The Intelligent Negotiator (21 page)

Devious negotiators may employ the Mutt and Jeff technique with the controlling participant assuming the role of the “reasonable” negotiator. To do this, instruct your partner to reject every new offer in an enraged and belittling manner. Bad Cop may even be allowed to head for the exit on occasion—until you prevail upon him or her to return to the discussions. Careless negotiators may become so afraid of the “unreasonable” person’s wrath, they work to placate their demands and conclude the interaction.

The Mutt and Jeff approach may even be used when you need to bolster your bargaining strength. You can do this as a single negotiator by portraying your absent “superior” as the “unreasonable” party whose extreme demands must be satisfied. Car salespeople often use the absent “sales manager” as the ogre who must be placated. They praise potential buyers for their generous concessions and sincere efforts to achieve mutually acceptable terms, but insist on additional position changes to satisfy their absent partner. Immediate supervisors who are being asked for pay raises may use their absent superiors as “unreasonable” tightwads who are demanding that wage increases be kept within specified limits. Negotiators often utilize this device to great effect because it allows them to maintain a congenial relationship with their counterparts by sympathetically telling them you think their terms are reasonable. If only you did not have to gain the approval of your “unreasonable” boss, you would be able to give them the generous deal you think they deserve.

When you encounter what appear to be Mutt and Jeff counterparts, don’t confront them about it. If they are deliberately
employing this tactic, they will never admit it. If they are not using it deliberately, and one opponent actually disagrees with his or her partner’s unrealistic assessment, accusing them of disingenuous negotiating would offend and create a tense bargaining atmosphere.

Don’t make the mistake, however, of allowing the seemingly unreasonable participant to control the bargaining. You can do this by including the
reasonable
Good Cop in the discussions, rather than direct your arguments and offers exclusively to the Bad Cop. When the Good Cop requests position changes that are designed to satisfy the demands of his unreasonable partner, directly ask him if
he
would be willing to accept your terms if you made those changes. On rare occasions, the seemingly reasonable participant may actually indicate a willingness to accept your new offer, despite the protestations of his unreasonable partner. Such circumstances would indicate that your counterparts are not really using the Good Cop/Bad Cop approach but are having a strong disagreement about their side’s true needs. Once you induce one opponent to accept your new terms, it is much harder for his partner to continue to hold out. Try to whipsaw the reasonable person against his unrealistic partner.

If your counterparts are really employing the Good Cop/Bad Cop technique, the “reasonable” participant will never agree with your proposed terms. He will instead suggest that if those changes were formally offered, he would seek the approval of his “unreasonable” partner. When this happens, ask them one more time whether they would be willing to accept the deal if you were to make the position changes they are requesting. Force them to say “yes” or “no.” They will most likely continue to blame their inability to agree to your terms on their “unreasonable” partners—and they will look foolish doing so.

I
RRATIONALITY OR
C
RAZY
L
IKE A
F
OX

I am frequently asked how to deal with wholly irrational negotiators. From the number of stories I hear about lawyers and business leaders, I get the impression that most of them are in need of institutionalization! Very few of the individuals who exhibit bizarre behavior during bargaining encounters are insane; they are “crazy like a fox.” People who use this tactic hope to convince counterparts that they cannot be dealt with logically. Counterparts must either give in to their one-sided demands or face the consequences associated with ongoing negotiations with unstable parties. Do not allow seemingly unstable personalities to blind you to your own non-settlement options, for that is the name of this game.

A federal judge I know once told me that whenever he is assigned a complex case he would prefer not to try, he waits until a couple of weeks before the scheduled trial date. He invites the attorneys into his chambers and asks them to summarize the legal issues involved. They always do an excellent job. When they are done, he asks them several questions that are completely off the wall. They look at each other and panic. They can’t let this irrational judge preside over their case. They rush outside and settle their dispute. The judge gets to play golf on Wednesday afternoons with the doctors and dentists!

The most effective way to counter such feigned irrationality is to ignore it and respond in an entirely rational manner. Once your counterparts realize that their seemingly irrational behavior is not having the planned impact, they will reconsider their approach. Furthermore, when the negotiators take a break to evaluate their respective circumstances, these individuals will analyze your offers as logically as other counterparts.

Some business negotiators use a combination of limited authority, Mutt and Jeff, and irrationality to advance their interests. They describe their supervisors as mean and irrational ogres who must be placated if final deals are to be achieved. They hope to intimidate you into unwarranted concessions. Car salespeople may paint sales managers in this light, and some human resource workers may describe their superiors in this way, hoping that you will not question their refusal to make more generous job offers. When you encounter these negotiators, don’t hesitate to request your own direct discussions with the sales manager or the head of human resources. Your request is likely to be denied, but the individuals you are dealing with should become more accommodating as a result of your entreaty.

On rare occasions, you may encounter truly irrational counterparts. They usually present you with non-negotiable demands and refuse to listen to reasoned arguments to the contrary. Appreciate the fact that it is impossible to reason with such people. If you could, they would not be irrational. You have to carefully review your own non-settlement alternatives and determine whether they are preferable to what your crazy counterparts are demanding. If your external options are preferable, accept them.

