Negotiations deadlock for many reasons. When both sides refuse to budge, it’s time to be creative. Here are some guidelines to get the other side talking again:
• Start Over. When Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev deadlocked during arms talks, Reagan reached across the table and said, “Hello, Mikhail, my name is Ron, and I think it’s time we talked about the arms race.” This broke the tension and led to meaningful discussions.
• Keep a Secret. Some negotiations stall because negotiators want to please third parties (such as bosses). If you suspect this, assure the other person that you’ll keep the conversation’s details confidential. The negotiator won’t worry that something he says will get back to the boss.
• Recount interests. Don’t talk about positions – focus on each side’s real needs. Say, for example, “It seems you’re most interested in delivery to meet your customers’ timetable.” If the other party agrees, ask, “What do you think are my main interests?” Highlighting the main interests, rather than side issues, helps you create room for new solutions.

Probing Past Positions
Probing effectively does not just work in fictional negotiations. Often, our seminar participants share their own success stories involving their ability to “probe and probe again” to get past the other sides positions and uncover their true interests.

Recently, we heard from a banker who specialized in real estate loans. He had a borrower that did not want to put up collateral for a loan. Rather than battling over the position of whether the borrower should provide the necessary collateral, the banker “probed and probed again” with questions like:

• “In the past you have always provided collateral, why is it that you do not want to so this time?
• “Is there something else you could provide us with other than collateral?”
• “What is it about providing collateral that you do not like?”

In the end, the banker discovered that the borrower objected to putting up collateral because it was costly to do appraisals and other the administrative tasks necessary to provide this type of security. As a result, the bank was able to address the true interests of its customer and by waiving certain requirements, reduce the borrower’s cost of putting up collateral. By using the “probe and probe again” technique, the bank received the security it needed and the borrower was able to lower its expenses. A true WIN-win!

Here are two examples of how “probe and probe again” can help you circumvent common probing roadblocks:

ROADBLOCK: “That is all we have in the budget.”

• Hypothetically, if you had the money in the budget, would you be willing to pay our price?
• Have you ever had to get additional funding not in the budget? For what? How?
• Are there other budgets from other departments that could supplement your budget?
• When is the budget set? Could we spread payment to next year so we can include it in that budget?

ROADBLOCK: “It is company policy.”

• Hypothetically, if it were not for the policy, would you be willing to do what we need?
• What is the reason for the policy?
• Has there ever been a situation like this before? What did the company do?
• Has the company ever allowed you to violate any other policy? Why?
• When was the policy formulated? Has it ever been amended?
• Who in the organization has the power to override policies?

By Ron Shapiro
Co-Founder and Chairman of Shapiro Negotiations Institute

Often participants in our programs voice the following frustration: “How can you possibly achieve a Win-Win result when you are in a weak position? When the other side holds all of the cards, isn’t it impossible to be an effective negotiator?” I believe the most effective negotiators are able to use their skills, both when they have the leverage, as well as when they don’t. In order to be more effective when you are in a weak position, I suggest the following:

Check Your Assumptions:
If you perceive yourself to be in a weak position the other side will too. Do yourself a favor and check your assumptions. Do you need to know the other side’s strengths? Very definitely! However, if you take the time to identify their weaknesses you may very well discover strengths in your own position of which you were previously unaware.

Something else to consider…make a list and talk it over with a friend. By discussing an itemized list of your personal strengths and weaknesses (and those of the other side) you will benefit from someone else’s objective input and avoid make incorrect assumptions about your own position.

Expand Your Alternatives:
O.K. What if you check you assumptions and you find out that you are, in fact, in a weak position? What do you do now? I suggest that you immediately look for other alternatives. Is the other side the only person in the world with the product or service that you want? Seldom is there ever a single source supplier for a particular item. It might be more convenient to buy from this person, or maybe the quality is better, but in the end, there are typically many alternatives to choose from, even when your alternatives look limited.

