Created at: 2024-12-20
7/10
I know zero about negotiation. At least technically.
This book is a good introduction for people like me as it goes through a lot of basic examples and common mistakes people make during negotiations.
The author provides some good points through anecdotes and past experiences. Some stories are entertaining, but one could say they make the book more unnecessarily verbose for the actual content in it.
In summary, this book reads more like the advice on a specialist, rather than a thorough scientific analysis of the subject. I think that this approach suits the topic well.
These are the main points, though their justifications are lacking.
There are fill-in-the-blank labels that can be used in nearly every situation
to extract information from your counterpart, or defuse an accusation:
There will be a small group of “What” and “How” questions that you will find
yourself using in nearly every situation. Here are a few of them:
QUESTIONS TO USE TO UNEARTH THE DEAL-KILLING ISSUES
I was employing what had become one of the FBI’s most potent negotiating
tools: the open-ended question.
(people place greater value on moving from 90 percent to 100 percent—high
probability to certainty—than from 45 percent to 55 percent, even though
they’re both ten percentage points).
One, separate the person—the emotion—from the problem; two, don’t get wrapped
up in the other side’s position (what they’re asking for) but instead focus
on their interests (why they’re asking for it) so that you can find what they
really want;
God knows aiming low is seductive. Self-esteem is a huge factor in
negotiation, and many people set modest goals to protect it. It’s easier to
claim victory when you aim low. That’s why some negotiation experts say that
many people who think they have “win-win” goals really have a “wimp-win”
mentality. The “wimp-win” negotiator focuses on his or her bottom line, and
that’s where they end up.
Decades of goal-setting research is clear that people who set specific,
challenging, but realistic goals end up getting better deals than those who
don’t set goals or simply strive to do their best.
There are fill-in-the-blank labels that can be used in nearly every situation
to extract information from your counterpart, or defuse an accusation:
It seems like _________ is valuable to you.
It seems like you don’t like _________.
It seems like you value __________.
It seems like _________ makes it easier.
It seems like you’re reluctant to _________.
As an example, if you’re trying to renegotiate an apartment lease to allow
subletters and you know the landlord is opposed to them, your prepared labels
would be on the lines of “It seems as though you’re not a fan of subletters”
or “It seems like you want stability with your tenants.”
Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling has a great quote that sums up this
concept: “You must accept the reality of other people. You think that reality
is up for negotiation, that we think it’s whatever you say it is. You must
accept that we are as real as you are; you must accept that you are not God.”
There will be a small group of “What” and “How” questions that you will find
yourself using in nearly every situation. Here are a few of them:
What are we trying to accomplish?
How is that worthwhile?
What’s the core issue here?
How does that affect things?
What’s the biggest challenge you face?
How does this fit into what the objective is?
QUESTIONS TO USE TO UNEARTH THE DEAL-KILLING ISSUES
What are we up against here?
What is the biggest challenge you face?
How does making a deal with us affect things?
What happens if you do nothing?
What does doing nothing cost you? How does making this deal resonate with
what your company prides itself on?
When deliberating on a negotiating strategy or approach, people tend to focus
all their energies on what to say or do, but it’s how we are (our general
demeanor and delivery) that is both the easiest thing to enact and the most
immediately effective mode of influence. Our brains don’t just process and
understand the actions and words of others but their feelings and intentions
too, the social meaning of their behavior and their emotions. On a mostly
unconscious level, we can understand the minds of others not through any kind
of thinking but through quite literally grasping what the other is feeling.
That’s why your most powerful tool in any verbal communication is your voice.
You can use your voice to intentionally reach into someone’s brain and flip
an emotional switch. Distrusting to trusting. Nervous to calm. In an instant,
the switch will flip just like that with the right delivery.
There are essentially three voice tones available to negotiators: the
late-night FM DJ voice, the positive/playful voice, and the direct or
assertive voice. Forget the assertive voice for now; except in very rare
circumstances, using it is like slapping yourself in the face while you’re
trying to make progress. You’re signaling dominance onto your counterpart,
who will either aggressively, or passive-aggressively, push back against
attempts to be controlled. Most of the time, you should be using the
positive/playful voice. It’s the voice of an easygoing, good-natured person.
