Negotiating skills

Intro:
Negotiating is a skill that contributes, by its absence, perhaps more than any other
skill to the lack of success many people experience in getting what they want and
need, both in their private lives and at work. For a variety of reasons, many of us
actively avoid situations where we might need to negotiate with others or, at the very
least, fail to recognize and act on opportunities where negotiating would deliver a
legitimate improved result. Those who avoid negotiating because they fear the risk of
being perceived as 'winning' at the expense of others are neglecting the fact that
principled negotiation is the process of achieving an agreement or solution that is
acceptable to both or all parties involved.

Both in life and at work, we all have the choice to negotiate for personal gain at
whatever cost to others or to concede our interests at whatever cost to ourselves.
This learning guide focuses on principled negotiation as an interaction between two or
more people where the objective is a wise outcome that will enable and encourage
the parties to 'do business' with each other again. All parties 'win', although the
personal value of the 'win' will vary between those involved. Although not the only
approach, principled negotiation is generally most effective in business environments
where culture and values support the belief that the development and maintenance of
long-term relationships is a key factor in achieving goals and objectives. Within this
context, people expect to negotiate and see the process as a positive builder of
relationships rather than a potential threat.

The negotiating process

Top negotiators achieve success by following a process from start to finish that
enables them to stay focused, know where they are in the negotiation and check that
everyone is working at the same stage. There are four stages to the process:
The following sections will take you through each stage of the process, suggesting
tools and techniques you can use to be more effective as a negotiator.

The importance of preparation

Most of us can remember a negotiation where lack of preparation was the main
contributor to a poor result. The time we need to get ready can vary from a few
minutes of mental preparation before an impromptu discussion to several days for a
vital business meeting. Nevertheless, each of the steps in the preparation process is
just as valid. Consider the objective of preparation as 'to minimize the element of
surprise'. There are three key elements of effective preparation:

1. Defining your 'ideal' and 'fallback' positions

Ideal and fallback positions enable us to be clear about what 100% success will look
like and, at the other end of the scale, the point at which we would be better off
walking away from the discussion without agreement. A straightforward price
negotiation demonstrates the principles best.
In this simple negotiation, there is a 'buyer' and a 'seller'. The 'seller's' fallback
position is the lowest profitable price. Anything less is not worth negotiating (unless a
loss is acceptable, e.g. to generate future business). The 'seller's' ideal position is the
highest price that could possibly be expected. The reverse applies to the 'buyer', and
the settlement range defines the parameters within which agreement can be reached
that will benefit both parties. The agreement point is rarely and unlikely to be a
'50/50' split compromise, but anywhere within the settlement range provides a 'win'
outcome for both or all parties.

In our working lives, few negotiations are this simple. Most will involve the giving and
receiving of concessions that produce an agreement on criteria such as price, time,
quantity and quality. Definitions of ideal and fallback positions will need to be a
combination (or often several possible combinations) of issues rather than simply
price. The best negotiators are clear about what the issues are and consider them as
objectives. They then priorities these objectives into:

 What I must have - What is really essential and cannot be conceded at all.
 What I aim to have - What would be wonderful to have but not absolutely
essential.
 What would be nice to have - 'Icing on the cake' issues that could easily be
conceded (though not necessarily lightly!).
Use of this process will usually identify a number of combinations that will define a
choice of ideal and fallback positions. The ideal position would typically include all.
The fallback position might only include the first priority issue(s).

2. Perspective taking

If we don't consider the perspective of the other party in our preparation, we can be
sure that a well-prepared opponent will have considered ours and will start with an
advantage. From our knowledge of the other party, or from research that we can
carry out, we may be able to build a picture of what will be important to them and
what their position is likely to be. Perspective taking is largely educated guesswork
and we cannot be sure of any of this. But we can target our initial questions when we
are face-to-face at clarifying any assumptions we may make at this stage. Put
ourselves in their shoes. What would we want if we were in their position? The better
we can anticipate the perspective of the other party on the issues, the more we will
be able to identify in advance where we can trade off their needs against our own.

3. Identify possible trade-offs

Prioritizing the issues involved in the negotiation will enable us to identify those that
we can concede and those that we can't. Each concession we are able to make has
the potential of becoming a trade-off for something we can win for ourselves in
return. For example, by making a concession on quality or delivery time, we can ask
for a trade-off on price. Identifying possible trade-offs in advance will also reduce the
risk of accidentally offering a concession that results in the loss of one of our top
priority issues!

