The Intelligent Negotiator (16 page)

Some negotiators are afraid to make emotional appeals, in the belief that they are inappropriate during professional discussions. This is not true. Not only are they appropriate, but they are extremely effective. If you are fortunate enough to make presentations that provide you with irrefutable moral support, don’t lose the opportunity. This is caused by the guilt generated in adversaries by effective emotional appeals. Studies show that highly intelligent people are more likely to succumb to good emotional contentions than to purely abstract claims, because they find it difficult to counter the emotional presentations.
¹

When your counterparts present their arguments, it is important that you recognize these as one-sided appeals. They are disclosing the information that best supports their positions, and you must try to ascertain the issues they have not addressed. What facts have they omitted from their factual claims? What economic data have they left out of their economic analysis? Has their moral appeal ignored circumstances that may either undermine their claim or bolster your position? During negotiation discussions, participants try to put the best face on their positions. Your counterparts will surely do so with you.

In fact, anticipate opponent arguments while you’re preparing your arguments, and formulate cogent counterarguments. When you prepare your own arguments and counter-arguments, be certain not to become so enamored with your assertions that you convince yourself completely of your right to prevail on every issue. You must keep your objectivity. If you don’t, and you are unable to appreciate the valid claims of your opponents, you may find it difficult to make the concessions during the process that will make mutual accords possible.

Threats, Warnings, and Promises

During negotiations, you and your counterparts are likely to resort to express or implicit threats. Each party informs the other that if it does not give in on certain points, dire consequences will follow. For example, “If you don’t give me a raise, I’ll leave the firm.”

The purpose of a threat is to convince the other side that their non-settlement alternatives are worse than your demands. If you are contemplating making a threat, construct it as follows:

1. Be sure the negative consequences are sufficiently realistic so your opponents will believe them.
   

2. Convey enough information to clearly communicate the negative impact of a non-settlement and the threatened consequences, and make the negative effects sufficiently serious so they appear worse than giving in to your demands.
   

3. Be prepared to carry out the consequences. If you threaten someone and back down when they call your bluff, your credibility is destroyed.
   

There are
threats
and there are
warnings.
A warning is a sanction that will be imposed by a third party or by the marketplace. For example, “If you don’t reduce the rent you are seeking, you will be unable to rent your space” (that is, no one will pay that amount). If an individual is angry with a neighbor who sawed down a tree on his side of the property line, a “warning” would be the consequences the court would impose if the offending party does not rectify the situation promptly. A threat involves negative consequences the threatening party will himself impose. For example: “If you don’t replace the tree you cut down, I will sue you.”

If possible, state the negative consequences of non-settlements as “warnings” rather than “threats.” Nobody likes to be threatened. Also, when you personally threaten to punish opponents, they reflexively want to call your bluff. On the other hand, when you “predict” what third parties or the marketplace will do if adversaries do not accept your terms, this softens the negative impact since you are merely indicating what some other force will do. You also enhance believability since the external factor you are discussing is beyond your control.

When you receive a threat, consider two critical factors:

1. Do you believe your counterpart will carry out his or her threat? If your answer is yes, then ask yourself:
   

2. Would the consequences of that threat be worse than your non-settlement alternatives?
   

If you know that you would be better off refusing to give in to the threat, feel free to ignore it. It is usually advantageous not to directly challenge the threat since this may induce your counterpart to carry it out. If you merely ignore the threat and act as if you are unaware of it, the counterpart may decide to continue the discussions as if he
or she had never made the threat. This allows you to neutralize the threatened conduct in a face-saving manner.

At the other end of the spectrum from threats and warnings are
promises.
A promise does not involve the suggestion of negative consequences, but rather consists of a commitment to reward the other side if it behaves appropriately. For example, you have purchased reconditioned office supplies for your company from a broker. The twenty-five chairs you ordered have just been delivered and five are the wrong model. Here is your phone conversation:

Y
OU:
Twenty percent of the delivery we received today is the wrong model.

B
ROKER:
The seller only had twenty of the chairs you wanted so I had him substitute a higher-priced model to fill out the order.

Y
OU:
Those chairs are not what I ordered, and they don’t fit our needs. I’m not paying for them. Get someone to pick them up.

B
ROKER:
Our contract explicitly states that comparable substitutions can be made if I can’t locate an item.

Y
OU:
I’m not happy with the way you executed this deal, and I’m not paying for one chair. I’m arranging for the entire shipment to be waiting at the warehouse entrance first thing tomorrow morning for your guys to pick up.

B
ROKER:
I’m sorry you’re not satisfied. If you will agree to send back just the five chairs, I will give you a full refund on them.

Y
OU:
All right.

As demonstrated above, instead of threatening to punish opponents who do not modify their position, you can indicate a willingness to change your own position if they alter their position. You thus promise to
reward
affirmative behavior instead of
punishing
negative behavior.

The Intelligent Negotiator gets a lot more mileage out of promises than the more offensive threats or warnings. However, the principal reason promises are more effective is that they are face-saving. The greatest fear negotiators have when they modify their existing positions is that their position changes will not be reciprocated. When you promise to change your offer if they change theirs, you alleviate this concern.

