PART II: Winning At Negotiations

The Ability

The main purpose of this project was to model two master negotiators who have outstanding reputations in their professions. Time and again, these two individuals have been called in to negotiate or mediate difficult situations. Although the two individuals are from two very different professions, the modeling process detected significant patterns indicating overlap.

The ability to defuse a hostile situation is a useful tool. Furthermore, negotiating one's interests, beliefs, or position is a daily occurrence. Most individuals negotiate for salary, price on cars, homes, or other items and few people are tough negotiators. Many people walk away from a negotiating session thinking that they could have done better. Thus, negotiating is a life-long skill.

This model is broken down into two parts:

PART ONE: PRE-NEGOTIATION STAGE

PART TWO: NEGOTIATION STAGE

This model assumes that you have gone through the PART I: Negotiation Readiness Model. Please go to that model first before proceeding with this one.

 Exemplars

The first individual modeled was a clergyman. He has had significant interaction with prominent individuals, politicians, and statesmen around the world. He is often called to mediate crises on large and small scale. This individual was modeled in three ways: first, through first-hand observation of his interactions with others; second, through second hand anecdotal reports about his interactions with others; and third, from two experiential observations of his interactions with the modeler in a negotiating format. However,this individual was not aware that he was being modeled and (in all probability - would not have cooperated with the modeling process.)

The second individual modeled is a professional labor negotiator and lawyer. He has a national reputation and frequently travels as a lawyer, negotiator, and troubleshooter. This individual was modeled in a three-hour cooperative session and in several live negotiation sessions that the modeler was allowed to observe. This individual was interested in the project, extremely cooperative, open, and helpful.

Beliefs Criterial Equivalence

The most significant criterion culled was that ofWinning.

For Exemplar one, the criterial equivalence was: both sides have to leave the scene thinking that:

a) they were the winners in the dispute,

b) their side was totally correct, and [in a case of negotiating on behalf of others]

c) their clergyman is in total agreement with their position. Exemplar one sincerely and convincingly conveys to the individual the impression that he fully agrees with everything that has been said by the individual. With an incredible use of rapport skills, individual one convinces - at separate times - even diametrically opposed individuals that he totally agrees with them. One anecdotal comment bears witness to this process, "Every single person in his congregation thinks that he [the clergyman] is in total support with his own beliefs". In a recent argument, individual one managed to be on three different sides of a two sided argument as well as giving the impression that he was above, beyond, and impervious to the argument when - in truth - this was not the case. Always the person to land on his feet, all parties in the dispute knew that their clergyman agreed secretly with their own position.

Exemplar two offered different definitions of winning at different times:

a) my opponent leaves bleeding but smiling,

b) my opponent leaves smiling,

c) my opponent leaves feeling good about the process but I will have destroyed them. Exemplar two claims that he is a win-win individual but personally employs imagery of a Western gunfighter, pit bull, or hired gun whose job it is to destroy the other side. When questioned about the seeming contradiction, he claims that the imagery is just bravado but he gives the impression that his winning is far more important than a win-win situation.

The main criterial equivalence to the negotiating stage is knowing what will enable my opponent to feel good enough about themselves to be able to end the negotiations thinking that they have gotten enough.

Enabling Cause-Effects

The Enabling Cause-Effect wasthe degree to which both individuals put themselves into the shoes of the party that they were negotiating with.

Exemplar one spends a great deal of time convincing the parties (separately) that he fully agrees with their position and sees things entirely their way. He is very careful with his language however because he never actually says it. However, his comments are entirely supportive and he may (carefully) put down the opposite side.

Exemplar two puts himself in the opponents position by asking himself what they would do in these circumstances.

Motivating Cause-Effects

Both exemplar motivating cause effect is ego. Exemplar one is able to proclaim that only he was able to solve a complex problem; this drives him to succeed. Exemplar two wants to succeed for monetary reward, reputation as a negotiator in the field, and to attract new clients.