Your attitude is light and encouraging. The key here is to relax and smile
while you’re talking. A smile, even while talking on the phone, has an impact
tonally that the other person will pick up on.
Talking slowly and clearly you convey one idea: I’m in control. When you
inflect in an upward way, you invite a response. Why? Because you’ve brought
in a measure of uncertainty. You’ve made a statement sound like a question.
You’ve left the door open for the other guy to take the lead, so I was
careful here to be quiet, self-assured.
You can be very direct and to the point as long as you create safety by a
tone of voice that says I’m okay, you’re okay, let’s figure things out.
It’s almost laughably simple: for the FBI, a “mirror” is when you repeat the
last three words (or the critical one to three words) of what someone has
just said. Of the entirety of the FBI’s hostage negotiation skill set,
mirroring is the closest one gets to a Jedi mind trick. Simple, and yet
uncannily effective. By repeating back what people say, you trigger this
mirroring instinct and your counterpart will inevitably elaborate on what was
just said and sustain the process of connecting. Psychologist Richard Wiseman
created a study using waiters to identify what was the more effective method
of creating a connection with strangers: mirroring or positive reinforcement.
One group of waiters, using positive reinforcement, lavished praise and
encouragement on patrons using words such as “great,” “no problem,” and
“sure” in response to each order. The other group of waiters mirrored their
customers simply by repeating their orders back to them. The results were
stunning: the average tip of the waiters who mirrored was 70 percent more
than of those who used positive reinforcement.
I only half-jokingly refer to mirroring as magic or a Jedi mind trick because
it gives you the ability to disagree without being disagreeable.
If you take a pit bull approach with another pit bull, you generally end up
with a messy scene and lots of bruised feelings and resentment. Luckily,
there’s another way without all the mess. It’s just four simple steps:
1.Use the late-night FM DJ voice.
2.Start with “I’m sorry . . .”
3.Mirror.
4.Silence. At least four seconds, to let the mirror work its magic on your counterpart.
5.Repeat.
The intention behind most mirrors should be “Please, help me understand.”
Ask someone, “What do you mean by that?” and you’re likely to incite
irritation or defensiveness. A mirror, however, will get you the clarity you
want while signaling respect and concern for what the other person is saying.
Mirrors work magic. Repeat the last three words (or the critical one to three
words) of what someone has just said. We fear what’s different and are drawn
to what’s similar. Mirroring is the art of insinuating similarity, which
facilitates bonding. Use mirrors to encourage the other side to empathize and
bond with you, keep people talking, buy your side time to regroup, and
encourage your counterparts to reveal their strategy.
Labeling is a way of validating someone’s emotion by acknowledging it. Give
someone’s emotion a name and you show you identify with how that person
feels.
Labeling is a helpful tactic in de-escalating angry confrontations, because
it makes the person acknowledge their feelings rather than continuing to act
out.
The reasons why a counterpart will not make an agreement with you are often
more powerful than why they will make a deal, so focus first on clearing the
barriers to agreement. Denying barriers or negative influences gives them
credence; get them into the open.
List the worst things that the other party could say about you and say them
before the other person can. Performing an accusation audit in advance
prepares you to head off negative dynamics before they take root. And because
these accusations often sound exaggerated when said aloud, speaking them will
encourage the other person to claim that quite the opposite is true.
I’ll let you in on a secret. There are actually three kinds of “Yes”:
Counterfeit, Confirmation, and Commitment. A counterfeit “yes” is one in
which your counterpart plans on saying “no” but either feels “yes” is an
easier escape route or just wants to disingenuously keep the conversation
going to obtain more information or some other kind of edge. A confirmation
“yes” is generally innocent, a reflexive response to a black-or-white
question; it’s sometimes used to lay a trap but mostly it’s just simple
affirmation with no promise of action. And a commitment “yes” is the real
deal; it’s a true agreement that leads to action, a “yes” at the table that
ends with a signature on the contract. The commitment “yes” is what you want,
but the three types sound almost the same so you have to learn how to
recognize which one is being used.