Again, I suggest you write down your possible alternatives before entering the negotiation. This valuable preparation will give you greater confidence to negotiate a fair deal. In the unlikely event that you do not have alternatives, consider finding a way to delay the negotiation until you are able to develop the necessary alternatives to negotiate with greater self-assurance.

Change the Subject:
So now you have found your assumptions to be correct and your alternatives limited. At this point, I suggest that you try to focus the negotiation on issues other than the one in which you find yourself the weakest. What else can be introduced into the negotiation that might provide you with a more beneficial situation?

For example, you might talk about benefits you provided to the other side in the past. You might discuss future opportunities that could exist. You even might inquire as to what else the other side is interested in beyond the deal at hand. Seldom does a transaction consist of only one component. Find out what other items can be brought into the negotiation and see if you can establish an upper hand with regard to these issues.

Find Those Similarly Situated:
If you find yourself in a weak position, there are likely others very similar to you. Seek out these people and see if the sum is greater than the individual parts. Consider class action suits, where an individual claimant is definitely in a weaker position when compared to a large company. But amass several thousand injured parties, and you discover the power of banding together. If you think someone else holds all of the cards, try to find out who else is sitting at the table with you and see if you can work together to achieve your goals.

You can only hope to always find yourself in the position of strength while sitting at the bargaining table. In those inevitable situations where you find yourself in the unenviable weak position implement the exercises outlined above and you will be more effective in the most challenging negotiation situations.

A common issue that arises late in the sales cycle when trying to close a deal to deliver sales training is “How do you measure the impact of your course?” This question is loaded with danger…and opportunity for the forward-thinking training organization. The stack of research and literature on measuring the impact of training is high and deep, but the usual approaches have significant limitations. These limits have to be addressed to have a rigorous and meaningful assessment of the effectiveness and impact of sales training.

Level 1

Post training evaluations do a good job of measuring participants reaction to the training event and often include a component asking respondents to predict applicability to their job performance. This self-reported data correlates at very low level with future business impact (r < .2) and a learners ability to recall specific information from the training (Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett, Traver & Shotland, 1997). Predictions about future performance and ability to retrieve information and apply it are usually overconfident (Zechmeister & Shaughnessy, 1980; Thalheimer, 2007). While post-training evaluations are a good starting point for measuring sales training effectiveness, it does not complete the job.

Level 2

Post-training tests that measure a learner’s ability to retrieve information from the course are widely used in situations that require compliance (such as in the pharmaceutical industry) or technical proficiency (for certifications). Since recall is necessary to enable on the job application, post training tests are clearly a useful component when measuring the potential for impact of a sales training program, but the ability to answer questions about training materials does not necessarily translate into higher sales performance. Tests often have questions that are biased – too easy due to clues contained within the question or so difficult that learners are discouraged from getting the right answer. Online tests are often treated as “open book” exams, which in itself is not a bad thing (at least people learn how to find the correct answers!) but it does not mean that the learner can apply the knowledge, skills or information in a real sales situation.

Level 3

Measuring training transfer (Level 3) is best accomplished by an objective third party. Ideally, sales behavior in the field is observed and assessed by someone who is familiar with pre-training performance and is trained to be able to spot the differences after sales training. In reality, sales managers are best positioned to do this, but with a myriad of responsibilities and multiple salespeople to manage, this is rarely accomplished with a high degree of precision. Many training organizations resort to self-reported data, which predictability results in over-estimated transfer and application.

Level 4

Evaluating business impact is logistically difficult, for a number of reasons:

1. Isolating the Impact of Training

There are a variety of variables that must be controlled in order to isolate the training impact. Some are controllable – compensation and sales incentives, stabilizing territories, and keeping sales teams intact for the period of measurement. Others are uncontrollable, such as market conditions and competitive landscape.