Appropriate advance preparation is essential if we want to give ourselves the best

opportunity to negotiate successfully. We will always have to 'fly by the seat of the
pants' to some degree in face-to-face negotiations, but effective preparation
minimizes the surprise element and reduces consequent risk.

Problem definition
Negotiation invariably involves the solution of a 'problem' where both or all parties
ideally want everything that is on the table but realistically have to find a compromise
solution. Most of us at some time have encountered difficulty in solving problems
because of the desire to head straight for the solution to the problem. Negotiations
often reach stalemate or break down because there is no common definition of the
'problem' the parties are trying to solve.

Our preparation defines the problem as we see it, based on certain assumptions we
have to make prior to the face-to-face meeting. The early stages of the negotiating
meeting need to focus on clarifying assumptions and establishing in general terms
what is important to each of the parties involved. It may be appropriate to aim for an
agreed definition that, for example, might be summarized as 'to reach an agreement
on action that is realistically achievable by both or all parties and mutually beneficial'.
The problem definition may also include reference to issues such as cost, quantity,
quality, time and long-term relationships.

The process is often an analytical one, with needs, wants, ideas, feelings and
concerns being systematically drawn out and exchanged to reach common agreement
on the definition of the problem. The essence is to agree what we are trying to
resolve before trying to resolve it and this stage can often flush out non-negotiable
issues and determine whether negotiation should even take place at all.

Problem solving and creativity in negotiation

The most effective problem-solvers are usually those who have developed the ability
to think both analytically and creatively/laterally. These people are equally
comfortable with the use of logic-based processes such as 'Cause and Effect
(Fishbone) Analysis' and 'Force Field Analysis' as they are with the creative or lateral
thinking processes that enable them to look at things from different angles,
eliminating mindset and spotting new possibilities. Many of the stalemates we
encounter during negotiation can be overcome by the use of creative thinking
techniques that challenge the validity of entrenched positions and open up
alternatives that will often not emerge from analysis alone. 'De Bono's Thinking
Course', author Edward De Bono, published by BBC Books, gives an insight into the
personal development of these creative thinking techniques. Numerous publications
include references to analytical techniques.

Key to effective problem solving in negotiating are:

 Keep the agreed problem definition in mind and refer back to it when the
discussion goes off track, amending as necessary.
 Establish and maintain a detailed understanding of all of the issues but
stay focused on what overall success for you and others will look like.
 Always stay as close as you can to your ideal position and as far away as
you can from your fallback.
 Continually look for and challenge assumptions, yours and theirs.
 Constantly challenge the needs of the other party for validity.
 Continually challenge your own needs for validity.
 Always remember that validity may change as new ideas and proposals
emerge.
  Keep an open mind and be prepared to offer and accept new ideas.
 Don't be afraid to ask the other party for ideas.
 Recognize and acknowledge as and when parts of the problem are
solved.
 Summaries regularly to ensure progressive agreement.

Negotiating is about solving the problems created by different needs and wants. The
wider our range of thinking, the greater is our ability to solve these problems and
achieve successful negotiating outcomes.

Completion
Completing a negotiation is the equivalent of 'closing' a sale. In the euphoria of the
moment when all parties agree the solution and the adrenalin fades away, it is too
easy to walk off to celebrate without 'nailing the agreement down'. Problems almost
certainly then arise when the lack of clarity on what was actually agreed emerges
later and subsequent disputes over the agreement may well lead back to another
wasteful round of negotiation.

Knowing when to complete the negotiation is often harder than knowing how, and
there are a few indicators that help to identify this crucial point in the discussion:

 Knowing when we have reached our limit beyond which we will be

accepting a bad deal.
 Knowing when we have got what we want.
 Judging how close the other party is to their limit.
 Being fully aware of what concessions have been given and received.
 Reading and assessing the reactions of the other party.

