Negotiation Skills (Part Two)

Negotiation In Emotional Circumstances
Our website's advice section gets questions on a wide variety of topics from all over the world. Recently a web visitor posed a question that many of us face. Often as our own children are establishing themselves as adults, we're faced with issues relating to care for older relatives.
Here's our reader's question and our response:
Convincing Elders To Accept Care
Question: As a hospital/geriatric social worker, both in my personal and work life I am frequently asked the following question: "My elderly [parent, aunt, neighbor...] clearly needs some help at home, but refuses this help [even if free, or done by a family member, a church...]. How can I convince this person to accept help?"
After I've determined that the issue isn't financial (usually a solvable problem), then I am frequently at a loss. The situations I've seen like this seem to only resolve after a crisis occurs, and the person has no choice.
How would you approach a situation like this? The issues seem to revolve around pride, retaining control, denial of illness, aging or disability... Any thoughts?
Response: In his 'Notes From The Underground', Dostoevsky wrote, "Human behavior is motivated by the craving for absolute freedom and self-assertion in defiance of all dictates of reason." As decrepitude takes its toll on our bodies -- and minds -- often pride is the only thing we have left.
Waiting for a crisis is excruciating for folks who think of themselves as caregivers when it comes to organizing care for people who have less and less capacity to take care of themselves or their personal surroundings.
Probably the wisest thing to do is ask a whole lot of questions. Using the example of children of an elderly parent, first the concerned children need to ask themselves what are their own interests. Do they want to assuage guilt? Do they fear that harm will come to their parent? Are they concerned that a crisis will interrupt the normal course of their own lives?
Questions also need to be asked of the parent: What most concerns you about your situation -- health, comfortable surroundings, companionship, your capacity to hold your head up and say, "Daughter please! I can do it myself!" One can also ask, "What do you think are the standards that determine one's capacity to live an independent life?"
This questioning approach brings the parties into fuller participation in the decision-making process. When I ask you a question it means I am taking you seriously; the reverse is equally true. In negotiation, this technique is called Active Listening.
The crucial element is listening closely to all the elements of the responses to those questions, both the questions one asks oneself and the questions asked of other people. It is no less important to respond to what people say by checking to make sure you've understood their points; you may want to say, "This is what I understood you to have said; is my understanding correct?" You also want to indicate, "The fact that I understand what you have said does not necessarily mean I agree with you."
Clinging on to the visual indicators of independence is a critical vital sign. The fear of loving relatives that something bad can happen has to be balanced against the knowledge that if you kick someone in their self-esteem, you are attacking a most vulnerable part of their anatomy. You cannot negotiate away a person's self-esteem, but you can destroy it through frontal and flanking attacks.
The frustration faced by folks who see loved ones failing to take proper care of themselves is phenomenal. Very often the people who have advocated professional care ultimately must mutter (hopefully to themselves) the unsatisfying statement, "I told you so."
In your question you indicate that crisis forces choice. Perhaps the best approach is to prepare a safety net that is ready when the crisis occurs. It cannot prevent a crisis from happening; and it is crucial to make sure that a crisis is not worsened by forcing the 'victim' of it to lose face. But having that safety net ready can at least reduce the force of the fall.
Relationship is one of the seven most significant issues to consider in negotiation. Focusing on the relationship with an elderly parent or friend, not letting decrepitude get in the way of love and caring can make it much easier when someone's self-esteem is attacked by a crisis. Looking at oneself and saying, "It's not my fault," is not a way of avoiding blame, but rather giving a loved one the freedom to make their own mistakes -- just as they did the first time they gave us the keys to the car.

READ THE SMALL PRINT
One associate of mine got me very concerned when, during a business meeting, he suggested I put my pad of paper away. "Steve, you won't need to take notes of our conversation," he said. He was doing me a favor; my handwriting is bad enough that I probably would never have been able to decipher many of the notes I might have taken. As a consequence I listened very carefully to every word spoken during our meeting.
If you're in a negotiation, it is a cardinal rule to listen actively. Pay attention to what is said - and to what is not said. When issues occur to you that another party may be failing to address, ask questions. Don't be afraid to ask questions until you are genuinely sure that you have understood what the other party really means. The best way to be sure you have understood is to ask them, "Am I correct in my understanding that you said 'xyz'?" There is no such thing as a stupid question. It is crucial, however, to pay close attention to the answers.
