The Intelligent Negotiator (20 page)

When counterparts employ the nibble technique to obtain last-minute concessions from you,
demand reciprocity.
When they contact you and describe the “slight” changes they require, indicate how relieved you are that they have called and suggest how dissatisfied you are with respect to several terms—and request changes in those provisions. If your counterparts are truly sincere and are not trying to fleece you, they will recognize the need for reciprocity when they request last-minute concessions. They will offer to give you some of what you
want in exchange for the modifications they are seeking. If they are nibblers, however, they will reject further discussions and demand that you honor the
original terms
agreed upon.

Always remember to demand reciprocal concessions from your nibbling adversaries. Nibblers are pick-pockets. They hope to steal several items from you at the conclusion of bargaining interactions. It is important to remember that when they put their hand in your pocket to extract something from you, you should put your hand in their pocket to obtain reciprocal concessions.

R
ANGE
O
FFERS

Some negotiators phrase their monetary offers in terms of a range, rather than as a single figure. For example, realtors may indicate that their sellers hope to obtain a price in the “$250,000 to $265,000 area.” Prospective buyers may similarly state their willingness to pay something in the “$240,000 to $255,000 range.” Some negotiators who wish to establish more conciliatory bargaining environments may use this technique to evidence their receptivity to compromise. However, this approach, more often than not, indicates uncertainty in the minds of those making the offers. More carefully prepared and more confident bargainers determine the exact amount they are willing to pay or accept and announce that figure at this point.

In most cases, it is advisable to avoid range offers when the serious discussions begin. On the other hand, if you are asked during preliminary talks regarding a new employment opportunity about the salary you would have to have, it may be appropriate for you to mention a range
to prevent an excessive demand from eliminating you from consideration. Once you have received the offer, and you are negotiating the actual compensation you will receive, it is preferable to mention the true amount you expect to get. After you have received the offer, the balance of power shifts in your favor, because the offering firm wants to obtain the services of the individual it has decided to hire.

When you receive range offers, focus on the end of the range that favors your situation. For example, if you were looking for a new house, and the prospective seller indicated that she would have to have something in the $250,000 to $265,000 range, respond as if you have been given a $250,000 demand. Similarly, if you are selling your home and a prospective purchaser says he is willing to pay something in the $240,000 to $255,000 range, treat that statement as a $255,000 offer. If you do this adroitly, the offerors will accept your characterization of their offers and continue the discussion as if they had mentioned the specific figures being cited by you.

D
ECREASING OR
L
IMITED
D
URATION
O
FFERS

On some occasions, you may want to make an offer on something but wish to obtain a quick response from the person to whom you are making the offer. For example, you are a book publisher. You may be willing to make an offer on a book proposal that a literary agent has submitted for consideration, but only want to give the agent a day or so to respond. If they don’t accept your offer, you plan to withdraw your offer. Don’t hesitate to place a specific limitation in your offer indicating that it is good for
one day or forty-eight hours and is thereafter withdrawn. This limits the ability of the seller to use your offer to whipsaw other publishers who have also expressed interest in the book proposal into new offers of their own. It also lets the agent know that if she does not act quickly, either to accept your offer or to make a realistic counteroffer, she will lose you as a prospective purchaser.

On rare occasions you may make an offer with the stipulation that the terms are only good for one week; after that, you will reduce your offer by a specified amount to take into account circumstances you believe will change over that time period. If you decide to use this technique, be absolutely clear about the entire scope of your offer. If you fail to do so and reduce (or withdraw) your offer a week later, claims of bad faith negotiating are likely to arise. It is generally assumed when negotiators make offers that they will remain on the table for a reasonable period of time without being reduced or withdrawn. We thus have an obligation to tell counterparts of our intention to alter this assumption. One last factor should also be recognized. Never tell someone you plan to reduce or withdraw your offer at a certain time unless you are fully prepared to honor that commitment. To do so would be a threat, and if you fail to carry out your threat when the other side calls your bluff, your credibility will be lost.

A
NGER

Raising cain during the critical stage of a negotiation can be an effective way to convince recalcitrant counterparts of the seriousness of your position. Raised voices and
table pounding may intimidate adversaries and convince them to give you what you are seeking. Keep in mind that when proficient negotiators exhibit anger, it is usually carefully controlled behavior. Intelligent Negotiators never lose their tempers. They realize that if they did, they would be likely to say or do something that would injure their bargaining interests.

I have seen labor negotiators resort to anger during important points in bargaining discussions. They stand up, raise their voices, swear at their counterparts, pound the bargaining table, and then storm out of the room. They appear to be outraged by what they are complaining about. Yet, once they enter their side’s separate caucus room, they calmly say: “How did I do? I thought I was quite believable!” Their outburst was completely orchestrated to intimidate their counterparts into further movement, and it often worked.

If your counterparts get angry, do not respond in kind. If they yell, swear, head for the door, or slam down the telephone, do not try to beat them to it. Step back and realize that most anger exhibited during bargaining encounters is controlled behavior. Instead of responding in kind, it is preferable that you become quiet and remain professional. Listen carefully to what your shouting counterparts are saying. No matter how carefully they try to control their apparent diatribes, there will be verbal leaks. They can’t choose every word perfectly, and often give away important information. You should also look for nonverbal signals. As they continue their harangue, your quiet presence will begin to embarrass them. It is difficult to yell at someone who is looking at you as if you are behaving like a child. Once your counterparts calm down and take their seats, you should point out your recent concessions and ask them how they could cast aspersions
on someone who has been as reasonable as you have been. You hope to generate guilt to go along with the embarrassment they are experiencing. If you are successful, the party doing all the shouting will be induced to make the next concession!