When we sense the time is right to attempt to complete the negotiation, there are a
number of options available, some of which are:

 'Summarizing' involves reminding the other party of the concessions

both sides have made and highlighting the benefit to them of accepting
the proposed agreement. Then summaries what has been agreed and
how much you have 'given' before asking for agreement on the terms.
 The 'alternative' approach presents the other party with a choice of
alternative agreements that they are free to make - 'either/or'.
 The 'very last concession' proposes one last concession in return for
agreement. Remember here that if the concession is too big, the other
party may think you are desperate and try for more. If it is too small,
 they may regard it as insignificant. Furthermore, this will have to be your
last concession in order to maintain your credibility as a negotiator.
 The 'consequences' approach summarizes and calls for a decision,
stating explicitly the consequences to both parties of failure to agree.
 The 'postponement' summarizes and suggests time out for both parties
to consider what has been proposed and to reconvene at a specified
time.

If an attempt to complete fails, there are unresolved issues that must be re-
examined. A summary of what the parties are happy with will identify those issues
that still need to be resolved before we attempt to complete again.

There are a few key steps in ensuring that our agreement stays valid after the event:

 Agree what we have agreed.

 Summaries each issue.
 Record what we have agreed in an acceptable way.
 Confirm in writing the agreed issues.
 Decide and record an agreed plan of action.

Managing the negotiation process

Irrespective of who is 'hosting' the negotiation, all parties have a role to play in
managing the process. If the meeting is on our territory, we need to plan the physical
environment in a way that demonstrates consideration for everybody involved. Basic
elements of the physical environment focus on space, general comfort, seating (pre-
arranged or not is a decision to be made), room layout and equipment.

In setting up the process, we need to:

 Ensure that all the right people are there (e.g. influence, expertise,
authority).
 Agree appropriate ground rules before starting.
 Get an early commitment to the goal of reaching a settlement.
 Build common trust by being open in sharing interests, objectives,
concerns and expectations.
 Avoid projecting the perception of hidden agendas or game-playing.
 Set an agenda for the task (i.e. to reach agreement) and consider as
many issues as possible at one time, remembering they are probably all
linked.
Controlling the process involves:

 Keeping our exploration of the other party's position separate from action
to agree (exploration is problem definition; action is problem solving).
 If the discussion goes off track, re-directing individuals and/or the group
back to agreed objectives - using questions rather than making
statements will help avoid alienation.
 Continually ensuring that shared facts and information are unambiguous
and checking that they are.
 Always being clear about what is being negotiated.

To stay focused on our limits and goals as defined in our preparation, we need to:

 Stick to our principles unless we are convinced they are no longer viable.
 Keep our aspirations high.
 Keep an open mind about how we negotiate but be rigid about what.
 Demonstrate willingness to co-operate but be slow to offer concessions.
 Avoid making premature compromises.
 Be comfortable with periods of silence (take and give thinking space).

Loss of face on either side can destroy trust and co-operation. We can avoid by:

 Finding ways to manoeuvre around wins at the overt expense of others.

 Helping people to retreat gracefully as appropriate.
 Encouraging all parties to trade concessions fairly.

High levels of emotion are not uncommon during negotiation. They need to be
handled sensitively by:

 Acknowledging emotion in others. Enabling them to express how they

feel and why can provide valuable information.
 Curbing our own negative emotional outbursts by remaining calm and
objective.
 If necessary, suggesting an adjournment.

Choosing a strategy
In its simplest form, negotiating involves a choice of three strategies:
  Hard (winning at all costs).
 Soft (conceding everything necessary to reach agreement).
 Principled (giving and receiving concessions to achieve a mutually
beneficial agreement).

The overall strategy we choose to adopt in a negotiating situation will depend on the
outcome we want. A hard strategy may be appropriate for a single one-off deal
where a long-term relationship is considered unimportant and/or where the
consequences of failure to agree are acceptable. A soft strategy may ultimately 'win'
where a short term 'loss' supports the development of a relationship that will be
profitable in the long run. In many situations we typically face, however, the
principled strategy achieves the desired goal of mutually beneficial agreement.

The hard strategy views the other party as an adversary and is demonstrated by
demanding concessions and one-sided gains as a condition of the relationship, digging
in, making threats, applying pressure and generating distrust.

The soft strategy views the other party as a friend and shows itself as making
concessions and accepting losses to develop the relationship, changing position easily,
making offers, yielding to pressure and building trust.

The principled strategy views the other party as a joint problem-solver and
demonstrates a desire to reach a wise outcome amicably and efficiently.