Surrounding Beliefs

The most important belief that each exemplar brought forth is thatthey know they they are successful negotiators.In the office of exemplar one are three full walls of pictures of himself with Presidents, Prime Ministers, Governors, and other leaders. Plaques, proclamations, and testimonials fill every nook and cranny. These walls serve as a constant visual anchor to his connections and importance. Although I did not get to visit the office of the second individual, he clearly enjoys and portrays a successful lifestyle, always power dressing and conscious at all times of his visual effect upon others. He enjoys - with a flourish - stylish clothes, gold frequent flyer first class status as a traveler, and driving late model status cars. He sees himself as a hired gun in the mode of the Western of years gone by.

These two individuals are both fully conscious of their status as accomplished negotiators. They enter the arena with an incredible reservoir of past experiences and successes. These experiences serve as an anchor that enables them to proceed in difficult negotiations. Both individuals act as if the present negotiation is run of the mill, ordinary, and nothing to get excited about.

Another shared pattern is that both individual one and individual two do not trust either side in an argument to tell them the truth. They experience the world in a way that they believe that both sides in a dispute, just like them, do not honestly reveal either their true feelings or their true bottom line. Individual one believes that in any given situation, his command of the facts is better than any of the parties. Individual two believes that even the party that has hired him may withhold vital information from him. Both proceed with the belief that either party may be lying.

Strategies Test

Both exemplars test to find out when the party that they are negotiating with feels good enough about the results to be able to end the negotiating and still not violate their own criteria of winning. Negotiations can take two formsWin/LoseorWin/Win. Both exemplars need to get both a positive feeling from the other party and a sense ofWinning. If these two conflict, the more important one is the sense ofWinning.

The test here is Auditory External (listening to the other party) and callibrating this. There is an additional test of Auditory Internal (Saying "what will people say about these results") and Kinesthetic ("Do I get a positive feeling about these results.") Since a lot of negotiations take place over the phone, a visual test is secondary. However, a modeling session revealed Exemplar one very carefully monitors his opponent visually for miniscule clues.

Primary Operation

1. Establish credibility in the negotiations. Let the opponent know exactly who they are negotiating with.

2. Understand that all early offers from both sides in negotiations are not realistic.

3. Be uncompromising where you need to be but not necessarily antagonistic or confrontational.

4. As negotiations proceed, ask the question, "Are they bluffing or are they serious?"

5. Test stage: Put yourself in the position of your opponent. (See things through their eyes.) Determine if their position is what they are really looking for.

 Secondary Operations

WHAT DO EXEMPLARS DO WHEN THE CRITERION IS NOT BEING SUFFICIENTLY SATISFIED?

Both exemplars believe that delay is an important tactic for negotiations. If the criteria is not being sufficiently satisfied, it is a sign that negotiations are moving too fast and delay is needed.

When negotiating between two parties, exemplar one will feign working to "get something" for the person he is negotiating with. He will blame theother sidefor his inability to get anything additional. He will state (quite confidentially) that he believes that the other party is being totally unreasonable but that he understands that the person he is working with will take the "higher moral ground". Whatever he gets in negotiations he will take credit for and whatever he can not get he will blame on the other party. So when he gets stuck, he will move away from his real-life negotiating position and move to a moral position.

Exemplar two will make comments like "It's actually better for me if you don't settle now because I get paid no matter what and I need a new Jaguar." He will also try to educate his opponent about the merits of the situation and provide them with "objective information" about their position.

WHAT DO EXEMPLARS DO WHEN THE CRITERION IS NOT AT ALL BEING SATISFIED?

This part is actually very interesting. During negotiations, if the exemplars can not get what they want they lose their tempers. Both exemplars do this with regularity.

Exemplar one, who was indirectly modeled, did this in the modeler's presence many times. In fact, people are afraid to disagree with him for fear of setting off this temper. Although he is doing it for effect, he really gets into the part. He raises his voice. He screams and bullies. It usually works. Exemplar one begins to believe that he really is angry and it takes him a long time to calm down.

Exemplar two is deliberately doing it for effect and hoping to get the parties back to the negotiating table. He always carries a Mont Blanc power pen with him that costs several hundred dollars and and some point will deliberately loose his temper and throw the pen. Since he is throwing a valuable pen, people think that he is really angry when in fact he is just posturing. His only goal is to bring about a change in position.