What does this have to do with paying attention to the small print? In the negotiation process it is crucial to pay constant attention to how the ultimate agreement will be fulfilled by the parties once the hands are shaken or the contract has been signed. Paying attention to the small details while negotiating protects you from surprises once the agreement has been reached and it is time for the parties to deliver on their promises.
The small print is what we call those seemingly inconsequential details folks throw into agreements that can turn into monsters later on. If we are dealing with people we don't know very well or with people who are more sophisticated than we are in that particular kind of business, it is even more important to question details. An even wiser move is to try to learn about 'their' business, reputation, and follow-through by doing research with other people with whom they have reached similar deals.
Asking for references helps somewhat; but we have to expect that no one in their right mind is going to offer a dissatisfied client as a reference. One needs to look for additional sources of information. If the deal under consideration is with a building contractor, it makes sense to talk with the subcontractors on the job; find out whether the contractor is cutting corners or is using poor quality materials. One can also check bank references or with trade associations to learn about a party's reputation.
It is not realistic to think we can anticipate all the possible problems that may arise during the life of an agreement. Thus it is important to negotiate fairly and with civility so that if questions need to be raised during the life of the contract, the relationship among the parties won't stand in the way of dealing with what comes up later on.

Hot Tips on Negotiating in a Hostage Situation
You are at your desk and some work from the week before is facing you. Monday morning is here and you're just coming out of the weekend's "daze". Whether you live in New York City or in Bogotá, whether you work in a 2-person office or work with 500 people, the potential is there for surprises. It takes one angry employee, one angry customer to take control of your environment, your little world for a minute, an hour, or who knows how long. You are for that short time -- or for the long run of that incident -- a Hostage.
Can you prepare men and women with the necessary innovative verbal skills, assessment tools, management skills or even preventative qualities that go hand in hand with handling difficult people or difficult situations? The hard answer is you really do not prepare for these situations. Nevertheless, there are some tips to improve surviving a Hostage situation, be it in a U.S. post office or an MD80 Airliner.
Rule Number One; if you are a Hostage, you cannot negotiate your own survival. A hostage Negotiator trained in that field can assist in the negotiations; but you, the Hostage cannot. So stay calm, talk to the hostage taker if a question is asked of you. Do not offer opinions (he or she may not necessarily agree with your side of an issue), but do look at the hostage taker if they are looking at you with that question (it is "more" difficult to hurt a person looking into their sympathetic eyes).
Rule Number Two; During the "chaotic" stage of the hostage take-over incident, everything will be chaotic. There may be loud noises, throwing things, or banging. This is meant to scare you, bring fear to you or this could be as simple as the Hostage taker just being out of control. Additionally, this is the most dangerous stage. In the beginning take-over stage the potential to be shot, slashed, or attacked has the greatest likelihood of occurring. Do what you are told, as quickly as possible. Do not be the "sore thumb" or the "squeaky wheel" person. Stay "low" and out of the way. Stay quiet and unobvious.
Rule Number Three; THINK SURVIVAL. I use an acronym called T.H.I.N.K.
T=Team Control; you are never alone in the incident. Even if you are the only hostage, you will have professionals working to aid your release. However, remember they will not have the luxury of communicating with you directly, so remember you ARE part of the TEAM and your assistance is needed.
H= Hold them Accountable. Watch what is going on around you without being conspicuous. It will be useful in future disciplinary and legal actions. Moreover, it is useful in keeping your mind off your present situation.
I=Instincts, Follow your Instincts. Before you are "caught" up in a poor situation, listen to your gut feeling. Listen to that "butterfly" in you tummy. If the situation does not look right, smell right or even "sound" right or normal, tell someone. Talk to someone in authority. Let people know what you are thinking or sensing. Even if you're wrong, you do not have to live with the failure or guilt of not having let someone know what you felt. Keep in mind Team Control even if you are not on the current team that your senses have been alerted about.
N= No escaping! If you try and you fail, you are in big big trouble with the hostage taker. That will undoubtedly "piss" him or her off. That is not to say if there is an OPEN door, and I am standing by that door, that I would not try to leave. Nevertheless, I would have to consider the other persons being held and their potential problems if the hostage takers got angry over their recent loss.
K= Keep your self-esteem. Keep your chin up. That is so important to your sanity and your survival. Remember your family and your friends. Keep your Pride.