F
ALSE
D
EMANDS

Alert negotiators often discover during the Information Exchange that their counterparts want to obtain items that they themselves do not value. Once you discover this situation, you can exploit this fact by emphasizing your
own side’s interest in these terms. Put this technique to use trading substantial position changes for what to you are insignificant concessions. Remember the value of bargaining items is always defined by those persons who want them. If I have something you desire, you will give me something of value to get it.

You can include false demands in negotiation packages. That may induce counterparts to give you what you really hope to achieve. Suppose you have to negotiate with your supervisor over three things you really want. If you are wondering whether or not to bring just the three items into negotiations, don’t. If you only ask for these three terms, your superior may reject at least one to remind you who has the bargaining power. Is there something else you could request that would be wholly unacceptable to your supervisor? Include this item in your initial request. When your superior questions your right to the other three items, offer to trade one of those terms for this particular provision. You will probably get all three of the terms you desire—with your superior being relieved that you were willing to yield on the one item he or she found unpalatable!

The use of false items has one serious risk associated with it. If you demand terms your counterparts really don’t wish to have, they may use your own disingenuous demands to obtain concessions on items you really value. Before you ever insist on issues you think your counterparts want, be certain during the information exchange that you are right. What if you make a mistake in this regard and get stuck with something you don’t want? Near the conclusion of the closing stage, slowly move into the cooperative mode and offer to trade that item for another term you prefer. Don’t admit your disingenuous bargaining tactics. This may undermine the whole deal.

A
LLEGED
E
XPERTISE

Some negotiators attempt to overwhelm counterparts with technical details that are designed to intimidate less knowledgeable individuals. Car mechanics have used this technique for decades, and computer technicians now employ this approach. They explain the area that must be negotiated in such technical terms that it is impossible for laypeople to understand the real problem. They want customers to think they have no choice, that their machine may never function again. Once such negotiators accomplish this, they can usually bank on customer approval for expensive repairs. The customers may even think they are getting a real bargain given the complicated problems involved.

When you encounter counterparts who try to overwhelm you with technical jargon, praise them for their knowledge but politely ask them to explain the situation in lay terms. If they still use incomprehensible language, ask questions that will force them to indicate what is actually wrong. Never accept the premise that they are so intelligent that they can’t explain things to someone as unsophisticated as you. If they are really that bright, they should be able to describe their field in a way others can comprehend. Tell them that you can’t authorize the expensive work they are requesting if you are unable to understand the problem to be fixed.

W
EAKENING A
M
ORE
P
OWERFUL
C
OUNTERPART

How do you deal with counterparts who possess more bargaining power than you do? People often ask me this
in my seminars. I try to point out what young children recognize intuitively: There is no such thing as bargaining power, but only the perception of it. If I
think
you possess power and you know how to use my belief in your power to your advantage, then you have bargaining power. If, however, I don’t believe you possess any real authority, you will begin to question your own power. Parents think they have authority when they negotiate with their children. Children learn to ignore parental power, and it disappears almost instantly. It is the ability of children to ignore parental power that both drives parents crazy and enables the children to win most parent-child interactions.

Of course, no two negotiators have equal amounts of time, resources, options, and so on, but your willingness to walk away if necessary equalizes bargaining strength. You are at the table together because each of you wants something from the other. When you negotiate with others who appear to possess greater authority than you have, try to ignore their superior power. Calmly negotiate as if you are perfectly willing to accept your non-settlement options if that course becomes necessary. The more you are able to exude an inner confidence in your own situation, the more your counterparts will begin to question their own bargaining authority. Before you know it, they will accord you more respect than you may objectively deserve.

E
NHANCING
Y
OUR
O
WN
B
ARGAINING
S
TRENGTH

How can you improve your circumstances when you find yourself with minimal bargaining authority? If you are negotiating on behalf of a large organization, use a combination
of
Limited Authority
and
Mutt and Jeff
to enhance your bargaining authority. Directly acknowledge the reasonableness of the terms being proposed by the other side, but indicate that your absent superior thinks you should obtain better terms. Tell your counterparts that if they fail to propose more generous terms, your superior will refuse to accept the deal. Before you know it, your adversaries will strive to satisfy the needs of your absent partner. The fact that your superior may be perfectly satisfied with what is currently being offered is irrelevant, as long as you are able to convince your counterparts that better terms are needed to generate the acceptance of your absent partner.

In some instances, you may be able to publicly lock yourself into positions that would be difficult to alter without suffering a substantial loss of face. This is quite effective. Announce to your counterparts in front of your superior that if you are unable to obtain certain terms, you will fail your firm. If you are negotiating to purchase a new car with your spouse, you could indicate in front of that person that you would be incompetent if you paid more than a specified amount for the vehicle you are considering. This would force your counterparts to choose between trying to get you to capitulate, which they know would greatly embarrass you in front of your superior or your spouse, and giving you a better deal.

B
ARGAINING WITH
I
NFLEXIBLE
C
OUNTERPARTS

It is extremely frustrating to negotiate with counterparts who are unalterably committed to positions that are unacceptable to you. While you may be tempted to directly
challenge their uncompromising stands, this may anger them and cause them to become even more unyielding. It is more productive to employ a less confrontational approach that provides your adversaries with a face-saving means of altering their obstinate dispositions. Try to induce such inflexible adversaries to step back from their stated positions and revisit the objective criteria underlying their positions. Keep in mind that it is much easier to generate position reappraisals through a needs and interests analysis than through discussions that focus directly on the stated positions.