A
GGRESSIVE
B
EHAVIOR

Negotiators who employ aggressive tactics hope to intimidate weaker counterparts and induce them to cave in to their demands. They attempt to dominate the initial discussions the moment they enter the room. They loudly state their position and tell you that you must accede to their terms. They attempt to seize control over the bargaining agenda in an effort to dictate the items to be discussed. When you encounter such people, it is important to remember that they cannot force you to say “yes” to their demands. Sooner or later, even the most aggressive bargainers have to become quiet and allow you to state your position. While they are speaking, listen carefully for verbal leaks and watch for nonverbal signals. Patiently wait for them to wear themselves out. Once they are silent, you can make your points. If they try to disrupt your presentation through rude interruptions, calmly inform them that you are not finished. If they continue to interrupt, you can more forcefully indicate that you don’t talk when they are speaking and don’t expect them to talk while you are speaking. Through such “attitudinal bargaining,” you can set some ground rules for how you are going to proceed.

A few aggressive negotiators also employ a highly adversarial style. They may even use sarcasm to insult counterparts.
Try to get them to modify their offensive behavior by telling them you are unwilling to participate in discussions that are not carried out in a professional manner. If you don’t believe you can alter the nasty conduct of such people but must deal with them over some important points, use the telephone as much as possible. You don’t see them when they are insulting you, and they are unable to bask in your dejected demeanor. When you begin to feel uneasy, indicate that you have another phone call and politely hang up, promising to call them back when you are free. This allows you to control the interactions in a way that diminishes their ability to bother you.

It is particularly important when you’re dealing with offensive adversaries to try to separate the people from the problems that have to be negotiated. You can set a good example for unpleasant counterparts by being especially courteous yourself. Patiently listen to their side, and try to place yourself in their shoes. If you can demonstrate your appreciation for their position, they may become less confrontational. If they have stated the issues to be resolved in a one-sided fashion, it can be helpful to reframe the issues using less emotional language. If the parties can agree on neutral position statements, they will enhance their ability to achieve mutual accords.

Some aggressive negotiators are simply bullies. They don’t even pretend to negotiate; they demand no less than complete capitulation. Never permit counterparts to do this to you. When you encounter highly threatening counterparts, carefully review your non-settlement alternatives and ask whether what they are offering is preferable to what you could achieve through other avenues. Remember that underneath most bullies lies a coward. They huff and puff, but rarely carry out their dire threats. When people bully you, indicate your willingness
to accept your non-settlement alternatives. Try to exude an inner peace that indicates that you are comfortable with that choice if it becomes necessary. Soon after you accept the possibility of a non-settlement, the dynamic between you and your bullying counterparts begins to change. As those people realize that the negotiations may fail, they examine their own non-settlement options and realize that they are better off dealing with you. They begin to fear the consequences associated with stalled talks, and begin to exhibit a more conciliatory manner.

W
ALKING
O
UT
/S
LAMMING
D
OWN THE
T
ELEPHONE

Some demonstrative negotiators occasionally resort to extreme tactics to convince counterparts that they are unwilling to make additional concessions. As the parties approach final terms, they storm out of the room or slam down the telephone. This induces risk-adverse counterparts to close all or most of the gap remaining between the parties. While this tactic can be quite effective when you use it against overly anxious counterparts who fear the consequences associated with non-settlements, you run the very real risk of causing a complete breakdown in the bargaining process.

When counterparts resort to these techniques,
never
make the mistake of running after them or immediately phoning back the individuals who have deliberately short-circuited your telephone discussions. Your counterparts would view such behavior on your part as a sign of great weakness. If your negotiating counterparts resort to extreme tactics, be patient. Give them time to cool down and to appreciate the fact that you have not been
intimidated by this device. When the time is right, the parties will regenerate the stalled negotiations in recognition of the fact that mutual accords are almost always preferable to stalemates.

If you are negotiating in your counterpart’s office and she storms out, remain where you are. After departing, she will probably become paranoid, fearing that you may look at her notes or files. Within five to ten minutes, she will return to her office feeling ashamed of her behavior. She will be so embarrassed that she may even make the next concession.

M
UTT AND
J
EFF
(G
OOD
C
OP
/B
AD
C
OP
)

The Mutt and Jeff “good cop/bad cop” routine is one of the most common and most effective bargaining ploys. It works as follows: You, a seemingly reasonable negotiator (Good Cop) soften counterpart resistance by acknowledging the generous position changes that the counterparts have made. You then lead them to believe that a final accord is on the horizon if only they could make several additional concessions. When they take the bait and make the requested position changes, their optimism is crushed by your teammate (Bad Cop) who attacks the propriety of their new offer. Bad Cop castigates the counterparts for their meager concessions and insincere desire to achieve a final accord. Just as your counterparts are preparing to explode at Bad Cop, you assuage their feelings by suggesting that if several additional concessions are made, you could probably induce Bad Cop to accept the new terms. Generally, counterparts will succumb to this and make the requested position changes, only to encounter
further attacks from the unreasonable participant. It is amazing how diligently negotiators work to formulate terms that will satisfy Bad Cop.