LABOR NEGOTIATIONS
Much modern thought on interest-based negotiation is derived from earlier studies of the bargaining process between labor and management. Nonetheless, labor-management negotiations - or collective bargaining - is a unique negotiation process. There are elements of the collective bargaining process that parallel other negotiation situations. These include the triggering of the negotiation process by some conflict or competition, the existence of a relationship, the invocation of prescribed rules or conventions, a process of communication and persuasion, and ultimately a determinative outcome. Each of these elements takes on a different twist in the labor management negotiation.
TRIGGERING A NEGOTIATION: CONFLICT OR COMPETITION
Most negotiation situations are prompted by the eruption of conflict or competition for resources. This occurs in labor-management negotiations when a group of employees first organize a labor union or when an already organized union seeks to renegotiate a labor agreement.
The move to unionize typically occurs when a conflict erupts in a workplace It may be the result of an organizational change, a dispute over wages or benefits, or resistance to management styles. The collective bargaining process is more often triggered when an already established union seeks to change (usually improve) the terms and conditions of its contract with the employer. In this case, the union and the employer are in competition for the resources produced by their relationship.
RELATIONSHIP
All negotiation situations involve some type of relationship. In preparing for a negotiation, one must always assess the nature of the relationship and whether it is limited in scope or time. In labor-management negotiations, relationship is not simply a factor to consider in one's strategy, it is the reason for the negotiation. In order to produce any resources to share, labor and management must enter into a relationship in which each understands its role in producing those resources.
In some negotiation situations, one party is dependent on the other. In labor-management negotiations, the parties are interdependent. Although the degree of mutuality may vary, the necessity of each to the other insures that each one enters the negotiation process with leverage and power.
LAWS, RULES AND CONVENTIONS
Most negotiation processes are not governed by laws or rules. Agreements or contracts produced as the result of negotiations are certainly subject to law or rule, but most negotiators, whether in sales, real estate or politics, are not required to conduct negotiations or to behave according to specified laws or rules in the conduct of their negotiations. Personal style and custom generally govern non-labor negotiations.
Labor-management negotiations, however, are subject to procedural rules that govern the behavior of those engaged in the negotiation of substantive rules (the terms and conditions of employment). Laws and rules which govern the negotiation process (such as the National Labor Relations Act in the USA) prescribe when the parties are obligated to negotiate, what constitutes fair play when dealing with each other, what subjects may or may not be negotiated, and provides enforcement mechanisms to insure the negotiation process adheres to the law.
In non-labor negotiations, misleading tactics, withholding of information, inflated proposals or bypassing a representative are simply part of doing business. In labor-management negotiations, however, the legal principle of good-faith bargaining provides the offended party legal recourse to require the other to clean up its negotiating tactics.
COMMUNICATION
As in non-labor negotiations, communication styles and techniques vary widely in the collective bargaining process. The parties may have a strong relationship characterized by open and honest communication, or there may be a history of hostility and argumentative communications. As in non-labor situations, the parties may engage in very formal negotiations (attorney representatives, professional union advocates, written proposals and traditional meetings) or more casual discussions (local managers meeting with local union representatives to work out concerns).
In traditional labor-management negotiations, there are distinct communication tasks at different stages of the negotiations. At the outset, each party argues its case in an effort to justify proposals it makes. This is followed by discussions to clarify specifics and logistics of each one's proposals. In the middle sessions, the parties' communications are targeted at exploring areas of overlap or compromise. During this phase, the parties communicate more information about needs and priorities. In the closing sessions, trading, exchanging, conceding and compromise are integrated to produce an overall agreement.
POWER AND PERSUASION
All negotiation scenarios include an element of power and efforts to persuade. This is no different in labor negotiations except as they manifest in the extreme. At the extremes of their access to power, the employer's ultimate power is to withhold work (income), and the ultimate exercise of power by the employee is to withhold labor (the means of production). In rare situations, however, neither labor nor management possesses a better alternative to a negotiated agreement than one with each other. An individual employee may have a better alternative to an individual employer and vice versa. However, an entire group of employees does not usually have a better alternative to a negotiated agreement with its existing employing organization, and the reverse is also true.