It is important to remember that we may choose to adopt different strategies at

different stages of a negotiation. For example, it would be unwise to be anything
other than hard on an issue that is a 'must have' for us. Equally, we can afford to be
soft on issues we have defined as 'nice-to-haves'. In most business negotiations
these choices will usually be made within the context of an overall principled
strategy.

Communicating effectively
No matter how well we have prepared for a negotiation and how aware we are of the
structure and the process of the meeting, the value of the outcome will ultimately
depend on the quality of the communication between the parties involved.

Building and maintaining rapport

Negotiations often begin with an air of tension created by the subconscious perception
that the situation is a battle between opponents. Often we don't know or have never
met the other party. It can be helpful to remember that the meeting is in reality a
debate to share what the respective parties want and to attempt to reach a solution
that will suit everyone to an acceptable degree.

A positive and fruitful negotiation is often dictated early through the development and
maintenance of 'rapport' between the parties. Our tone will work against us if we are
either hostile or submissive. One dictionary definition of rapport is 'a harmonious,
understanding relationship'. The same dictionary defines 'harmonious' as 'free from
disagreement'. The word 'disagreement' here does not relate to the negotiable issues.
It relates to the respective behaviors and attitudes of each party. Rapport centers
around minimizing the differences and maximizing the sameness between us and the
other party in terms of how we behave towards each other. A simple example might
be where I want to engage in preliminary small talk, but the other party wants to get
straight down to business. Rapport will exist when one of us moves our behavior
towards what the other wants. The creation and maintenance of rapport is particularly
important when negotiations involve cultural differences between the parties and you
may want to develop your understanding and skill in this area.

Questioning

There is always a risk in negotiating that we are so focused on our own agenda that
we don't concentrate enough energy on establishing the needs of others. Exploration
of the other party's agenda and goals is vital to the definition of the problem on the
table and its eventual solution. Wise use of questions often prevents the inadvertent
disclosure of information that can result from making too many statements in our
anxiety to present our case.

'Open' questions (beginning with why, what, where, when, who and how) facilitate the
introduction of facts, feelings, beliefs, opinions and ideas to the discussion. (Beware of
the overuse of 'why' which can often be perceived as aggressively challenging).
'Closed' questions invite 'yes' or 'no' answers in order to check agreement or
understanding and confirm information.

Listening

Negotiations often induce stress, making it very hard to concentrate on our own
position whilst, at the same time, listening to everything that is being said around the
table. Often, whilst listening, we are thinking ahead at the same time to our next
response.

As well as listening for our own benefit to gather the information we need, it is
important that we are seen to be listening. Key behaviors are:

 Keep your attention on the speaker.

 Maintain eye contact.
  Ask questions to check your understanding of what's been said.
 Take notes of key points (you will never remember them later).
 Even if people are slow to respond, stay silent and give them time to
think.

Stating our case

During a negotiation, we need to state our case on a continuous basis - early on to

set the parameters of the negotiation, and throughout, as the negotiation develops
and we modify our case with new proposals. Our initial statement is likely to be a
statement of our ideal position, as will that of the other party. They and we can judge
the flexibility of the respective positions by the language used. For example, 'I must
insist on...' will have a different meaning to 'I was hoping for...’ For this reason, we
need to choose our language carefully to reflect the relative importance of the issues.

As the negotiation develops, we will probably need to make modified proposals.

Unless we want to concede everything, a proposal should consist of two elements -
the condition and the offer. The condition states what we want from the other party;
the offer states what we might trade in return.

It is generally more powerful to ask for the condition before making the offer. We are
then in the driving seat - for example, 'If you could speed up delivery, we might be
able to consider a larger order'. Bear in mind the potential stalemate if both parties
always use that approach. We need to use our judgment, using the power on
important issues and conceding it on those that are less important.

Body language

No matters how well chosen your words are, their impact will pale into insignificance if
they are not matched by the sound of your voice and your physical image perceived
by others. Research has shown that whenever we communicate, our message is
received at three different levels:
  The words we use - precision, clarity.
 The 'music' - voice tone, pace, power, flow, emphasis.
 The 'dance' - eye contact, expression, posture, gestures, movement.

In normal circumstances, all three are congruent and the message is received
unambiguously as a whole. Where one or more falls out of line, the receiver picks up
55% of the message from the 'dance', 38% from the 'music' and only 7% from the
words we use.