I tell my students that, if you’re trying to sell something, don’t start with
“Do you have a few minutes to talk?” Instead ask, “Is now a bad time to
talk?” Either you get “Yes, it is a bad time” followed by a good time or a
request to go away, or you get “No, it’s not” and total focus.
Good negotiators welcome—even invite—a solid “No” to start, as a sign that
the other party is engaged and thinking. Gun for a “Yes” straight off the
bat, though, and your counterpart gets defensive, wary, and skittish. That’s
why I tell my students that, if you’re trying to sell something, don’t start
with “Do you have a few minutes to talk?” Instead ask, “Is now a bad time to
talk?” Either you get “Yes, it is a bad time” followed by a good time or a
request to go away, or you get “No, it’s not” and total focus.
Saying “No” makes the speaker feel safe, secure, and in control, so
trigger it. By saying what they don’t want, your counterpart defines their
space and gains the confidence and comfort to listen to you. That’s why “Is
now a bad time to talk?” is always better than “Do you have a few minutes to
talk?”
“That’s right” is better than “yes.” Strive for it. Reaching “that’s right”
in a negotiation creates breakthroughs. Use a summary to trigger a
“that’s right.” The building blocks of a good summary are a label combined
with paraphrasing. Identify, rearticulate, and emotionally affirm “the world
according to . . .”
A woman wants her husband to wear black shoes with his suit. But her husband
doesn’t want to; he prefers brown shoes. So what do they do? They compromise,
they meet halfway.
To make my point on compromise, let me paint you an example: A woman wants
her husband to wear black shoes with his suit. But her husband doesn’t want
to; he prefers brown shoes. So what do they do? They compromise, they meet
halfway. And, you guessed it, he wears one black and one brown shoe. Is this
the best outcome? No! In fact, that’s the worst possible outcome. Either of
the two other outcomes—black or brown—would be better than the compromise.
Next time you want to compromise, remind yourself of those mismatched shoes.
Time is one of the most crucial variables in any negotiation. The simple
passing of time and its sharper cousin, the deadline, are the screw that
pressures every deal to a conclusion.
Deadlines are often arbitrary, almost always flexible, and hardly ever
trigger the consequences we think—or are told—they will.
It’s not just with hostage negotiations that deadlines can play into your
hands. Car dealers are prone to give you the best price near the end of the
month, when their transactions are assessed.
Moore discovered that when negotiators tell their counterparts about their
deadline, they get better deals. It’s true. First, by revealing your cutoff
you reduce the risk of impasse. And second, when an opponent knows your
deadline, he’ll get to the real deal- and concession-making more quickly.
I’ve got one final point to make before we move on: Deadlines are almost
never ironclad. What’s more important is engaging in the process and having a
feel for how long that will take. You may see that you have more to
accomplish than time will actually allow before the clock runs out.
In the Ultimatum Game, years of experience has shown me that most accepters
will invariably reject any offer that is less than half of the proposer’s
money. Once you get to a quarter of the proposer’s money you can forget it
and the accepters are insulted. Most people make an irrational choice to let
the dollar slip through their fingers rather than to accept a derisory offer,
because the negative emotional value of unfairness outweighs the positive
rational value of the money.
Negotiations were getting down to the wire and the NFL Players Association
(NFLPA) said that before they agreed to a final deal they wanted the owners
to open their books. The owners’ answer? “We’ve given the players a fair
offer.” Notice the horrible genius of this: instead of opening their books or
declining to do so, the owners shifted the focus to the NFLPA’s supposed lack
of understanding of fairness. If you find yourself in this situation, the
best reaction is to simply mirror the “F” that has just been lobbed at you.
“Fair?” you’d respond, pausing to let the word’s power do to them as it was
intended to do to you. Follow that with a label: “It seems like you’re ready
to provide the evidence that supports that,” which alludes to opening their
books or otherwise handing over information that will either contradict their
claim to fairness or give you more data to work with than you had previously.
Right away, you declaw the attack.