OUTCOMES
Before negotiations reach the agreement stage, both union and management will have conducted ongoing information sharing with its constituency. Each party determines how to develop support for the final agreement. Without this advance work, an agreement will fail. It is not uncommon for a union or an employer to refuse to enter into an agreement it believes is not supported by the other party's constituency. For example, if the employer needs to improve productivity, it will not sign a productivity incentive plan it believes the union cannot or will not "sell:" to its members.
Because the continuing strength of the labor management relationship is critical, a win-lose outcome in collective bargaining is not a viable option. As in non-labor situations, where the ongoing relationship is critical to the durability of the agreement, a union-management contract that has a loser will result in turmoil and hostility, at best, and complete failure of the enterprise, at worst. Long before win-win negotiating became popularized, unions and managers have historically sought to craft agreements that meet (at least some of the critical) needs of both parties.
WHY BOTHER TO NEGOTIATE?
Quite often we feel we have a good thing going. Our business is meeting or even exceeding its objectives and we may rely on the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The same kind of reasoning may apply to our lives as consumers, parents, or friends.
Sometimes an idea comes to us either from our own imaginations or as a suggestion or sales pitch from someone else. Do we conclude that our BATNA, our Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement is to leave things alone, or is it worth investigating different choices.
One might argue this is a crucial question faced by "old economy" businesses as the "new economy" appears to be changing from the wave of the future to the wave of the present. Deciding to consider change can be a momentous choice.
When we have an idea to sell, we need to convince other parties to reach agreement with us. If they are not initially motivated to take that step, we have to find a way to influence their thinking.
The fundamental question is: what brings parties together to negotiate an agreement? In many cases, agreements appear simply to result from trading bargaining chips: "If you will do this, then I will do that." What we should be looking for is how what each party has to bring to the deal creates more value than the sum of the parts that each contributes. Negotiation should bring about added value; it should yield synergy.
One of the participants in a recent TNSC workshop summed things up with a terrific insight: "It is not a matter of simply creating an agreement to bring parties together. The negotiation process should be compared to weaving. The parties work together to produce a solution that is stronger than the individual threads that make up a woven textile."
While it is possible that parties have different levels of power or strength, the combination of their contributions can create a solution with greater durability than either can contribute by himself or herself.
VALUING PICASSO
Many of our clients and workshop participants complain they have a very difficult time justifying the price they want to charge. This is a particular problem when it comes to asking for a raise. How do you justify your value to your boss or the price of a commodity to a customer? If you think in terms of value, rather than price, you have a better chance of reaching a mutually rewarding solution. And one of the most important things to do is to ask other parties how much they value a given item or result. After all, it is their belief about value that will motivate them; your determination of value is far less convincing.
There's an interesting story (found on our website) to illustrate value:
Many years ago a woman was in a restaurant in Paris when she noticed that Pablo Picasso was sitting at a nearby table. She was extremely excited and finally got up her courage to walk over to the great artist with a pen and piece of paper in hand.
"Oh, Monsieur Picasso, I have admired your work all my life. Is there any way you might be willing to make some kind of mark on this paper?"
Picasso took the pen and quickly scribbled something on the scrap of paper.
The woman asked, "Oh, thank you so much. What can I do in return, how can I thank you?"
Picasso said, "That will be $75,000."
The woman was dumfounded. "But that little scribble only took you a second to do. How can it possibly be worth $75,000?"
Picasso had a very simple reply: "That 'scribble' may have taken a second. But it took me 60 years to get to this point."

LAST WORD
"Great talkers should be cropp'd for they have no need of ears."
-- Poor Richard (Benjamin Franklin)
USE THE THREE Cs TO ANALYZE
INTERESTS AND DEVELOP STRATEGIES
To achieve optimum results from negotiations, we need to pay attention to interests of the parties and their constituents. Individuals' and groups' interests are most simply described as why they want what they want. A fair negotiation process aims at addressing those interests so that the parties can create an agreement that will be fulfilled according to the promises each party has made.
There are many ways to characterize interests; some relate to such issues as ego or face, satisfying the boss, or getting a price that makes economic sense. Sometimes it is easy to reach agreement on the parties' varied interests; often one needs to pay attention to three different kinds of interests to reach a realistic solution.
Interests can be typed using the Three C approach:
It is generally simplest to reach agreement about Common interests. For example, both of us want to have a good meal at a reasonably priced restaurant - and we both enjoy Italian food. When there are common interests, simply finding them is the basic job of the negotiating parties.
