Chapter 5 - Pay Attention To The Preliminaries
The previous chapter on "preparation" focused on informational tasks to be performed before entering into negotiation. The present one speaks of tasks to be done prior to the discussion in which terms are negotiated. That is, you don't accost a party unawares and begin negotiations, but attend to a few matters to initiate the conversation and discuss matters that are peripheral but prerequisite to the negotiation itself.
Get The Other Side To The Table
The first step is to get the other party to agree to a discussion. Street-vendors may accost passers-by to attempt to get them to negotiate for merchandise they didn't want in the first place, but this is not a productive approach to most forms of negotiation.
Primarily, you should assess the other party's willingness to negotiate at all. Particularly in politics, there are many instances in which a nation may be interested in negotiations with another nation that has no interest in participating. This is particularly true of foreign nations' desire to present unilateral demands to influence the domestic policies of other nations to suit their interests, when there is nothing in it for the other party.
In business, the difference between outbound sales and inbound is that in the latter case, another firm is interested in buying the product and has called to initiate the conversation, whereas in the former the salesman is "cold calling" someone who likely doesn't want to hear from them to propose a negotiation. This is also true when a manager in one department needs the support of one of his colleagues, but doesn't consider the interests of the other party.
Consideration of mutual interest is critical to initiating any negotiation: if the other party stands to gain nothing, you are begging rather than negotiating for their assistance, and are unlikely to get their consent even to negotiate. If you can suggest to them the benefit of cooperating with you, you stand a better chance of getting them to negotiate.
The author misuses the term "sweeteners" to suggest reciprocal actions you can offer to get another party to the table. (EN: The term is misused because a sweetener is used near the end of negotiations, not before it, to overcome reluctance to agree.) That is, if they stand to gain nothing in the course of giving you what you want of them, you may be able to offer them something completely unrelated to get them to consider negotiating with you - essentially, it's a trade of favors rather than collaboration toward a mutual goal.
A loose negotiating tip: rational people act in their own best interests, but people are not always rational. They may refuse to negotiate for emotional reasons, such as pride or injured feelings - much like siblings will break contact as adults over some childhood disagreement. In such instances, you may need to surface and deal with these issues directly before initiating negotiations (EN: Though realistically, if it is obvious to the other party you are appeasing them only because you now want something from them, it can deepen the rift rather than closing it.)
Another reason that a party may refuse to negotiate is because they do not see your option as being better than their own best alternative. That is to say that they are pursuing other means to achieve their goals that do not include working with you. In this instance, you must either improve your offer to the point where it becomes more attractive than other alternatives, or accept that you haven't a chance to negotiate with them unless their other deal falls through.
In other instances, it is simply a matter of timing. People are generally working on more than on thing at a time, and give attention to their highest priorities. It may be that you offer something of genuine value, and are better than other alternatives, but the other party is working on other things and doesn't want to invest the time and effort in dealing with you right now. The best approach is to wait until their situation "ripens" - either they have deal with other issues and can then consider your to be more important, or their situation has changed such that other issues are de-prioritized.
The author gives the example of warfare as a method of forcing a situation to ripen. The enemy may not feel the need to negotiate to your terms for peace when they feel that they can win by force, but when the fortunes of war change and they find themselves on the losing side, they will be far more amenable to the very same terms.
In car buying, it is often a good idea to stop negotiating with a salesman who will not meet your terms, but instead ask him to call you when he's ready to lower the price to your liking. Chances are that he is refusing to accept your offer because he thinks he can sell it to a different customer at a higher prices - but as time passes and he gets no better offer, he may be more amenable to accepting your offer, particularly if he is under pressure to make a sales quota or if there are tax consequences for retaining the vehicle in inventory.
(EN: A couple of bad practices the author fails to mention are attempting to define the other party's interests for them or attempting to create a false sense of urgency rather than allowing their situation to ripen, both of which are transparent and offensive ploys that most people recognize.)
Create an Appropriate Setting
Once the other side agrees to enter into negotiations, it is generally incumbent upon the party that initiated the proposal to make arrangements for the negotiation. However, it's also worth noting that the party in the position of the greatest negotiating power has the ability to insist on where and when negotiations will take place.
The author tells a nightmare scenario, admitting it to be a fictional account, of a salesman attempting to chase after a client to engage in negotiations - but it is not unusual for one party to end up chasing after the other. (EN: For the party in the advantaged position, it can also be a dominance play to demand to be accommodated, and then to show up late, cancel and reschedule, etc., in order to cause distress to the other party. It usually seems rude and aggressive, but in my experience it can be quite effective - but it is also very dangerous to attempt to be unaccommodating if you are attempting to bluff up the appearance of advantage.)
Some random tips ensue:
- Choose a location where the discussion is not likely to be interrupted
- Provide each negotiation team to a private space to which its members can withdraw to have private discussions
- Ask participants to switch off their cell phones, but provide periodic breaks
- Attempt to get the party onto your premises for a "home field" advantage
- Create a comfortable environment, provide refreshments, etc.
- Consider the seating arrangement: sitting at opposite ends of a table is conducive to contentious negotiation, whereas sitting side-by-side or at a round table can facilitate collaboration. Closer physical distances also promote collaboration.
Pay Attention to Cultural Differences
The author speaks a bit to the notion of cultural differences, which are becoming more common as business is becoming globalized and the US itself is becoming more multicultural. (EN: Besides being more appropriate to the previous chapter on "preparing," the author's discussion is superficial and hackneyed - rather than considering his treatment, seek advice from a more thorough and authoritative source.)
Listen and Learn
The preliminary stages of negotiation generally involve some degree of informal chatter, the amount of which varies according to the relationship and the culture involved. This occurs both while making the arrangements to meet, as well as in the early stages of the meeting as people are gathering and settling in. During this time, continue to listen and learn to pick up cues to the other side's interests and anxiety level.
The author now briefly considers the difference between an open-ended question (requiring an elaborate answer) and a closed-ended ones (requiring a brief answer from a limited set of options). He also speaks of clarifying questions to gather more information about an answer. This is likewise brief and superficial and seems to be a stray topic, stuck in here for filler.
Determine Where Best To Begin
The author suggests three basic approaches to starting a negation: to begin with the easiest issues and proceed to more difficult ones, to begin with general principles and then proceed to become more specific, or to begin with the most difficult issues and leave the easier ones for later in the conversation.
Beginning with easy issues is a good way to decrease the anxiety of parties in a competitive negotiation and get them in the habit of coming to agreement before tacking the more difficult areas where more contention is expected. In essence, it builds trust and enables people to get into the practice of working together. The difficulty with this approach is that there is little accomplished in the early stages, and parties eager to come to an agreement may become anxious, especially if negotiations are protracted.
A second approach is to agree on general principles, based on the assumption that this agreement can later be leveraged to facilitate agreement on specific details. The author asserts that many political negotiations begin this way - even nations at war can generally agree that they wish to establish peace, and it is simply the terms of that peace that must be negotiated. Having agreed on general principles, those terms may seem like filigree and parties may be much less contentious in working out the details. This is particularly useful when there are many details related to a few basic principles.
The third option the author conceives is beginning with the most difficult areas. This strategy may work best in established relationships when the spirit of the negotiation is collaborative, because it enables the parties to make fast progress on serious issues, then focus on the little things afterward. The condition is that both sides are very motivated to come to an agreement, because if the situation is otherwise, pressing on sensitive issues first may elicit a walk-out. It is sometimes attempted by a party that wants a fast resolution, but it will not work if the other party is not so inclined.