The last use of the F-word is my favorite because it’s positive and
constructive. It sets the stage for honest and empathetic negotiation. Here’s
how I use it: Early on in a negotiation, I say, “I want you to feel like you
are being treated fairly at all times. So please stop me at any time if you
feel I’m being unfair, and we’ll address it.” It’s simple and clear and sets
me up as an honest dealer. With that statement, I let people know it is okay
to use that word with me if they use it honestly. As a negotiator, you should
strive for a reputation of being fair. Your reputation precedes you. Let it
precede you in a way that paves success.
let me leave you with a crucial lesson about loss aversion: In a tough
negotiation, it’s not enough to show the other party that you can deliver the
thing they want. To get real leverage, you have to persuade them that they
have something concrete to lose if the deal falls through.
When confronted with naming your terms or price, counter by recalling a
similar deal which establishes your “ballpark,” albeit the best possible
ballpark you wish to be in. Instead of saying, “I’m worth $110,000,” Jerry
might have said, “At top places like X Corp., people in this job get between
$130,000 and $170,000.”
In a recent study,4 Columbia Business School psychologists found that job
applicants who named a range received significantly higher overall salaries
than those who offered a number, especially if their range was a “bolstering
range,” in which the low number in the range was what they actually wanted.
Understand, if you offer a range (and it’s a good idea to do so) expect them
to come in at the low end.
The biggest thing to remember is that numbers that end in 0 inevitably feel
like temporary placeholders, guesstimates that you can easily be negotiated
off of. But anything you throw out that sounds less rounded—say,
$37,263—feels like a figure that you came to as a result of thoughtful
calculation. Such numbers feel serious and permanent to your counterpart, so
use them to fortify your offers.
The F-word—“Fair”—is an emotional term people usually exploit to put the
other side on the defensive and gain concessions. When your counterpart drops
the F-bomb, don’t get suckered into a concession. Instead, ask them to
explain how you’re mistreating them.
Approaching deadlines entice people to rush the negotiating process and do
impulsive things that are against their best interests.
First off, calibrated questions avoid verbs or words like “can,” “is,” “are,”
“do,” or “does.” These are closed-ended questions that can be answered with a
simple “yes” or a “no.” Instead, they start with a list of words people know
as reporter’s questions: “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” “why,” and “how.”
Those words inspire your counterpart to think and then speak expansively. But
let me cut the list even further: it’s best to start with “what,” “how,” and
sometimes “why.” Nothing else. “Who,” “when,” and “where” will often just get
your counterpart to share a fact without thinking. And “why” can backfire.
Regardless of what language the word “why” is translated into, it’s
accusatory. There are very rare moments when this is to your advantage. The
only time you can use “why” successfully is when the defensiveness that is
created supports the change you are trying to get them to see. “Why would you
ever change from the way you’ve always done things and try my approach?” is
an example. “Why would your company ever change from your long-standing
vendor and choose our company?” is another. As always, tone of voice,
respectful and deferential, is critical.
Having just two words to start with might not seem like a lot of ammunition,
but trust me, you can use “what” and “how” to calibrate nearly any question.
“Does this look like something you would like?” can become “How does this
look to you?” or “What about this works for you?” You can even ask, “What
about this doesn’t work for you?” and you’ll probably trigger quite a bit of
useful information from your counterpart.
Here are some other great standbys that I use in almost every negotiation,
depending on the situation:
- What about this is important to you?
- How can I help to make this better for us?
- How would you like me to proceed?
- What is it that brought us into this situation?
- How can we solve this problem?
- What’s the objective? / What are we trying to accomplish here?
- How am I supposed to do that?
The implication of any well-designed calibrated question is that you want
what the other guy wants but you need his intelligence to overcome the
problem. This really appeals to very aggressive or egotistical counterparts.
You’ve not only implicitly asked for help—triggering goodwill and less
defensiveness—but you’ve engineered a situation in which your formerly
recalcitrant counterpart is now using his mental and emotional resources to
overcome your challenges. It is the first step in your counterpart
internalizing your way—and the obstacles in it—as his own. And that guides
the other party toward designing a solution. Your solution. Think back to how
the doctor used calibrated questions to get his patient to stay. As his story
showed, the key to getting people to see things your way is not to confront
them on their ideas (“You can’t leave”) but to acknowledge their ideas openly
(“I understand why you’re pissed off”) and then guide them toward solving the
problem (“What do you hope to accomplish by leaving?”).