It is easy for us to lose the vital congruence when we are under pressure, feeling
nervous or lacking confidence or even lying! In these situations we need to
concentrate on keeping all three in tune, even if it means putting on an act to some
extent.

Try this exercise. Stand up, placing your feet about one foot apart and turning your
toes inwards. Bend forwards about 45°, let your arms drop loosely and look at your
chest. Now say 'I feel very strong and powerful'. Do you honestly think anyone would
believe the words you have just spoken?

Now stand in front of a mirror and create the 'music' and 'dance' that will match the
words and repeat the phrase until your message is credible. You can also practice with
expressions of, for example, approval, disapproval, determination, conviction,
passion, sympathy and any others you can think of until you are confident that all
your messages are clear and unambiguous.

The use of body language in negotiating is a two-edged sword. Your own use of body
language will certainly affect your credibility with others. On the other hand, you can
look for signs in the other parties that suggest that the words they are using may not
be the whole story, giving you an opportunity to probe for the truth.

Understanding power
Power as a perception is often very different from power as a reality. Most of us have
experienced at some time the discomfort we feel when negotiating with people we
perceive as being more 'powerful' than ourselves. The following are some straight
facts about 'power' that can help to minimize or overcome that discomfort:

 Power is usually best defined in practical terms as the ability to influence.

 Power is relative - it is unusual (almost certainly unhealthy) for one
person to have all the power in a relationship.
 Power shifts over time between the same people in a relationship as the
relationship develops.
 Power is only effective if it is perceived and acknowledged by others
(people only have power with our permission).
 Power based on expertise, knowledge or information is arguably more
influential than power based on position or title (effective preparation
provides this power base).
 We all have the power to 'reward' (give concessions) and to 'punish'
(refuse concessions) based on our position within the negotiation.

Our preparation for any negotiation should include an analysis of where the power
might lie when the parties are face-to-face, and a strategy for how to use this
analysis to our advantage.

Games that people play

It is important to realize that, even if we prefer to choose a principled approach to
negotiating, we do not have a right to expect everybody else to do the same. In
reality we will often meet people who 'play games' in negotiating with us. Whether or
not these 'games' are ethical and fair is a matter of opinion. Many people see them as
part and parcel of negotiating and we need to recognize their existence and be
prepared to manage them without losing our position within the negotiation.
Some examples and suggested ways of dealing with them are as follows:

 Stalling/delaying
Identify, define and emphasize the costs of a delay in reaching
agreement and the benefits of speeding the process up.

 Making threats
Stay 'principled' and refuse to react to them. If necessary, make the
other party aware that you will only respond to reasoned arguments.
Remember, they too have a vested interest in reaching an agreement;
otherwise they wouldn't be there.

 Bringing in 'surprises'
Admit your ignorance of surprise facts rather than try to bluff without
insight. Challenge 'surprise' facts for validity and take time out to
consider their impact if necessary.

 Deliberate lies
You will only spot this one if you know the facts to be untrue, although
you may suspect that you are being deliberately deceived. Either way,
challenge the facts based on the information you know to be true and on
previous statements made by the other party that reveal the deception.

 Personal insults
Decline to get 'personally' involved, asking them to explain the relevance
of their statements to the task in hand of negotiating an agreement.
Refocus the discussion on the issues being negotiated.

Negotiate with Confidence

Bloomsbury
We all negotiate a lot more than we think we do, in all areas of our life, and
developing negotiation skills is an essential part of moving up the career ladder.

Negotiating is the process of trying to find an agreement between two or more parties
with differing views on, and expectations of, a certain issue. Good negotiations find a
balance between each party’s objectives to create a ‘win/win’ outcome.

Negotiation can be ‘competitive’ or ‘collaborative’. In competitive negotiations, the

negotiator wants to ‘win’ even if this results in the other party ‘losing’; this can
ultimately end in confrontation. In collaborative negotiations, the aim is to reach an
agreement that satisfies both parties, maximizing mutual advantage.
There is no one right way to negotiate, and you’ll develop a style that suits you. Most
negotiations will be a mixture of the collaborative and competitive approaches. In
situations where you’re negotiating the terms of an on-going relationship (rather than
a one-off deal), it’s generally more productive to lean towards collaboration rather
than competition.

What is competitive negotiation?