WHAT DO EXEMPLARS DO WHEN IT DOES NOT SEEM POSSIBLE TO SATISFY THE CRITERION?

Exemplar one will walk away from the negotiations. To each of the parties, he will blame the other party and offer his sympathies.

Exemplar two will deal with the case in court or mediation. He uses this as a threat sometimes to get people back to the table.

Emotions Sustaining Emotion

Both exemplars projectabsolute confidencein their skills as negotiators. This emotion ofconfidence/certaintyis the key sustaining emotion.

External Behavior

Again, in the area of external behaviors, some patterns emerged. One external behavior that both employ is pacing during discussions. Both pay incredible attention to minimal audio cues but do not pay as much attention to visual cues. Both keep up a semi-continuous stream of boasting comments during discussions to keep the propulsion system going. Exemplar one makes alternating self deprecatory or boasting remarks during the discussions. Exemplar two will remark during discussions that he personally hopes both sides don't settle their lawsuit because he needs a new Jaguar anyway. Tone: Both exemplars reported that the tone was conversational. "Keep it light, crack a few jokes, ask about family, business, talk about sports." The tone remains constant except for purposes of theatrics. Never do any yelling on the phone. It's wasted. Clients do not see how you talk. Posture: Sitting is common but both exemplars did a good deal of pacing. Use of a speakerphone was seen as arrogant and impertinent. Eye Closure was a common factor. "When I close my eyes I draw a mental picture of what this guy looks like." [Real or imaginary].

Contributing Factors

There are a number of factors to the negotiation model that are worthy of mention. The exemplars believe that there is a distinct difference between early negotiations and late negotiations. In early negotiations, the exemplars believe that both parties are not realistic and therefore engage in stalling. As deadlines approach, both parties become realistic. One can learn from here that delay and deliberate procrastination are tools of a good negotiator. One should also not hesitate to allude to a deadline, real or imaginary, for one's own purposes.

An essential element of successful negotiation is doing the homework in advance on the negotiations. Both exemplars do a considerable amount of behind the scenes work researching the positions and negotiating strategies of their opponents. They spend time looking for patterns and then build their own positions. The positions that they initially build are false. These are called "give-aways". The purpose of a give-aways is to give up something that is not of real importance. Since winning is the bottom line, other people and positions can be sacrificed toward the cause of winning. When negotiating, it is very important to be able to distinguish between what is real and significant and what is important. One of the exemplars said that that it is important to be clear on the question of "Are we bluffing or are we serious."

Another concept employed was the imagery of the "steel hand in the velvet glove". The point of negotiations is to win and therefore firmness is important. However, despite the need and goal of winning, it is important that this message be as polished as possible. Dressing appropriately is a significant factor for exemplar two. For serious negotiations, a dark suit & power tie are necessary items. In addition, this exemplar always wears shirts with French cuffs so that at some point he can remove his jacket and have everyone see his fancy shirt with the gleaming cufflinks. He never asks if he can remove his jacket because it's hot for this would mean that he is hot. Instead he asks, "Can we get comfortable in here?"

Significant Elements

Ecological Concerns

There are a number of elements of this model that are very difficult for many people to employ. This model, to this point has employed lying and deceit as necessary elements of this model. An early question that arose was if, in fact, these elements are necessary?

Case One: One individual went into a salary negotiation scenario and decided to adopt the model to its fullest extent. However, the person was not comfortable with the lying and dishonesty. The person chose a metaphor of getting dressed (even donning cufflinks and a power tie) and dressed himself in the role of negotiator. The person actually saw himself getting dressed putting on the outfit of a negotiator and later took that outfit off once again. During the negotiations, the person threw a temper-tantrum and it had its desired affect. The person got everything that he wanted in the negotiation but wondered at what cost ethically. The salary had been essentially agreed to at the outset of the negotiating process but at the end, the company agreed to pay an additional $20,000.