2. Forming Control Groups

One client did all of the right things in designing a strong Level 4 evaluation, including setting up a control group of non-participants with the same tenure, experience, historical performance and baseline training. After the training, the pilot group could not help themselves but to share what they learned with the control group as they saw an immediate positive impact on their own sales results (which they attributed to the training). Thus, the control group was contaminated and the data being collected for the Level 4 evaluation was no longer valid.

3. Maintaining Vigilant Measurement

Sales organizations cannot “freeze” in the hopes of a valid scientific pursuit of impact data. The best sales teams are always tweaking, adjusting, compromising, and trying new things in order to grow their book of business. It is unreasonable to expect professionals tasked with driving revenue to ignore the very individual needs and wants of their customers to maintain precise measures of the impact of a training program. In our experience, the heavy lifting associated with measuring business results is often abandoned before the prescribed measurement period elapses.

Level 5

The holy grail of trainers is to unequivocally prove that the financial investment in sales training is worthwhile. The usual method is to take the fully loaded costs of training and compare those costs to the financial impact. The trick is to make sure that all costs associated with sales training are accounted for in the analysis. The costs that are almost always captured (due to the ease of identification) are course development costs, travel costs, logistics (shipping, printing, etc.) andthe wages and salaries of all of the staff involved in developing, delivering and attending the program (Lilly, 2001).

However, costs such as lost productivity (sales, customer response time, customer satisfaction) and administration (marketing, testing, registration, documentation, postage, conference calls) are more difficult to pinpoint and are sometimes left out of the analysis. Another commonly neglected area is the reduction in performancethat is commonly referred to as the learning curve. Performers often struggle to adopt new skills and this produces a temporary negative impact on results in the period immediately following a training event (Buelow, 2004).

Conclusion – There is Light at the End of the Tunnel

After all of these pitfalls, you may be wondering what we should do as trainers to assure our customers that it is indeed worthwhile to invest in training? The answer lies within a comprehensive strategy that encompasses all of the Levels defined here, and making incremental improvements to all levels. In upcoming posts, we will examine and recommend ways to enhance the precision for each level.

For more information on SNI’s training and measurement practices, please visit http://www.shapironegotiations.com for a white paper – The Direct Path to Training ROI.

As the reverse auction increases in popularity as a way for buyers to drive vendor costs down, more suppliers are choosing not to participate in them. Suppliers are resisting the pressure to reduce profitability and commoditize their products and services. However, a strategy to avoid reverse auctions is not the best or only way to prevent erosion of profits.

As in any “negotiation” the best way to get what you want is to help the other side get what they want. And today’s buyers are certainly interested in more than simply cutting costs (although in this economy, it is a primary interest). Suppliers need to find a way to provide customers with the benefits of reverse auctions without succumbing to the pitfalls of the strategy.

The figure below shows the existing model for a typical reverse auction.

Arthur D Little, a management consulting company based in the UK, developed a process that meets the needs of buyers, while protecting the interests of suppliers. In this process, the buyer takes the additional step of defining key criteria that increase the value of each proposal to the buyer. Buyers would indicate which value-added products or services would be most important to meeting their needs.

Suppliers would then assess the willingness of the buyer to pay extra for various value-adds. This gives the supplier a chance to adjust pricing based on real criteria, instead of having to guess at these options and hope to make the “final” round and then negotiate in a needs-based manner.

Buyers would then accept the lowest adjusted price bid, and save the time and trouble of the post-auction negotiation. The figure below reflects this basic process:

The buyer benefits from an increased array of goods and services that will be capable of auction; a decreasing the number of bidders who fail to deliver value; and an award based on total value. Suppliers have price transparency, but the real value of their bid is concealed in the details and it minimizes the “final round” of negotiations after the auction by reducing buyer discretion to change specs or to demand discounts. In short, it provides for negotiation in a controlled and structured manner.

Source: Arthur D Little is the world’s oldest management consultancy, founded in 1886. This process was originally defined in Dr. Daniel Deneffe’s research paper titled “How to Design Reverse e-Auctions to Realize Their Full Potential.”