The Intelligent Negotiator (10 page)

People who are frustrated often interlock their fingers and wring their hands in a way that is painful to watch. They may grip the tabletop or the armrests on their chairs tightly. They might also bite their lip or run their fingers through their hair. Impatient people are likely to drum their fingers on the table or look frequently at their watches. As bargainers become interested in what is being said, they may move slightly forward in the chair—even so far forward that they actually place their elbows on the table in front of them.

How your counterparts respond nonverbally to new offers can be especially telling. If opponents are wholly dissatisfied with new positions, they usually respond with quick rejections and negative facial expressions. On the other hand, counterparts who are actually interested in new offers are likely to lean forward and stroke their chins, play with their glasses, or look at their notes. Even when they plan to reject the new offers, they may want to do so in an affirmative manner to keep the process going. Formulating a new, more positive rejection statement may take them ten to fifteen seconds, thus they stroke their chins, play with their glasses, and/or look at their notes to cover up the pregnant pause. When you make new offers, you should be aware of the time opponents
need to respond to your position changes. When opponents begin to take longer to reply, you should suspect that they are more interested than their subsequent verbal messages may indicate.

Signs of confidence are clear indications that your counterpart believes things are progressing well. For example, he or she may engage in “steepling”—hands pressed together with fingers uplifted or together with fingers loosely interlocked and with elbows out to each side in an expansive manner. Experts pontificating on television talk shows frequently exhibit this behavior. Some individuals exhibit confidence by leaning back in their chairs with their hands behind their heads. This signal is far more likely to emanate from men than from women. When men exhibit this behavior while interacting with women, it is not only a sign of confidence but also an indication of perceived domination. Women who negotiate with male opponents exhibiting this posture should recognize this, and not be too generous.

Individuals who are eager about bargaining discussions may actually rub their hands together in an anticipatory manner. On the other hand, people who feel they are being verbally assaulted by aggressive opponents may hold their hands in front of themselves with their palms facing outward. They are symbolically—but ineffectively—trying to block the verbal onslaught coming from their adversaries.

When individuals wish to look sincere, such as when making “final offers,” they may consciously or subconsciously place the palm of one hand over their heart. They may also hold out their hands with their palms facing outward to demonstrate symbolically that they have nothing to hide. When individuals attempt to fake these signals in an effort to fool naive opponents, they usually
appear wooden and unnatural. If you ever have the sense that such signs are invalid, trust your intuition; it is probably based on the fact the nonverbal signs do not seem credible.

Individuals who sit with their arms folded across their chest and with their legs crossed indicate a lack of receptivity to what they hear. When the arms are folded high on the chest and one leg is crossed with the ankle on the knee of the other, this is a very competitive or combative posture, suggesting that the person is ready to do battle. Standing or sitting with hands on the hips is another combative posture. On the other hand, arms crossed low across the chest and one leg draped over the other suggests a more defensive posture. Both poses, however, represent an unreceptive attitude. These closed positions basically say, “Prove it.” When you initially encounter such postures, take the time to greet those displaying them warmly with a nice handshake, since this will force them to unfold their arms. You might additionally hand them written materials that will similarly compel them to assume a more open posture.

Individuals who find it difficult to believe what you are saying may casually rub one eye with one or two fingers. When you encounter such a nonverbal response to a truthful statement, restate what you just said. You may also support the questioned statement with corroborative factual information.

Eye contact can be especially informative. Some individuals stare intently at negotiating counterparts when bargaining begins, suggesting that they are highly competitive people who are ready to do battle. On rare occasions, the staring may be so intense that it is intimidating or even threatening. Other people make warm eye contact that says they optimistically anticipate mutually beneficial
discussions. People who make good eye contact when speaking tend to look far more truthful than individuals who rarely look into the eyes of others.

Identify Outright Lies and Other Deceptions

In his classic book
Telling Lies,
³
Paul Ekman asserts that when people lie they experience stress, and that stress can be detected from their nonverbal signs. Signs of such stress include arms and legs moving more rapidly than usual, more frequent eye blinking, a higher pitched voice, frequent clearing of the throat, and increased speech errors (stuttering, repeating phrases, or trailing off without completing the entire thought being expressed).

Most of us have been raised to believe that lying is reprehensible. As a result, when we begin to distort the truth, we sometimes involuntarily place a hand over our mouth as if we are subconsciously trying to hold in the lie we know is morally wrongful. Many of us shake our heads slowly when dishonestly saying yes and meaning no, or nod our head slowly when saying no and meaning yes.

What conduct might liars use to enhance the believability of their planned misrepresentations? Beware when you hear such signal phrases as “to be truthful” or “to be candid.” Such phrases are designed to induce you to listen more intently to the lie they are about to utter. Statements following such expressions are likely to be anything but truthful or candid! Persons trying to look more credible may obviously decrease their gross body movement to look less fidgety or deliberately look into the eyes of people with whom they have not made good eye
contact. They may speak more slowly to be certain their opponents hear them.

When you have the sense your opponents are not being candid, ask yourself whether you have observed any of these signs. Review the other objective information you have to determine whether that contradicts what you have just been told. When negotiating, learn to trust your feelings. You will usually do better when you are paying attention to nonverbal messages.

