Tag archive: off-the-record-talks
A Walk in the Woods
Some things are best not settled in the light of publicity or under the scrutiny of those at the table. Much of what is said in the negotiating room is said not to reach agreement but to prove to others that their views are being expressed and fought for. Off-the-record talks permit the opposing parties to tell the other what the real impediments to agreement are and why some issues are more important than others.
Off-the-record discussions also set the stage for later accommodation at the bargaining table. In her ten-year research study of labor negotiations, Ann Douglas found that private talks between principal negotiators frequently preceded settlement. I had the same experience in customer-supplier negotiations. What we learned from each other during private meetings could not have been said in front of others. Yet it was what we learned “off-the-record” that closed the deal.
Off-the-record talks foster movement toward settlement because the negotiators can talk about their personal feelings as well as their organizational constraints on a person-to-person basis. They can privately indicated a willingness to compromise or to exchange one issue for another. These informal moves toward reconciliation might be politically unwise if discussed at the table in front of others.
There is a downside to off-the-record talks. Good negotiators know that not everything can or should be said off the record. They also know that some people, especially those with a strong need to be liked, talk too much in the privacy of a comfortable restaurant or under the gentle influence of good wine. Therein lies the danger inherent in a walk and talk in the woods.
Read more »
Try an Off-the-Record Closure
Some things are not settled in the light of publicity or under the scrutiny of others at the table. Much of what is said at the table is said not to reach agreement, but to prove to others in the negotiators’ organization that their views are being expressed and fought for. Off-the-record talks permit each party to tell the other what the real impediments to agreement are and why some issues are more important than others.
Off-the-record discussions also set the stage for later accommodation at the table. In her ten-year research study of labor negotiations, Ann Douglas found that private talks between principle negotiators frequently preceded settlement. I had the same experience in customer-supplier negotiations. What we learned from each other during private meetings could not have been said before others. Yet it was what we learned off the record that closed the deal.
Off-the-record talks foster movement toward settlement because the opposing negotiators can talk about their personal feelings as well as their organizational constraints on a person-to-person basis. They can privately indicate a willingness to compromise or to exchange one issue for another. These informal moves toward reconciliation might be politically unwise if discussed at the table.
Read more »
Marathon Sessions
Marathon sessions lead to agreement. All night meetings between labor and management are common in industrial bargaining history. Many of the great mergers and billion dollar deals we read about result from close-quarter talks that go on uninterrupted for days. Marathon negotiations have always played a critical role in diplomacy and international trade talks.
When people spend long hours together-when they sweat and strive, play and laugh, drink and relax together-there is a good chance they will get to know each other. By working together and sharing a common emotional experience, they become partners in a sense. They may reveal to each other the constraints they face at home and risks they are subjected to. What a marathon session can do is reduce the abstractions and stereotypes of conflict and turn the talks into a person-to-person give and take.
There is a hidden ingredient in every negotiation-how people feel toward each other as individuals. This is the “attitudinal” dimension of negotiation. An agreement is hard to reach if the chemistry between the parties is not right. What is required is a commitment to mutual satisfaction, a feeling of trust that they will do as they say and if trouble arises help each other over the rough spots.
The marathon works for another reason. When two parties negotiate they are isolated, at least to an extent, from those they represent. It becomes “us” (those in the conference room) against “them” (those in both organizations outside the room). A long uninterrupted session increases the likelihood that such feelings of solidarity against outside forces will develop. Both parties have a chance to talk off the record.
I am in favor of all night uninterrupted sessions under these conditions:
Read more »
- When the impetus toward agreement already exists and a long session can help guarantee that outside influences will not raise new questions or otherwise deflect a settlement.
- When the parties have repeated the same arguments to the point that they are themselves tired and ready for compromise.
- When the negotiators respect each other.
- Both parties have the stamina to handle the stress of long sessions without suffering physically or mentally.
- When the discussions have progressed to the point where divergent issues and positions have a reasonable likelihood of being moved toward agreement.
Act One-Before the Negotiation Begins
Act One takes place before the conference, sometimes long before. For a buyer of consumer or industrial goods or services, it starts as early as when the buyer first contemplates the purchase and considers the choices available. For the seller, Act One starts at first contact with the prospective buyer and ends when the parties begin to negotiate. For both buyer and seller, Act One is longer than the few days prior to negotiation which we usually think of as planning and preparation time. Act One in the real world of business may continue for days or, in some cases, for years.
Act One is when the seller can best learn about the buyer’s needs and how dependent they are on the seller’s service or product. The seller, at this early stage, can determine who in the buyer’s business organization favors them, who the real decision-makers are, how the product or service is to be used and where the money to pay for it will really come from. It is far more difficult for a seller to get answers to these questions after talks begin.
