The Intelligent Negotiator (23 page)

The negotiators who use Passive-Aggressive techniques are those who dislike the bargaining process. They find the usual give-and-take and the need for concessionary bargaining distasteful. Since Passive-Aggressive negotiators are either unable or unwilling to express their concerns directly, they attempt to disrupt the process indirectly.

When you find yourself across the table from Passive-Aggressive counterparts, neutralize their ability to disrupt the process. First, try to formulate a minimal package you can reasonably defend. Include terms that clearly favor your own interests, but which appear to satisfy the opposing side’s basic needs. When you present this proposal to them, they are unlikely to reject the terms outright. They will probably accept your proposed terms, and then demand the opportunity to prepare the agreement incorporating those conditions. When you get together a few days later, ostensibly to finalize the draft they have prepared, they indicate that they were unable to draw up the draft agreement. They suggest further discussions designed to extract additional concessions from you.

During the period they are supposedly preparing the draft agreement, prepare an agreement of your own incorporating the terms that were previously agreed upon. When your counterparts indicate that they were unable to complete this task, open your drawer and pull out your own draft, indicating that you had some extra time that week and decided to do so in case they were too busy. This will enrage them, but they will not or can not express their anger so directly. They will instead review your draft, and are likely to sign it meekly.

S
PLITTING THE
D
IFFERENCE

A popular technique that can be used to achieve final agreements is splitting the distance remaining between the parties’ respective positions. This is most appropriately used following detailed bargaining that has brought the parties close together. When you agree to split the difference, you are using the
promise
technique to generate simultaneous movement. You indicate that if your counterparts are willing to go halfway, you are willing to do the same. This can be an especially effective way to close the remaining gap without either side losing face.

Whenever counterparts ask you to split the remaining difference near the conclusion of bargaining interactions, stop and think before you agree. Carefully review in your mind the previous bargaining sequence. Try to determine whether your counterparts skewed the apparent settlement range in their favor through either a biased opening offer or less generous position changes during the distributive and closing stages. Be sure you would not be moving too much in the direction of your counterparts before you agree to meet them “halfway.”

N
EGOTIATING VIA
T
ELEPHONE

A substantial percentage of business and personal negotiations are conducted wholly or partially on the telephone, since face-to-face meetings may be expensive or inconvenient. Telephone negotiations involve the same stages and bargaining techniques as personal interactions; however, they usually consist of a series of short exchanges rather than longer encounters. Many negotiators who engage in
telephone talks make the mistake of treating these electronic exchanges less seriously than they would face-to-face interactions. Since their counterparts can’t see them, they think they can wing it on the phone. This is a big mistake.

Do not assume your counterparts cannot read your nonverbal messages on the phone. Many people are better able to hear verbal leaks and discern nonverbal signals during telephone exchanges than during in-person encounters. In a home or office meeting, we are distracted by what’s outside the window or how our counterpart has designed the office. On the telephone, however, we are listening intently to the one relevant stimulus—the voice of our counterpart. We are more likely to hear verbal leaks that give away important information, and be more aware of nonverbal signals. We carefully monitor the pitch, pace, tone, and volume of speaker voices. A pregnant pause from a person who did not hesitate before rejecting prior proposals may indicate that this person is seriously considering a particular offer. The pausing party can’t disguise the lapse by playing with his glasses or stroking his chin when he is talking on the telephone. A slight sigh in response to a new offer—which is more discernible on the telephone than in person—may similarly indicate interest in your most recent position statement.

Voice inflection can be equally informative. Counterparts who respond to communicated offers with increased levels of excitement suggest that they are more pleased with proposals than their verbal responses indicate. Voice inflection may also suggest speaker deception. As noted earlier, liars tend to speak more deliberately when they misstate information, and the pitch of their voice often goes up.

When you schedule telephone negotiations, prepare as thoroughly for those interactions as you would for in-person
talks. You can gain a bargaining advantage by being the one to call your counterpart. If you are lucky, the counterpart won’t be prepared for your call, and may begin to think out loud on the phone. If you listen carefully, you may hear verbal leaks and discern a number of nonverbal signals. If, on the other hand, a counterpart catches you off guard with unexpected phone calls when you are not prepared to negotiate, don’t hesitate to tell this person that you are busy and will return her call as soon as you are free. Take the time you need to prepare for the encounter, and then call back. When you return the call, don’t make the mistake of immediately launching into a discussion of the topics to be exchanged. Since
your counterpart
initiated the exchange, wait until she answers the phone and indicate that you are returning her call. If you then become silent, she will feel the need to speak—and so begin the real talks.

One clear
disadvantage
of telephone negotiations derives from their less personal nature. It is easier for people to say no or to be nasty to someone they can’t see. As a result, negotiators are often more inclined to use overtly competitive or adversarial tactics on the phone. When you have to conduct serious bargaining involving critical issues, you may find it beneficial to negotiate face-to-face. The benefits that can be derived from negotiating in person outweigh the increased monetary costs.

N
EGOTIATING BY
M
AIL OR
T
HROUGH
F
AX OR
E
-MAIL
T
RANSMISSIONS

An increasing number of people conduct serious negotiations almost entirely through letters, fax transmissions, or e-mail exchanges. Most people who attempt to restrict
their bargaining exchanges to mail, fax, or e-mail are uncomfortable with the split-second decision-making that occurs during personal interactions in the traditional negotiating process. They forget that bargaining involves uniquely
personal interactions
that are not effectively conducted through only written communications.