Case Two: An individual went into a negotiating meeting and read through the notes of the modeling of the two exemplars. This individual totally rejected some of the objectionable elements of the model - namely the deceit and the temper tantrum. However, the person did adopt the essential elements of the model and most of the techniques mentioned. The key to the negotiations was the adoption of the belief templates listed aboveand knowing their bottom line in advance. However, all elements of deceit and the criterial equivalence of "leave them bleeding / leave them smiling" were disregarded. The criterial equivalence of "getting paid what I am worth" was substituted. Of all of the techniques used, the most significant was the manipulation of time. This person avoided responding to offers and procrastinated returning phone calls and each time came up with a legitimate and truthful excuse. Eventually, the person imposed a deadline and the otherside gave in. The person ended up negotiating a salary increase of $35,000. This example showed the dishonesty is not an integral element of the model.

Case Three: An individual going into a negotiation relating to salary was informed about the negotiating model. She rejected the compromising on ethics suggested by the model. Instead, she focused on the belief that she could handle the negotiations and that she was competent to do the work desired and went into a major procrastination (delay) mode. During the negotiations she made comments such as "this company needs to decide whether they are going to act on excellence or just talk about it." After talking back and forth for a few weeks, she got the salary she wanted because she had done her homework and knew that the company could pay it.

Acquisition

This section will be both a step by step guide to negotiating according to this model and the aquisition process. Italics refer to the aquisition process.

This section combines elements that appeared in Part I: Negotiation Readiness Model.

1. Before beginning any negotiations, one has to know your own bottom line. This information can be obtained only after a comprehensive examination of a number of factors that are dependent on each unique situation. So far, this model has been used with great effectiveness on issues relating to salary negotiations. Research into what comparable positions pay, what other people have been offered for the job, the ability of the company to pay, and how badly they need you for the job are all significant factors.Knowing the bottom line applies to both sides of the negotiations. In addition to knowing your own bottom line, you need to find out the bottom line of the opposition.This involves extensive work and may include talking to present and/or former employees or acquaintances of the opposition. Serious work and study can not be bypassed.In addition to finding out what the dollars and cents issue involved in the negotiations are, it is also necessary to find out what other unstated issues are on the table or lurking beneath.The more information you find the better position you will be in during the negotiations. One can not begin negotiations without this information. It is important to procrastinate entering the negotiations until you have this information.

2. The next step is toprepare your starting position and build on it. The exemplars studied believe in "give aways". This means you have to take the position of something that you really don't expect to get and to act as if this is what you really want. At this point it is important for you to define what you mean by winning this negotiation. Is it getting what you want in vindication of a position or do you want to hurt the opposition in the process. This enables you to complete the array in a way that is ethically fit for you. It is important to note that accepting the Criterial Equivalence (as described in 'Beliefs' above) will almost inevitably lead to ethical compromises on your part.

3. Having done your homework, determined your position, created your give always and prepared your moral framework for negotiating, you are ready to enter the arena. Some important points to consider:

a) always put off making a decision or responding to a proposal,

b) delay setting dates for meetings,

c) work on rapport skills when meetings do take place.

d) assume that your opponent is being equally dishonest in his staking out his position.

4. Dress appropriately for the negotiations. Dress for impact. The researcher dressed for his own negotiations in the same way that the exemplar dressed, even to the point of wearing French cuffs with shiny cufflinks. Whether or not there was an effect on the negotiation can not be told specifically. However, it was a powerful anchor.

5. Be extremely conscientious about tone, body language, and emotions. Use all of them with deliberation and do not hesitate to manipulate all of them for maximum effect. As indicated in this outline, when your opponent offers a "low ball" position, build towards losing your temper. Sarcastic comments about how their ridiculous positions benefits you may be helpful. When you do lose your temper for effect, you may not do so more than one time in a negotiation process. To do so more frequently is to give advance notice that this is one of your techniques and it will lose its effect.

6. Stick to the position you created and listen for the possibilities that you will be able to:

a) get what you really want,

b) give your opponent what they want,

c) be prepared for the possibility that your opponents stated desire and his real desire may be two different things.

7. Above all, believe that you can succeed in this negotiation. Make liberal use of anchors. Step out of the picture. Think of how a master negotiator would say it and respond accordingly. Remove yourself from a position of personal reference to informational. What would you say if you were the outside consultant. Get feedback on your performance. Get feedback and head back in to the negotiations determined to win.