Quite often, the interests we discover are Complementary. The most frequently cited example of complementary interests is when two children are arguing over which one gets the family's only orange. When it turns out that one wants the juice and the other wants to use the skin of the orange for cooking, it is clear their interests complement each other. The interest of each child can be met without either one 'losing'.
When interests are in Conflict, negotiators have to work with great care and skill to reach a workable solution. Here the fundamental job is to look at those conflicting interests as complex rather than simple objectives. Each negotiating party needs to do a good job of self-examination: "Is my interest indivisible, or is it made up of elements that can be treated individually?" Clearly the same question has to be asked about the interests of the people with whom we are negotiating. If we can fractionate conflicting interests, we may be able to create building blocks to use to develop a workable solution.
Recognizing that conflicts exist does not bring the negotiation process to a halt. Rather it offers negotiators an opportunity to re-examine their own interests and those of other parties to see if resolving segments of the conflicting interests offers a route to a satisfactory and workable resolution.
HOW MANY NEGOTIATORS DOES IT TAKE TO SCREW IN A LIGHTBULB?
Recently I've run across several major business negotiations in which the number of participants does not seem to bear a logical relationship to the number of stakeholders, the issues under discussion, or even the relative importance of those issues. Moreover, in two of these cases, the people representing one of the 'sides' openly disagreed with each other in the presence of the negotiators from the 'other side.'
Preparation is key to efficient negotiation. Sending many people to a meeting may indicate that you have not prepared as well as you should. Find out whether your colleagues agree with you, and what their interests are, before you begin negotiating with an outside party. The credibility of the whole side is weakened by internal arguments displayed during the negotiation with another group.
Often it is not possible for a single person to represent all the disparate interests of one party to a negotiation. Sometimes, even the most skilled negotiator needs to be able to check with colleagues about how best to handle specific issues. Yet ultimately, someone has to be the 'drop-dead decision-maker', weighing the relative importance of conflicting interests and deciding when and how to manage internal priorities to present a cohesive approach to the formal negotiation process.
An effective stakeholder group can often use the preparation process to reduce the number of bodies who arrive at the formal negotiation. This increases the credibility of the individuals who do participate. It also reduces the likelihood that either party will choose to escalate the pressure on the negotiation process by bringing an ever-larger group to subsequent meetings.
Sometimes a single negotiator from one party arrives find what seems like an army across the negotiating table. It can be daunting to find yourself facing nine people when you expected to meet with one. Such situations call for a sharp intake of breath, and a few moments of reflection on who is trying to prove what to whom. Is this an attempt to put you at a psychological disadvantage? It may actually exhibit one of several kinds of insecurity. Does the individual need a gang of colleagues to demonstrate their support of a position? Does the presence of an entire team demonstrate that the individual is really not empowered to make or implement decisions?
In such situations, it makes sense to ask questions: Find out who everyone is, and what their interests and objectives are in the negotiation. Listen carefully to the answers, and take advantage of their 'talk time' to reorganize your strategy to reflect the changed negotiation process.
Is there a 'right' number of people to represent each party to a negotiation? Unless a person is uniquely necessary for a particular element of the decision process - and can only contribute if s/he has been exposed to the entire context of the negotiation - they don't belong there. If the decision-makers are at the table, and if they keep good records of agreed items, they should be able to sell the result to their constituencies - and to give the lawyers who will write any ensuing contracts clear instructions on how to document the agreement properly. Since proper preparation includes good internal discussions, the negotiators' constituents will probably be comfortable with the resulting agreement.
How many negotiators does it take to screw in a lightbulb? The smallest number possible, as long as they're well-prepared.
FORCE AS AN ELEMENT OF DIPLOMACY AND NEGOTIATION
"Speak softly and carry a big stick." former US President Theodore Roosevelt
"You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone." American gangster Al Capone
"Jaw-jaw is better than war-war." former British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan
As this newsletter is being written, the news media are full of stories of the apparent endgame of the NATO military effort in Yugoslavia. According to many analysts, the actions of Yugoslav President Milosevic over the past several years made it clear that he cannot be trusted to fulfill a negotiated agreement.
Sometimes negotiations can be said to fail because no agreement is reached. In the Yugoslav scenario no mutual agreement was signed by the representatives of Milosevic's government or the Kosovo Liberation Army in Rambouillet, France. The failure of that negotiation process to yield a mutually-agreed solution has been used to justify NATO's decision to conduct an air war to convince President Milosevic to change the status of the province of Kosovo. It was an alternative to negotiation.