This type of negotiation may have an unfriendly atmosphere and each party is clearly
out to get the very best deal for themselves—the other party’s objectives tend not to
come into the equation. If you find yourself involved in a competitive-style
negotiation, bear in mind the following:

 opening. If you can, avoid making the opening bid as it gives a great deal of
information to the other party. Try not to tell the other party too much and
aim to keep control of the meeting’s agenda.
 concessions. Conceding in a competitive situation is seen as a sign of
weakness, so do this as little as possible. The size of the first concession
gives the opposing party an idea of the next best alternative, and tells them
exactly how far they push you.
 conflict. If conflict flares up, negotiators need to use assertiveness skills to
maintain a prime position, and to defuse the situation.

What is collaborative negotiation?

Many people see negotiation as a battle where the stronger party defeats the weaker
party, that is, there is a winner and a loser. In some cases, negotiations can break
down altogether, such as in industrial disputes which result in strike action. In this
scenario, nobody wins, so there are only losers. It needn’t be like this, however.
Trying in collaborative negotiation, conflict is minimized and the whole idea is to reach
a solution where everyone benefits. This approach tends to produce the best results,
mainly because there is much better communication between the parties. In addition,
it makes for better long-term relations if it’s necessary to work together over a long
period.

The opening will involve gathering as much information as possible but also disclosing
information so solutions can be developed that are acceptable to both parties. This
involves:

 considering a number of alternatives for each issue

 using open questions (which do not have yes/no answers)
 being flexible
 helping the other party to expand their ideas about possible solutions

Both parties will make concessions if necessary, normally aiming to trade things which
are cheap for them to give but valuable to the opposing party, in return for things
which are valuable to them (but may not be so cheap for the other party).
By listening, summarizing, paraphrasing, and disclosing in collaborative negotiations
(for example, ‘I would like to ask you a question…’. or ‘I feel that I need to tell you
that…’.), conflict will be kept to a minimum, enabling a mutual advantage to be
reached.

Make It Happen
Prepare yourself

As with many business situations, good preparation will help to reduce your stress
levels. Don’t think that preparation time is wasted time; it’s anything but. Begin by
working out your objectives, and making sure they are specific, achievable, and
measurable. It’s also important to have a clear idea of what you’re expecting from the
other party. Be sure that your expectations are realistic and that their results are easy
to assess. It’s a good idea to write down objectives and to put them into an order of
priority. One way to do this is to classify them as ‘must achieve’, ‘intend to achieve’,
and ‘like to achieve’. For example, a new photocopier has been bought for the office.
It breaks down after a week and you need to contact the supplier to sort out the
problem. The objectives can be defined as:

 Must achieve: The use of a photocopier that works.

 Intend to achieve: Get the photocopier repaired.
 Like to achieve: Get a replacement photocopier.

Ahead of any negotiation, gather as much information as possible about the subject
under discussion. The person with the most information usually does better in
negotiations. For example, two people have each prepared a very important
document. Let’s see how this situation can progress.

They both need to have them processed by the one desktop publishing operator in the
firm and couriered to the destination for the following morning. However, there is only
time to have one job finished before the daily courier collection at 4pm, so the two
argue over whose document is the most vital. If they argue too long, neither job will
be finished on time and both would ‘lose’. The senior member of staff could pull rank,
resulting in the junior being the ‘loser’, with the possible loss of his future co-
operation.

If they obtained more information, they would find out that the courier company runs
an optional 6pm collection which also guarantees delivery before 11am the next day.
A ‘win/win’ situation could then be achieved.

Discuss and explore

At the beginning of a meeting, each party needs to explore the other’s needs and
make tentative opening offers. Remember that these need to be realistic or it’s
unlikely that the discussion will progress to a successful conclusion for everyone. If
both parties co-operate, you can make progress; however, if one side adopts a
competitive approach and the other does not, problems may arise. You need, then, to
analyze the other party’s reaction to what’s said.

An opening statement is a good way of covering the main issues at stake for each
party, and allows the discussion to develop naturally. At this stage, the issues are just
being discussed and not yet negotiated. What you’re trying to do is develop a
relationship with the other person. Ask questions to help you identify their needs and
help to keep things moving. As a way of doing this, ask open-ended questions that
the person can reply to fully rather than closed questions to which he or she can only
answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. For example, you could begin by saying ‘Tell me your thoughts
about [the issue under discussion]’.