Most negotiators frequently use the promise device as they reach the end of their bargaining interactions. If you and your counterpart are not far apart, one side may suggest that you conclude your talks by splitting the distance. How much nicer it is to say “If you’ll go halfway, I will too,” rather than “If you don’t go halfway, the whole deal is off.” Instead of using a threat or warning when an earlier impasse is looming, simply indicate your willingness to modify your current position if your opponent is willing to alter his or her position. This will probably generate new positions that are closer together and will keep the discussions going.

Humor

Humor can be used both as a negative and a positive force during negotiations. It can increase the likability of the person using the humor. Individuals should not hesitate to use their sense of humor during the preliminary discussions to develop more open and trusting relationships
with counterparts. If you can become more likable to your counterparts, it will be more difficult for those persons to reject your offers.

Humor can also be used during tense negotiations to relieve anxiety and to reopen blocked communication channels. I recall the story of unusually acrimonious labor negotiations between a large union and a group of employers. After an impasse had been reached, the parties stared intently at one another across the bargaining table. The chief negotiator from the union arose from his seat and began to walk slowly around the table toward the employer side. The room became completely silent by the time he arrived next to the chief negotiator for the employers. He squatted beside that individual and looked at his union colleagues on the other side of the table. When he said, “From here, you guys
do
look like sons of bitches,” everyone laughed and much of the prevailing tension was broken. He used his sense of humor to point out to both sides that the representatives of each side were merely performing their jobs. By depersonalizing the conflict, he was able to get the participants back on track.

Humor can be used during bargaining encounters to soften the impact of negative statements. When you feel the need to say something negative, say it with a slight smile. This may make it easier for your listeners to accept the criticism. Since they are not sure you meant to sound so negative, they don’t take your comments as personally as they would if they were not accompanied by a smile.

When counterparts announce wholly unacceptable opening positions, you may respond with a sneer or derisive laughter. Your behavior ridicules their stance and indicates rather directly the unreasonableness of the proposed terms. The use of such ridicule is risky because
it can easily offend the targets. If you have a good sense of humor, you may be able to soften the ridicule with the twinkle in your eye. If, however, you use derisive humor with a completely straight face, your recipients will perceive it far more negatively.

Control of Bargaining Agenda

Many skilled negotiators try to advance their objectives through control of the bargaining agenda. You can do this in several ways. You can present a written agenda at the onset of discussions, or you can verbally do the following: Lay out your opening offers in a principled manner in which you mention each component and provide a rationale to support each claim, thus defining the issues you wish to address. Less prepared counterparts may accept your definition of the pertinent items and address the terms as you have broken them down.

The value of having your counterparts follow the order you have provided is that it enables you to have the items you value resolved first—before the other issues are addressed. Once these have been taken care of to your satisfaction, you may find it easier to be more accommodating when your counterparts raise other items.

If your counterparts create the agenda and you don’t like it, don’t hesitate to say something. This is an appropriate time to set the ground rules for the way in which the various terms are to be explored. If you and your counterparts can agree upon the order to be used to address the different items, you’ll have established a positive bargaining environment that will benefit you when they become involved with the substantive trades.

Intransigence

Successful negotiators are able at critical points to convince their opponents that those individuals must make appropriate concessions if the process is to continue. This may be accomplished though sheer intransigence. Intransigence can be especially effective when used against risk-averse people who fear the negative consequences of non-settlements.

For example, an employer offering a person a new job may offer that person a $50,000 salary. When the applicant responds that she is contemplating something in the $60,000 range, the employer may simply reiterate the $50,000 figure, indicate that $50,000 is the salary for this position, and become silent. If the applicant is anxious to get the position in question, she may quickly accede to the intransigent offer of the employer.

Keep in mind that this tactic is only effective with counterparts whose options are no better than what you are offering.

Directness

Most professional negotiators see a significant amount of disingenuous behavior during bargaining encounters, all of it designed to manipulate their behavior. They may be disarmed by individuals who say what they are really thinking. Try to surprise opponents with your candor. On several occasions when opposing lawyers have threatened to sue my clients, I have accepted their initial factual and legal assertions then asked them to indicate what they would consider a fair resolution of the dispute. They have been so surprised when I did not contest
everything they said that they changed their demands to be more realistic, allowing us to begin exploring settlement options in more positive negotiating environments.

Flattery

Showing your counterparts that you respect them may cause them to become more accommodating at the bargaining table. We all like to be appreciated. People who feel esteemed by their opponents may not feel the same need to demonstrate their bargaining prowess as they would to less respectful adversaries. At the very least, flattery will create a more positive bargaining atmosphere and help the interaction progress more smoothly. For instance, you can acknowledge your counterpart’s notable contributions to a field of mutual endeavor, show admiration for a recent victory he or she has achieved, or compliment the design of his or her office environment.

Manipulation of Contextual Factors

Some individuals attempt to gain a psychological advantage during bargaining interactions through their manipulation of the contextual factors—the date, time, location, and environment for the discussions. Many people feel most comfortable meeting in their own room or office. They also like to set the early tone by controlling the date and time for the talks. People who induce counterparts to meet at their preferred location or time may place those counterparts in a concessionary frame of mind that will carry over to the substantive bargaining.