There is another way in which negotiation can be called a failure; that is when parties reach an agreement - - and then fail to fulfill their obligations. Thus a tenant may agree to pay a specific monthly rental for a house, but never actually pay the full amount. Representatives of businesses may shake hands on a deal, but try to find ways to avoid meeting their commitments. Sometimes, particularly in the United Kingdom, members of labor unions who are not happy about their employment contract choose to 'work to rule' -- they live up to the letter of the agreement, but not its spirit. Each of these cases presents either a short- or long-term example of failed negotiations.
The question we face is whether force is needed to get parties to reach or fulfill agreements. Force may take the form of violence, either a personal confrontation between individuals or the use of military power. Power is often considered a synonym for force. In that case, when parties are negotiating, the balance of power may indeed push a party to be more agreeable or more aggressive.
The quotations attributed to Theodore Roosevelt and Al Capone imply that an imbalance of power is indeed an important element in bringing about negotiation. Prime Minister Macmillan's preference for 'jaw-jaw' (talking) over war does not deny the possibility that a power imbalance may play a significant role in bringing about decision-making. However, Mr. Macmillan's words carry a value judgement that goes beyond the conclusion that force or power is a necessary part of the negotiaton equation. By saying it is better to talk than to fight, Macmillan is outlining a fundamental standard for judging human behavior.
What I have read and seen about the implementation of nationalism in the old Yugoslav republics is abhorrent and appalling. Whether we are faced with nationalists who practice barbarity against people who are different from themselves or teenagers lacking a value system who murder schoolmates, we are compelled to accept the reality that in some situations, negotiation is not an effective weapon against ongoing violence. The following statement may be confusing to people who do not live in the USA, but is not meant to offend anyone: "I want to live in a world in which the only acceptable form of ethnic cleansing is a Chinese laundry."
Negotiation works when people or the constituencies they represent want to change the situation that exists and can find others who not only share that desire for change but also have resources to offer that can contribute to the achievement of that change. Resolution of problems occurs when both we and others change; if all the change is one-sided, the negotiated agreement may fail to be implemented.
If we follow that analysis, perhaps we can view parties who 'carry a big stick' as people who have bargaining chips to offer that expand the likelihood that the negotiation will yield gains for everyone. An imbalance of power need not be viewed as an impediment to change, but rather as something that can be modified through the use of thoughtful and imaginative negotiation.
Dealing with barbarians without using force is the ultimate test of whether negotiation can work. Forcing them to agree by using the brutality of military action may put an end to their inhumane actions; the question is whether the ultimate resolution at the bargaining table will bring about results that will be honored once the 'big stick' is taken away.
A LAST WORD
"Leave a good name in case you return."
NEGOTIATING ON THE TELEPHONE
A website visitor recently asked about negotiating on the telephone. It is something we all do, so perhaps you'll find these observations interesting:
Negotiating on the telephone is generally far less satisfying from a human standpoint than doing so face to face. We are deprived of the opportunity to observe the expressions and body language of the people with whom we are negotiating. For example, when we are face-to-face, we can observe whether the other person is looking us straight in the eye or is uncomfortable and avoiding eye contact.
Telephone negotiation is often most effective when it is a follow-up to in person conversations.
Nonetheless, negotiating on the telephone is more satisfying on a human level than doing so using letters, faxes, or email. At least on the telephone we can hear if someone is hesitating, we can listen for the tone of their voice. Written communications may have gone through several drafts; telephone conversations are less likely to follow a carefully-crafted script.
In order to negotiate effectively on the telephone we need to consider a few rules that also apply to face-to-face negotiation:
1. We should be well-prepared. It is a good idea to have a clear sense, or at least informed assumptions, about what interests are most important to ourselves and the person with whom we are negotiating. Doing a good job of homework can be crucial.
2. One of the worst things about telephone negotiation, and negotiation in general, is when we forget to pay attention to particular points. Thus, on the phone or in person, it makes excellent sense to have written notes prepared ahead of time which pinpoint significant issues we don't want to forget to discuss. Just this morning I had a telephone negotiation with a client for which the two of us had planned ahead. Yesterday, when I called him to set up today's conversation, we put together a list of things we planned to discuss. That gave us each time to gather relevant information in order to have a more efficient, and satisfactory conversation today.