Act One is also when the buyer can learn about the salesperson, how they are paid and given bonuses, how they are to be measured as individuals, and how they relate to others in their organization, such as the price or engineering departments. At this early stage, buyers can get cost and production information that would be unobtainable at the talks themselves-when both parties are wary of one another. Act One is when buyers can determine how badly the seller needs the business and what they will do to get it. Act One is off the record in most cases.
An alert buyer or seller can use this first act to reduce the tension of negotiation. They can iron out the tough issues before the formal talks begin and use the conference time itself to settle on terms and conditions of a less contentious nature.
It is interesting to note that this is what the Japanese do routinely in dealings between their buyers and sellers. They work so closely together during Act One that the negotiation which follows is, for the most party, ceremonial. Both parties in Japan know how to make Act One an important part of the bargaining process. We in America do not.
In my next post, I will discuss Act Two-The Bargaining Talks Begin and Act Three-Moving Toward Agreement.
Read more »
Dealing with rumors and information leaks.
Mark Twain is known for quipping “the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.” In Twain’s time, news traveled more slowly than today, and in great likelihood, many people believed that he was dead, before they heard otherwise.
If it weren’t for rumors and information leaks, many tabloids would be out of business. Unverified facts from unknown sources can create sensational stories. But this “heard it through the grapevine” information is not only used by journalists, it may be used as a tactic during a business negotiation.
Rumors and leaks are often used to test the waters, to gauge reactions and to measure potential impacts. Some parties use rumors to send messages to the other party, or to introduce a new position on an issue.
Because this information is unreliable, negotiators need to be able to separate fact from fiction, what is real from what is merely a ploy. The other party may be spreading these rumors in order to create confusion or to weaken resolve. On the other hand, rumors can often be a way of indirectly communicating crucial information that cannot be shared through “official” channels.
How can a negotiator confronted with this tactic know what to believe and what to discount? As with any information, negotiators must work to verify and test the information. It may be a good time to have off–the-record talks with the other party to see what the intent may be. Some of it also may be treated with good old-fashioned instinct: does this information seem valid, or does it seem designed to get a reaction?
How do you deal with rumors and leaks? Do you use this tactic in your negotiations?
Read more »
Is it non-negotiable?
We often say that everything is negotiable, but sometimes negotiators come to the table with a list of non-negotiable demands. How do you deal with issues that are not up for negotiation?
Non-negotiable demands tend to be extreme, and defy compromise. Sometimes, they are centered on ethical, religious, professional or economic values that are deeply held. By making non-negotiable demands, some negotiators demonstrate their convictions.
In business negotiations, non-negotiable items tend to be issues such as cost structures, trade secrets and management decisions.
Some negotiators use non-negotiable demands for the express purpose of creating a deadlock. Indeed, they do not want to reach an agreement, and they use unrealistic demands to create an environment where compromise cannot be reached.
However, non-negotiable demands are a part of the bargaining process. They lower the other party’s expectation and make him or her more willing to compromise on other issues to avoid having a confrontation of deep-seated values.
There are several countermeasures you can use when faced with non-negotiable demands:
1) Conduct off-record talks
2) Dial down hostility
3) Ask for an explanation of why these demands are non-negotiable
4) Discuss the issues that ARE negotiable
5) Avoid panic and anger
Have you gone into a negotiation with non-negotiable demands? Did you end up compromising?
Read more »
Off the record?
We’ve all heard the following scenario: the politician tells the journalist that he will only talk off the record. The journalist agrees, the politician gives up some juicy information, and the next day, the whole story is told in the daily newspaper, citing an unnamed source, which it turns out can ONLY be the politician. Politician gets angry at the journalist, and trouble ensues.
But, for the record, there is a legitimate need for off-the-record talks when you are conducting business negotiations.
Off-the-record talks are any informal communication between the negotiating parties. The talks can be held in an elevator, in restaurant or wherever the negotiation is NOT taking place.
In an informal setting, people discuss their personal problems and gripes, and generally, the stuff of everyday life. These informal discussions make it safe to let out steam. Because there is no structure, and what is being discussed does not have to be agreed to, both parties can test assumptions.
Being off the record allows the parties to say what is on their minds, and give a more real sense of the issues and problems.
According to Chester L Karrass, off-the-record talks “are mandatory when official positions have hardened and deadlock is imminent. While it may be difficult to say anything conciliatory at the table, a few well-chosen words after dinner can indicate unofficial willingness to compromise.”
Because off-the-record talks tend to be more social in nature, people are easier on each other. It allows common ground to appear.
As Karrass punctuates: “Not everything that must be said can be said at the negotiating table. A good negotiator knows that.”
How often do you go off the record? Have you found that it has moved a negotiation to reach a deal?
Read more »