Make a proposal

Once both parties have had chance to assess the other’s position, proposals and
suggestions can be made and received. Remember that you need to trade things and
not just concede them. The following phrase is valuable:

‘If you (give to, or do something for, us), then we’ll (give to, or do something for,
you)’.

Look for an opportunity to trade things that are cheap for you to give but of value to
the other party, in return for things which are valuable to your business. For example,
if you are a painter and decorator who needs to rent a reasonably priced flat, you
could negotiate with the landlord to paint certain rooms in return for a lower rent. Or
say you need to publicize a product and would like to engage someone to do some
work for you, but can’t quite afford to pay the job rate they had in mind. If you or
your business has a website, you could offer to put a click-through link from your
website to theirs so that anyone who reads their article can find out more about them
and perhaps offer them more work.

Start the bargaining

After discussing each other’s requirements and exchanging information, the

bargaining can start (as in the first example above). Generally speaking, the more
you ask for, the more you get, while you’ll concede less if you don’t offer as much at
the beginning. For example, let’s say you’ve something to sell to another party. You
know you have a premium product, but you’re not sure quite how blank the other
party’s cheque is. If you know you’d be happy to sell for £200, you might want to
start off by asking for £300, knowing that:
  you’ll be able to look as if you’re giving ground to the other party
 they think they’re getting a bargain
 you may even get a better deal than you’d thought!

If conflict arises when the bargaining starts, explain that the opening position is just
that, an opening position and therefore not necessarily the one that will be adopted at
the end of the negotiation. Ultimately, an agreement can only be reached when both
parties find an acceptable point somewhere between their individual starting
positions.

When you make an offer, be very clear about what’s on the table. Avoid using words
such as ‘approximately’ or ‘about’, as an experienced negotiator will spot an
opportunity to raise the stakes quite dramatically. Don’t make the whole process
harder for yourself. For example, if you can only offer £600 for something, say so, or
before you know it you’ll be being pressed into agreeing to go up to £700.

Similarly, when the other party makes their offer, make sure you find out exactly
what it includes. For example, if you’re negotiating with a supplier, check whether the
cost they are quoting you contains delivery, VAT, and so on or not. Ask for
clarification if there’s anything you’re not sure about and check that the offer matches
all the criteria that you noted down during the preparation stages as being on your list
of requirements.

Communicate clearly but openly

When you’re negotiating with someone face-to-face, use open body language and
maintain eye contact. Try to avoid sitting with your arms folded and your legs
crossed, for example. Also, try to think through what you’re about to say before you
say it. Don’t use language that will annoy the other person. For example, try to avoid
using words like ‘quibbling’ and ‘petty’. Even if you think someone is doing or being
either of these things, using these words to them will only make the situation worse.
Don’t be sarcastic or demean them, their position, or their offer.

Similarly, if you feel that the main discussion is losing its focus and that people are
starting to make asides to colleagues, address this by saying ‘I sense there’s
something you’re unhappy about. Would you like to discuss it now?’

Listen!

Sometimes when you’re nervous about something, you become so focused on what
you want to say that you don’t pay enough attention to what’s being said to you. This
can cause all manner of problems, including knee-jerk reactions to problems that
aren’t really there but which you think you’ve heard. Active listening is a technique
which will improve your general communication skills and will be particularly useful to
practice if you have to negotiate a lot. Active listening involves:
  concentrating on what’s being said, rather than using the time to think of a
retort of your own.
 acknowledging what’s being said by your body language. This can include
keeping good eye contact and nodding.
 emphasizing that you’re listening by summarizing your understanding of what
has been said and checking that this is what the communicator intended to
convey.
 empathizing with the communicator’s situation. Empathy is about being able
to put yourself in the other person’s shoes and imagine what things are like
from their perspective.
 offering interpretations and perceptions to help move the communication
forward, then listening for agreement or disagreement. This enables both
parties to start exploring the territory more openly. It’s important to listen
for at this point, which enables you to remain open to new ideas and to think
positively about the other’s input. Listening against results in you closing
down to new information and automatically seeking arguments why
something won’t work.
 questioning and probing brings forth more information and will clear up any
misunderstandings about what’s being said. If you want to explore
someone’s thoughts more thoroughly, open questions are helpful. ‘Tell me
more about…?’, ‘What were your feelings when…?’, ‘What are your
thoughts…?’ These questions encourage the speaker to impart more
information than closed questions, that merely elicit a ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
 not being afraid of silence. We often feel compelled to fill silences, even when
we don’t really have anything to say—yet silence can be helpful in creating
the space to gather thoughts and prepare for our next intervention.