3. One crucial rule of negotiation, to Listen Actively, is particularly important in telephone negotiations since sound is the only medium of communication involved. Don't interrupt the other party, don't spend your 'listening time' figuring out how you're going to 'zap' them when they finally stop talking. The better you listen, the better you can learn, and the more likely you will be able to respond in a way that improves the negotiation's result.
4. Don't let the immediacy of a telephone call force you into fast, unwise decisions. There is nothing wrong in saying to the other party something like, "What you have been saying has given me several things to think about. (a) I'm going to be quiet for a few moments to consider what you've said. or (b) Let me give it more serious consideration; I'll call you back by a certain time to continue our discussion."
LEARNING ELECTRONICALLY
Negotiation is a soft skill. While you can learn how to attach a widget to a wodget by watching a video, and while flight simulation software is extremely popular, in each of those cases there's normally only one right answer. Negotiation is not like that; you need to have the capacity to roll with punches, to modify your strategy or tactics when a new factor crops up.
On top of that, negotiation is a person-to-person activity, even when it takes place using the telephone, email, or sending letters to other parties. Most spouses will agree that there's no such thing as absolute predictability in human interaction; this certainly applies to negotiation.
Thus, we remain skeptical when we receive proposals from people who want to sell whole negotiation courses on videos, software, or over the Internet. Certain lessons and techniques may well lend themselves to electronic learning media, but developing or enhancing negotiation skills comes best with practice with real people.
TNSC is being courted to offer negotiation training electronically; what do you think?
UP IN THE AIR
In 1998, TNSC trainers were in the air for more than four hundred hours. That's nearly three full weeks off the ground. However, we have not yet been invited to go on a Space Shuttle mission to train multinational crews how to negotiate together.
AN IDEA TO KEEP IN MIND
"You can't count on negotiating everything all at once. Getting what you want may take more time than you think."
NEGOTIATION PHOBIA
A growing number of car dealerships advertise they offer a 'comfortable, no negotiations environment'. Should one infer from this that negotiation is bad for your health? Should people only be allowed to negotiate in designated areas, preferably outdoors and away from impressionable children?
That view makes no sense. We all negotiate throughout our lives. Infants know that a well-timed whimper can lead to a diaper change; as people age we learn that we don't get very much without asking for it. When we negotiate with our teenage children we are beginning to develop an adult way of relating to each other.
Negotiation is not another word for fighting. Negotiation is a process by which we exchange information in order to find ways to satisfy the interests of ourselves and others. We negotiate for many reasons: to solve problems, to get a good price, to reach agreement. When we have something at stake, negotiation processes are often the best ways to pursue a favorable solution.
So why are people afraid of negotiation? Are we afraid of not being perceived as 'good guys'? A couple of years ago as part of the much-needed process of redecorating our bedroom, my wife and I camped out for several days in our guest room. To our chagrin we discovered the bed in the guest room was awful. Yet for years none of our guests had said a word. I called one of my oldest friends, "Terry, how come you never told us how bad our guest bed is?" His response, "I didn't want to be a bad guy," probably reflects how most of us feel.
Negotiation is a rewarding way of interacting with people to whom we have something to offer -- and from whom we may have something to gain. It may be business, it may be simple courtesy in the neighborhood, it may be the thoughtfulness of letting a relative or friend know how another person responds to a lousy guest bed.
In negotiation, voicing a contrary or critical opinion is not 'being a bad guy'. People often appreciate a reality check from time to time. Just because one is expressing a different viewpoint doesn't mean instant warfare has to result. We need to appreciate differences in order to enjoy the fullness of human life.
When you go to buy a car, why should you be embarassed to let the salesperson know that the price that is being offered sounds inflated? If your office mate's choice in music drives you crazy, are you doing them a favor bottling up your resentment?
Businesses that play to what they perceive as the public's negotiation phobia are telling us that we can't make up our own minds, that we're wimps, that we haven't the capacity to make independent judgements.
We negotiate all the time. Giving a name to this universal human activity does not transmogrify it into a trial. Recognizing what we are doing is an important step towards achieving fulfilment of our rightful interests. Don't be afraid to negotiate. Be prepared and the process will be rewarding.
