HOW TO TAKE THE NEGATIVITY OUT OF A "NO"

It is possible that after a good-faith attempt to engage another party in negotiation and problem solving, no progress is made. They may be insistent and demanding or unreasonable and uncompromising. They may just be unwilling to work jointly towards a solution or trying selfishly to impose their demands. In this situation, many of us avoid saying "no" even though we should. We become anxious about how the other may take it, and the defensiveness and anger that it may arouse. We may deal with this by avoiding the issue altogether and leaving the other party confused about where we stand. Or, even worse, we may say "yes" when what we really mean is "no".

Never concede to anything which is unacceptable just because of a fear of being assertive and saying "no". John F. Kennedy's famous statement: "Don't fear to negotiate but don't negotiate out of fear" is a good rule to remember in this situation.

Knowing how to say "no" constructively and positively is a skill that we all need in order to manage our relationships with authenticity and effectiveness. In this column, we provide a three-step formula for saying no while taking the negativity out of the "no!" and without even uttering the word.

Read more -->

ON MAKING THE FIRST OFFER

THE CHALLENGE
A strategic question that is often asked when it comes to negotiation is: should you make the first offer or wait for the other party to put their offer on the table first?

I have heard different opinions from various negotiation theorists. There are those who suggest that it is better to wait for the other party to put forward their offer first. This, they argue, will give you a sense of where the lower end of their zone of possible agreement may lie and from which you can then work upwards if you are selling, (and the reverse if you are buying).

These theorists also suggest that the "appropriate" response to their offer should be an obvious and highly exaggerated flinch, thereby clearly indicating how "crazy" they are for even considering such an "unreasonable" offer. The hope is that the all-powerful flinch will immediately shift them away from their initial position and closer to where you want to them to be.

Read more -->

NEGOTIATING WITH PURPOSE

On occasion, as part of a client engagement, we might do an "audit" where we will observe our clients as they conduct a live negotiation. During these sessions, we are always struck by the same thing. This "thing" grates on our ears like a beautiful piece of opera sung atrociously off key. It assaults our senses mercilessly. It turns an elegant waltz into a grotesque and awkward stomp. What is this "thing" you ask? It is excessive, relentless, redundant, purposeless and aimless talking.

Often, negotiators perceive the negotiation process as being to persistently assert their demands, declare their positions and impose their proposals without any consideration of the other side's concerns or needs. They think that the more insistent they become the better negotiators they are. They believe that the only way to "win" is to continuously and repetitively state their positions without allowing their opponent to get a word in edge-wise. Oddly, they don't seem to realize that they are engaged in a terribly inefficient and unproductive process at best and a downright destructive one at worst.

Read more -->

THE (real) ART OF THE DEAL Negotiating Agreements for the Long Term

Patrick Nelson had just started a new business and needed an investor. His father-in-law agreed to invest $500,000 in exchange for a 10 percent share in the venture. He also demanded that Patrick appoints his son, Kevin, (Patrick's brother-in-law) to the position of vice president and that he makes him a minority shareholder. Patrick optimistically accepted these terms.

A few months later, Kevin relocated to another state to be closer to a new potentially large client. Communication between Patrick and Kevin became less frequent, and within a year their relationship started to deteriorate. They were in disagreement about the decision-making processes and about each one's authority within the company. To make matters worse, Patrick's wife (Kevin's sister) had filed for a divorce. Patrick eventually saw no option but to fire Kevin. This resulted in Kevin and his father suing Patrick for a cash settlement equal to their equity shares in the business and for wrongful termination. What started out as an ideal arrangement ended as a nightmare!

Read more -->

GOOD PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS - A HELP OR HINDRANCE IN NEGOTIATIONS

In a recent article in Foreign Policy Magazine titled: "How Trump can play nice with Russia without selling out America" (January 6th 2017), Michael McFaul, the U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation (2012-2014) expresses concern over President-elect Trump's desire to foster better relations with Putin. He writes "Better relations should never be the goal of U.S. foreign policy toward Russia or any country in the world. Diplomacy is not a popularity contest".

McFaul's perspective appears to be that better relations could negatively impact negotiations and the protecting of our interests. He seems to think that with better relationships, we are more likely to make deeper concessions in order to maintain the relationship. His perspective makes sense if we see negotiation as an adversarial face-to-face confrontation, haggling over who will extract greater concessions from the other.

And therein lies the problem!

Read more -->