M
ORE
T
ECHNIQUES FOR
I
NFORMATION
R
ETRIEVAL

Your most important task during the information exchange is to gather information. The best way to elicit information is simple:
Ask a lot of questions.
When people talk in response to your questions, they divulge both direct and indirect pieces of information.
Direct
information is what is expressly stated, such as “My budget for this item is $x.”
Indirect
information is implicit from what is said as well as what is not said. Indirect information also includes factual matters hinted about by negotiators and information that may be surmised because of the other side’s unwillingness to address certain matters. For instance, if you ask several specific questions pertaining to particular areas and your adversaries keep changing the subject in an obvious effort to avoid answering your inquiries, you may reasonably suspect that the true answers, if given, would favor your side.

Once you think you have gleaned enough general information from your counterparts to move ahead, use more specific questions to confirm your current understandings.
Restate the responses you think you have received from them, so they can confirm, modify, or reject your interpretations of their prior statements. In some instances, counterparts may use blocking techniques to avoid direct responses to your specific questions—ignoring them, misinterpreting them, or otherwise trying to change the subject. Don’t allow them to use evasive behavior to deny you the information you deserve. Whenever adversaries refuse to fully answer your questions, restate and ask again.

Keep in mind that if you plan to listen and watch your counterparts as carefully as possible during the information exchange, try to take as few notes as possible. When you look at your notes or write down comments in your notes, you miss much of what is being “said” verbally and nonverbally. It is difficult to read and listen at the same time. It is virtually impossible to write and listen simultaneously. Even when we think we are concentrating on what other people are saying, we do not understand all of their signals. We are thinking about what was said a minute earlier and what we should say next, and therefore miss what is being said at that very moment.

The next stage of your negotiations will be value claiming. Many negotiators make the mistake of rushing the information exchange to get into Stage Two (which I’ll cover in
chapter 5
). Although you may be tempted to do so, don’t. You need a thorough information exchange to truly evaluate and structure an intelligent deal. If you discuss the concessions you are willing to make before having all the basic information to formulate a beneficial accord, you will lose out. Make sure you take the time to have a comprehensive information exchange. If you think opponents possess additional information that may be helpful, ask more questions. When you do not receive direct answers, ask the questions again. There is no limit
on questions. If you suspect you haven’t been given all the information, ask more questions.

Here is a good example of what can happen when you don’t ask enough questions. In my classes I present the following negotiation exercise, based on a real case: The plaintiff sustains several broken bones in an automobile accident, which appear to have healed. When the defense attorney has a physician examine the plaintiff to enable him to testify as an expert witness for the defense, the doctor discovers a life-threatening aneurism on the plaintiff’s aorta.

I have had thousands of practicing lawyers work on this exercise, and no more than 5 percent of plaintiff attorneys bother to ask the defense counsel what their doctor discovered—even though they know that the physician has examined their client and they are entitled to that information. On those rare occasions when plaintiff lawyers ask the right question, they are oblivious to the fact that their opponents ignore the question or focus on other areas and fail to provide the requested information. In the real case, the plaintiff’s lawyer failed to ask the critical question, and the case was settled without the plaintiff or his attorney being aware of the plaintiff’s life-threatening condition.

W
HO
M
AKES THE
F
IRST
O
FFER?

Are you wondering whether to disclose your position first or try to get your opponents to do so? Some bargainers (particularly Cooperators) like to state their own positions at the outset because they think that beginning with reasonable positions will encourage similar behavior by opponents.
While this can be quite effective when negotiating with friends and business partners, it is risky with respect to counterparts you do not really know. When you take that first step, you depend on counterparts to reciprocate with realistic opening offers of their own. An Adversary or an Innovator will probably not respond in kind. Adversarial counterparts are more likely to exploit your forthrightness by stating a less generous position, placing you on the defensive. For instance, if you begin close to the settlement range and they respond with an offer quite a ways outside that range, you will find it psychologically draining to force them to make consistently larger concessions than you are making. As a result, manipulative adversaries can use your willingness to go first to their own advantage and obtain more generous terms from you than you might otherwise have provided.

If you are uncertain what the exact scope of the settlement range is, get your counterpart to state her position first. You may discover that you have been too generous toward her in your preliminary assessment of the operative circumstances, or that she has been too generous toward you. Whoever goes first will disclose this miscalculation, allowing the other party to take advantage of the situation. Proficient negotiators put themselves in this position whenever possible.

For example, when my wife and I first moved to Washington, D
.C.,
we purchased a townhouse and went shopping to find a used secretary for our dining room. We visited a furniture dealer in Northern Virginia and found a lovely piece on sale for $1,150. I thought of making a $1,000 offer to see whether the dealer would be willing to compromise on the asking price, but decided instead to ask him what he would accept if we were prepared to make a purchase on the spot. My wife and I were shocked
when he responded with a figure of $800! I doubt he would have responded with an $800 counteroffer had I initially proposed $1,000. Although I then responded to his $800 offer with a counter of $750, he made it clear that he would not be willing to go below $800, the amount we finally paid. By getting the dealer to go first, we saved a minimum of $200 and perhaps as much as $300 to $350, since we were perfectly willing to pay the full $1,150 asking price.

When you induce your counterpart to make the first offer, you gain another advantage: You can then engage in
bracketing.
Use bracketing to make counteroffers that place your goal near the mid-point between the parties’ initial offers. Bracketing narrows the range of your discussions, manipulating the mid-range to your advantage. For example, if you hope to pay $500 for something and the seller begins with an asking price of $575, you offer $425 to keep your $500 target at the center of your respective opening offers. This works as often as it does because most bargainers feel a psychological obligation to move from the first offers toward the center. Even if your counterparts do not move all the way to the mid-point, they may move further in your direction than they would have if you had either gone first or had begun with a counteroffer that did not place your target price in the middle.