Call a break if you need to

Sometimes a short break of 10 or 15 minutes may be a good thing if a negotiation is

proving to be more complex or contentious than you’d previously thought. A break
will give everyone a chance to cool down or recharge his or her batteries as
necessary. It’ll also give everyone an opportunity to take a step back from the issue
under discussion and return to the table with some ideas if there had previously been
an impasse.

Negotiate over the phone

Today, most negotiations take place by e-mail or over the phone:

 arrange a time that will allow you to do some preparation beforehand. If

someone ‘ambushes’ you and you’re caught off guard, ask if you can ring
them back in half an hour or so.
 have all the necessary paperwork close at hand. For example, if you’re
discussing the renewal of a contract, make sure you’ve a copy close by that
you can refer to. Also have plenty of paper nearby that you can make notes
on.
 make sure that you won’t be disturbed. If you have an office, close the door.
If you work in an open-plan office, see if you can book a meeting room
elsewhere in the building so that you won’t distracted by other people’s
conversations around you.
 even though the other party can’t see you, use the body language you would
use if they were there in person, for example nod if you agree, move your
hands as you speak. All of this will filter back in the tone of your voice.
  take a break and arrange to call the other person back if things are getting
heated or you’ve reached a stale-mate.
 once agreement has been reached, follow up in writing as you would do if
you’d conducted a face-to-face negotiation.

Reach agreement

As the discussion continues, listen for verbal indications from the other party such as
‘maybe’ or ‘perhaps’—these could be a sign of an agreement being in sight. Also look
out for non-verbal signs, like papers being tidied away. Now is the time to summaries
what has been discussed and agreed and not to start bargaining again.

Summaries are an essential part of the negotiation process. They offer a way of
making sure that everyone is clear on the decisions reached and also give all
participants a final chance to raise any questions they may have. As soon as possible
after the negotiation, send a letter that sets out the final, agreed decision. A
handshake on a deal is fine, but no substitute for a written record. Make sure your
letter mentions:

 the terms of the agreement

 the names of those involved
 relevant specifications or quantities
 any prices mentioned plus discounts and so on
 individual responsibilities
 time schedules and any deadlines agreed

What To Avoid
You open negotiations with an unreasonable offer

Both parties need to see a reasonable chance of getting what they want from the
negotiation process. By starting off with an unreasonable offer, you risk killing the
process before it starts, or at least increasing the level of mistrust.

You begin negotiations without enough information about what the

other party wants

The early discussion and information gathering phases need to be used properly to
ensure that both parties aren’t ‘talking past each other’. Before negotiation begins,
you need to have a broad view of the points you might need to concede on, and what
you want the other party to concede to you. These can then be ‘traded’ in accordance
with your bottom line.

You let the arguments become personal and vindictive

There is often the temptation for negotiations to become sparring matches between
individuals; the risk is that parties could lose sight of the goal of the negotiation if
arguments become personal point-scoring exercises.

You lose your temper

Some people are much easier to negotiate with than others and there’s a difference
between a serious, probing discussion and a bad-tempered slanging matched laced
with sarcasm. If someone is rude to you while you’re negotiating with him or her,
don’t rise to the bait (even though it can be tempting). Instead, address them politely
but assertively, and challenge their behavior. You could say something like ‘I think
that comment was inappropriate and unhelpful. Shall we return to the issue?’

You try to rush negotiations in pursuit of a quick agreement

Both parties need to feel comfortable with the pace and direction of negotiations as
they develop. This could mean that one or other party might need time to consider
certain points or options before moving on to others. You need to respect this need,
while at the same time making sure that both parties observe a flexible timeframe for
resolution. Endless negotiations will only waste time and money.

Conclusion
Improving your skill as a negotiator will dramatically increase your chances of getting
what you want out of life. The aim of this learning guide has been to present you with
a practical framework with which to underpin your efforts to improve your skill as a
negotiator. The suggested development activities that follow will help you to transfer
whatever you may have learned into changes of behavior in real life.