveness with aggressiveness. To be assertive is to speak up, to make sure your viewpoint is heard. To be aggressive is to be belligerent. It is about trying to get your way by wearing down the other party.

How do you deal with aggressive behavior? What strategies and tactics have you used?