MARY ELLEN SHEA
In addition to winning the hearts and minds of many of our clients, Senior Trainer Mary Ellen Shea even triumphs over the weather. She recently presented a program in Houston, Texas in the midst of several days of major rain. When Mary Ellen arrived, the designated training venue was flooded -- and no one could tell her whether the program had been cancelled or even whether the materials which had been shipped to our client were submerged in the flooding. She found the location to which our client had been moved, and delivered a program that left the participants asking for more.
ON THE ROAD
By November first, my wife calculated I had spent more than 300 hours in the air in 1998; nearly two weeks without touching ground. TNSC brings our programs to our clients. Thus far we've presented negotiation skills training to people from more than thirty countries and from business sectors as diverse as healthcare and nuclear weapons manufacturing.
BOOSTER SHOT
An increasing number of our clients are taking advantage of 'Booster Shot' TNSC's follow-up program for alumni of our two-day training. While 'Fighting Fires Without Burning Bridges' changes participants' negotiation paradigm, Booster Shot presents an opportunity to review how interest-based negotiation actually works in real life. We explore the impact of the two-day program after the participants have used its lessons for six months or more. The reviews have been consistently positive; in fact one person actually attended two of his company's Booster Shots in a row.
TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES IN NEGOTIATION
or SHAKESPEARE WAS RIGHT
Recently we received a very interesting question from a financial services person in Arizona. When the initial question arrived, we had no indication of the business Maria was in. You may be interested in the correspondence that passed between us:
QUESTION:
I recently landed a great job with another company. Using a friend's advice, I included my total compensation as my salary on my application. Is this the norm in the industry? Also, when my company initially countered, I told the new job I was staying with my current employer because they offered me X amount (which was the total compensation as well). In the end, I chose the new job because while their base pay was lower, the total compensation was the same and the opportunities for long term career plans are better. Was I dishonest with my new employer or is this the way the "game is played"? The result of using this approach is that I'm actually getting a net 15% increase in my base salary. I must admit some concern that if they call my current employer, my old company could not validate what I represented as my leaving salary.
Maria
RESPONSE:
Dear Maria,
Thanks for your question. In general, it sounds as if you are feeling uncomfortable at having possibly misled your new employer about some elements of your compensation package at your old job and are concerned if the new folks ever check with the old ones. . .
Frankly since I don't know what industry you're describing, I don't know what the 'norms' are in that particular sector. However, if you were asked a direct question and gave an answer that was not accurate, there is always a risk of being found out. My father warned me about taking liberties with the truth by quoting this line from Shakespeare's 'Macbeth': "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."
If your new employer checks with your old employer and receives an answer which undercuts your veracity, that could spell trouble. Hopefully for you, the odds are against that happening.
Your own moral compass is the most crucial one to follow in negotiation, in business dealings, and in the rest of life.
One of the reasons I find your question so interesting is that I'm currently writing a doctorate on business ethics. Approximately 25% of the people interviewed for the doctorate indicated that they run into conflicts between their personal ethics and those in their workplace.
Good luck with the outcome and may your new employer find that the value you add more than justifies every element of your compensation package.
Steve
After this was sent to Maria, she sent two very interesting comments back. Here is the first:
Dear Steve,
Thanks so much for your response. It meant a lot to know you took the time to write me back. Good luck with your doctorate!
Maria
One day later, Maria sent the following note:
Dear Steve,
I just had to write you and give you this update.....
After much consideration, I begin feeling like I would always be in a "web of deception" at my new job....So, I decided to call them and tell them I would not be joining their team.
However, before I could call, the president of my company called me in and began to ask me what I would be doing, and that he felt I had a very good future with the firm.
So, he offered me a huge salary increase, a significant promotion, a retention bonus, a few thousand in stock options and more exposure to the technical side of things!!!!!!! Now, I think just deciding to be honest is rewarding enough.....but, this was all gravy to what I was feeling!!!!
So, you guessed it.....I'm staying with my original employer!!! Although I'll never look back on my decision, I have learned my lesson and thank you for your help!!!
Maria
There are many negotiation issues implicit in Maria's situation beyond the ethical factors. Do any readers have any comments on this situation? Would you like further analysis of Maria's experience looking at the negotiation techniques involved? I would appreciate your feedback very much.
A THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
If you approach negotiation with a chip on your shoulder, you are looking for trouble rather than cooperation.