The use of mail, fax, or e-mail transmissions to conduct basic negotiations is a cumbersome and inefficient process. Each communication must be carefully drafted and thoroughly edited before being sent to the other side. The recipients must read and digest all the written communication, and then formulate their own replies. Written positions seem more intractable than oral statements because of the definitive nature of written documents. When people present proposals orally, their voice inflections and nonverbal signals may indicate a willingness to be flexible with respect to certain items. Written communications rarely convey such information.

Mail, fax, and e-mail exchanges are also more easily misinterpreted. As recipients of such messages read and reread particular passages, they may read more or less into the stated terms than was intended by the senders.

There is nothing wrong with the exchange of written proposals—especially where many complicated terms must be considered. Nonetheless, personal communication should follow major written exchanges. Several days after you have sent a written proposal to a counterpart, telephone that person to
hear
his or her response to your proposal. Does he or she have any questions or comments? Is there anything this person would like you to explain or clarify? Many of the issues your counterpart raises can be immediately clarified. Potential controversies may be avoided when each party
hears
what the other is thinking. Particular terms can be explained, and
possibly offensive language can be modified. By the time the phone call is complete, most of the issues raised have been resolved amicably. Had you not had this telephone conference, however, misunderstandings may have become amplified, leading to escalated proposals through return mail, fax, or e-mail.

N
EGOTIATING WITH
G
OVERNMENT
R
EPRESENTATIVES

We are often forced to negotiate with federal, state, or local government agencies. We may have to obtain approval for modifications to our office building, determine how to file unemployment and social security tax forms for individuals who work for us, get property or income tax information, and so on. Most private sector business people dread bargaining interactions with government agencies, afraid those entities don’t have any incentive to deal with us fairly. They have the image of distant bureaucrats who are unwilling to apply their regulations in a reasonable manner.

The reason negotiating with government regulators can be so frustrating is that different value systems are involved. Business firms are driven primarily by the need to make a profit; government agencies operate on a nonprofit basis. Government employees often do not fully appreciate the cost constraints that affect most small and many large businesses.

It is important to appreciate the constraints that affect government officials. They are often under great pressure to resolve disputes through negotiated arrangements. They lack the legal staff needed to litigate many cases, and they try to limit their disputes to major issues.
If individuals try to reason with government representatives and make realistic proposals, they will usually achieve mutual accords. Despite the occasional horror stories we read about in the newspapers or see on television, government officials rarely abuse private sector parties. They know that if they do and it becomes public, they may be in big trouble.

Since profit doesn’t motivate government officials, what does influence them? They are enamored of their own rules and regulations. They know their rules completely and have a form for every conceivable situation. If you ever challenge their basic rules, they will fight you all the way to the United States Supreme Court. If you can possibly avoid this situation by trying to fit your circumstances within their existing rules—even if your proposed solution involves a strained construction of their regulations—government negotiators are more likely to give you what you are seeking. Explain to them why it is in their interest to give you what you want. If it seems appropriate, they will usually agree with you.

One especially frustrating aspect of bargaining with government officials is the limited authority possessed by lower government agents. Rarely do department heads provide their subordinates with expansive authority. They know that they will be held politically responsible for decisions made by their agencies, and they limit their underlings’ freedom to protect themselves. Their agents normally know what they can sell to their superiors, and they don’t enter into agreements they think are unacceptable. They resent it when they are overruled by their superiors. They thus fight for your interests when they seek the approval of higher agency personnel.

Once you reach agreements with government employees, trust their ability to obtain final approval. It is
important to give them the information they will need when they meet with higher agency officials. If you don’t provide this assistance, you diminish the likelihood that your deal will be accepted. Have faith in the fact that most agreements negotiated by government representatives are ultimately approved by department heads. Since the approval process usually takes time, you must be patient. Don’t harass the agency officials until you believe your situation has become completely lost within the bureaucracy. If you push too quickly or too hard, they always have the ability to deny what you are seeking. While you may subsequently be able to get that decision reversed by higher agency officials, this process will be time-consuming and expensive. You are far better off if you can negotiate the appropriate terms with agency employees and help them to obtain the approval of their superiors.

What should you do after your proposed deal has languished within the agency for a prolonged period of time? You should first contact the person with whom you initially interacted and politely ask about the status of your file. He or she may refocus on your matter and get it approved. If you feel that the person with immediate authority over your situation is afraid to make a decision, you may contact the next higher agency official and request that person’s assistance. Some bureaucrats are hesitant to make difficult decisions, because they fear retaliation if they make a mistake. They prefer to make no decision, so they are safe. When you encounter such people, first contact them and try to convince them that what you are requesting is not the least bit controversial or inappropriate. Only when this approach fails to generate action should you seek the assistance of higher agency personnel.

S
UMMARY
P
OINTS

• Negotiators employ various techniques during the distributive part of bargaining interactions to enable them to claim more of the items being divided between the participants. Some of these techniques include:
  

  • time pressure
    

  • dual messages
    

  • extreme opening offers
    

  • probing questions
    

  • flinching or looking dejected
    

  • nibbling
    

  • range offers
    

  • decreasing or limited duration offers
    

  • anger
    

  • aggressive behavior
    

  • walking out/slamming down the telephone
    

  • Mutt & Jeff (also known as Good Cop/Bad Cop)
    

  • irrationality (or crazy like a fox)
    

  • false demands
    

  • alleged expertise
    

  • false concessions
    

  • predicting disaster
    

  • playing Brer Rabbit
    

  • going Belly-Up
    

• By understanding the different bargaining techniques and the appropriate counter-measures, negotiators can decide which tactics to employ and how to neutralize the impact of opponent techniques.