An article by Cynthia Crossen from The Wall Street Journal a few years back reported that, “Most people speak at a rate of 120 to 150 words a minute, but the human brain can easily process more than 500 words a minute, leaving plenty of time for mental fidgeting.”  Herein lays one of the great obstacles to effective listening.  We have the biological capability to listen to everything, yet we often miss a lot of information because we get bored or disinterested.

In a negotiation, the last thing you want to do is lose out on information.  Everything the other side says is potentially valuable to help you make a deal.  Let the other side talk as much as they want.  Listen between the lines to what is said and what is omitted.  Listen for nuance and emotion.  Listen with your eyes to see their mannerisms and comfort level with each topic.  All the material you need to make the deal is there, it’s just up to you to gather it.

When it is your time to speak, make what you say count.  Don’t feel obligated to match the amount of time they spoke for.  Say what you need to frame the issues and keep moving forward on the key issues of the negotiation.  The less you say, the more others will remember.

Think of it this way: the best negotiators aren’t only smooth talkers, they’re smooth listeners too.

To read the article from the Wall Street Journal by Cynthia Crossen entitled “From Talk Shows to Offices, America Lacks Good Listeners”, click here

In a previous post we discussed a negotiation tactic that we refer to as “Higher Authority”. 

The Bluff is the single most difficult tactic to identify. It occurs when the other side says things such as: “I have no room to move”; “That is the best I can do” or “I have a competitive bid that is 20% cheaper.”

Most people trust that the other side is telling them the truth and if possible, drop their price. Ultimately, you may have to do just that, but most people would be more satisfied if they knew that the other bid was 20% lower and they did not just fall for a bluff. Here are some ways to test the bluff:

• Ask for Documentation.  Most people feel very uncomfortable using this technique because they feel that if they ask to see information in writing that they are calling the other person a liar.  Obviously you do not want to do this, so here are some ways to phrase the request for documentation:
  • Apples to Apples.  Tell the other side that you need to see the bid to make sure that they are providing the same terms and conditions that you are.  You can say that “in the past” other people have undercut your pricing by using cheaper materials or by providing less service.  If you can see the bid, you can make sure that this is not the situation.
  • Blame a Higher Authority.  “I certainly believe you, but in order to get the decrease approved, I need to take the competing bid back to my partners and show them so that they know the entire situation.”

• Ask for Clarification.  Rather than reacting to the bluff, you might want to ask for clarification.  You can ask the other side to give you some time to double check your information, and ask them to take some time to double check their information.  Allowing for some time might make the other side feel nervous about continuing with their bluff for fear that they have scared you aware.  Also, by asking for both sides to take time to clarify their information and assumptions, you have provided the other side with an easier “out” to come back and say: “I have double checked and there may have been some problems with my assumptions…”

• Call the Bluff.  Sometimes the only way to test the bluff is to walk away from the deal.  When doing so, you should be careful to leave the door open.  You can do so by saying: “We would love to work for you, but we cannot under those situations, but please keep in touch.  If it does not work out with the other person, we would still be interested in doing business.”   Keeping the door open in this way will enable the other side to come back to you.  Otherwise, they might be uncomfortable coming back to you for fear that they would seem untrustworthy because of their attempt to use a bluff.

Imagine this: you reach an agreement in a negotiation and the other side says: “I will send you the contract.” You gladly accept as it means less work for you. Unfortunately many times the language in the contract may differ slightly from your understanding of the prior agreement. You suggest several changes and the other side acts startled that you are changing what had already been agreed to and now they claim that since you are making changes, they are allowed to re-open issues as well.

When two parties reach an agreement, many times it is codified within a written contract. Many people feel that the process is completed when the handshake occurs, but some people use the tactic of Controlling the Contract to gain extra advantage after the other side thinks that the deal is done.

To manage Controlling the Contact tactics, try to:

• Write the Drafts of the Contract. If possible, at the end of discussions, tell the other side that you (or your lawyers) will be glad to write it up. That way the other side is reacting to your draft rather than you reacting to their draft.

• Write a Memo Before You Write a Contract. By writing a memo or a letter in plain language, you will get both parties to agree to the main agreements before the lawyers start to confuse the issues with their own “legalese.” This plain language letter or memo can be a reference point back if the contract seems to be off course.

• If Necessary, Manage the Lawyers. Sometimes lawyers can re-interpret understandings and get into discussions with the other side’s lawyers that may or may not reflect the original intent of the agreement. If you sense this is happening, make sure to re-establish your contact with the other side to reiterate your understandings before you let the lawyers continue to battle it out.

• Personalize Communication. Where possible have major changes to the contract communicated via phone or in person. Often one side will provide comments to a contract that they feel are minor, but the other side perceives as re-writing the deal. It can escalate and trust can be lost if both sides continue to communicate by marking up drafts and sending them back and forth. Before you get yourself into a battle of the contracts, pick up a phone with the person who you worked with to cut the original deal.

Recall when you were a young child gathered with your friends.  You’re all in deep discussion about what game you’ll play together.  Timmy suggests dodge ball, Susie offers a board game, and you too like the board game idea.  Thus, your and Suzie’s democracy votes board game, while Timmy angrily refuses.  Eventually, Timmy gives you the ultimatum, “if we don’t play dodge ball, I’m going home!”  It’s a temperamental withdrawal tactic that people continually use throughout their lives – usually with a little less immaturity.

This is where your counterpart, often dramatically, will exit the discussion hoping you’ll fear a no-deal or no-conclusion and make a concession just to bring them back to the table.  By doing so, they gain a concession without giving one.  You’ll often see a hasty change in demeanor and location, and hear a “fine then…” or “this is too much…” or “this is ridiculous…” or “we’re getting nowhere…”

Consider the following techniques to manage the Withdrawal Technique:

• Use a Hypothetical.  Let’s say someone says something like, “I have told you that I do not think that I can get this proposal agreed to by my Board, so I am going to have to stop these discussions entirely.”  While this sounds like a Withdrawal, the fact that the other side provides a condition regarding getting the proposal “agreed to by the board” provides an indication that the withdrawal may not be a withdrawal.  To test the other side, you could ask: “Hypothetically speaking, if you were able to get it past the Board, would you be willing to continue the conversation?”  If the other side agrees to continue the discussion, then you have prevented the Withdrawal.

• Offer Mutual Concessions.  Rather than making a one-sided concession just to get the other side to the table, propose a resolution where each side makes a concession.  This approach gives the other side a potential reason to return, but it does not provide them with a unilateral gain just to bring them back to the table.

• Focus on Previous Progress.  Rather than conceding to get the other side to the table, try to get the other side to agree that there has been substantial progress made in the past and that momentum may help remind them that although there is frustration at this point, the past progress you have made should justify that the other side not just walk away at this point.