Become A Master Negotiator

Summary: Taking back something that has already been agreed to.

This tactic is particularly effective when your counterpart is not being honest or is pushing you to the end of your rope with excessive demands. You take something back that you have already agreed to.

Example

Lloyd and Nancy have been renting an apartment for three years. For about six months they have been feeling ill, but no one can figure out what their problem is. One day, while moving furniture, they find a wall covered with black mold. After doing some research, they discover that this mold could be what has been causing their health problems. On March 10, Lloyd and Nancy move out of the apartment and tell the landlord that they will not return until the moldy wall has been repaired. By March 20, the landlord has taken no action, so Lloyd and Nancy tell the landlord that they are moving out and requesting a refund of their deposit. When the landlord refuses, saying that Lloyd and Nancy have not provided thirty days’ notice, they hire an attorney, who demands the return of the couple’s deposit and a refund of the rent for March as well.

Counter

A fair person would probably have quickly repaired the moldy wall or returned the security deposit as requested, and therefore would not need any counter to this tactic. However, looking at the negotiation from the landlord’s point of view, he could try asking if the couple would be satisfied if he fulfilled the original request for a repair. Another option would be to show how he has been working on solving Lloyd and Nancy’s problem (collecting bids for the repair, etc.). Or he can agree to the lawyer’s demands but try to gain something in return, using the Trade-off Concession: “I will agree to cut a check for March’s rent and the security deposit if you will sign an agreement not to hold me liable for any future illnesses.”

Have you used or encountered this tactic in your negotiations? If so, how’d it go?

Summary: Getting an unbiased third party to mediate a negotiation.

When two counterparts do not have a history of working well together, using an intermediary, or “umpire,” to facilitate the negotiation can sometimes prove helpful. In this case, a third party who has had previous positive relationships with both counterparts enters the picture.

Example

Two corporate presidents know it is in the best interests of both their companies to merge. In fact, they know that if they continue on the present course, they will both eventually be leading unprofitable companies. The problem is that they have met twice before to negotiate a merger. Since each of them has an ego the size of King Kong, they have left the table without a deal each time, and their relationship has ended up even more strained. A vendor who sells machinery to both companies, and is well liked by both presidents, enters the picture. This vendor starts to talk with each president separately about merging the companies and eventually brings the two presidents face-to-face to create a win-win outcome.

Counter

Of course, an obvious counter would be for one counterpart to refuse to work with a mediator but, in this example, countering would not be in either president’s best interest. If you agree to work with a mediator in a negotiation, we have two helpful suggestions. First, make sure you verify that the mediator chosen is truly impartial and does not unfairly represent one side. Test the information the mediator presents for accuracy. If necessary, talk to others who have worked with the mediator in the past to ensure his character is strong and his results are credible. Second, verify the fees or costs of the mediator’s services up-front so there are no surprise bills or sudden requests to split his commission.

Have you used or encountered this tactic in your negotiations? If so, how’d it go?

Summary: Appealing to a counterpart’s feelings by acting personally upset by an offer.

Most negotiators want to avoid hurting someone else’s feelings. Tough negotiators don’t mind being ruthless, since they consider their actions just a part of business, but even they don’t feel comfortable when someone tells them they have hurt his feelings or betrayed him in some way.

Example

We were negotiating a subcontract for our services. In the middle of the negotiation, the contractor stopped and stated that it was important that we know how he felt. He went on to tell us that because of our long business relationship, he felt hurt and betrayed that we would not work for him unless we made a higher fee. We backed up and changed our aspirations because we felt terrible that he was taking our actions so personally. We do not mind driving a hard bargain, but we do not want to hurt people’s feelings in the process. Unfortunately, we learned when this happened a second time with the same person that the “hurt feelings” were just a tactic.

Counter

We could have simply apologized and asked the contractor to clarify why he felt hurt. Or it may have been helpful to ask, “If You Were in Our Shoes, could you understand why obtaining the higher fee might be important to us?”

Have you used or encountered this tactic in your negotiations? If so, how’d it go?

Summary: Making an offer that is contingent on specific conditions.

This tactic, which is similar to The Trial Balloon, is used to check out your counterpart’s acceptance of your proposal. This tactic is based on the idea that most people never give up anything without getting something in return.

Example

You are an office supplies salesperson. A potential buyer asks you, “If I am willing to sign the purchase order today, then would you be willing to lower the price by a dollar per unit?”

Counter

Before accepting an If… Then offer, make sure that what you are agreeing to is in your long-term best interest. You may want to reverse the tactic, asking your counterpart, “If I do lower the price, then will you be willing to make each payment ‘net 10′?” Or you may want to buy more time to research the long-term value of the proposal, using the I’ll Think About It and Get Back to You Later tactic: “Before I agree to lower the price by that much, I need to think it over and do more financial projections. I will get back to you next week.”

Have you used or encountered this tactic in your negotiations? If so, how’d it go?