Effective Strategies and Skills for Successful Negotiation | Emirul Academy | Skillshare

Playback Speed

  • 0.5x
  • 1x (Normal)
  • 1.25x
  • 1.5x
  • 2x

Effective Strategies and Skills for Successful Negotiation

teacher avatar Emirul Academy

Watch this class and thousands more

Get unlimited access to every class
Taught by industry leaders & working professionals
Topics include illustration, design, photography, and more

Watch this class and thousands more

Get unlimited access to every class
Taught by industry leaders & working professionals
Topics include illustration, design, photography, and more

Lessons in This Class

13 Lessons (1h 40m)
    • 1. Intro Video

    • 2. What is Negotiation

    • 3. Planning Your Negotiation Strategy: Pre-Negotiation Strategy Plan Checklist

    • 4. Planning Your Negotiation Strategy: Defining negotiation targets

    • 5. Planning Your Negotiation Strategy: Understand the Importance of Gathering Information

    • 6. Planning Your Negotiation Strategy: Brainstorm Options Before You Negotiate

    • 7. Planning Your Negotiation Strategy: Seven Elements of Negotiations

    • 8. Negotiation Styles

    • 9. The Behaviors of Highly Effective Negotiators

    • 10. During Negotiation

    • 11. Negotiating with difficult, aggressive, and controlling people

    • 12. Avoiding Misunderstanding in Negotiation

    • 13. Why Negotiations Fail

  • --
  • Beginner level
  • Intermediate level
  • Advanced level
  • All levels
  • Beg/Int level
  • Int/Adv level

Community Generated

The level is determined by a majority opinion of students who have reviewed this class. The teacher's recommendation is shown until at least 5 student responses are collected.





About This Class

Negotiation is a necessity, a process, and an art. Learning about negotiation is an exercise in self awareness because understanding yourself and what effect a negotiation can have on you, enables you to accommodate the pressures, dilemmas, and stresses that go with it.

There is no other skill set that can have such an immediate and measurable level of impact on your bottom line than negotiation. A small adjustment to the payment terms, the specification, the volume threshold , or even the delivery date will all impact on the value or profitability of the agreement.

This class offers a unique approach to negotiation. You will learn to empathise with and influence your counterparts, and ideate innovative solutions. You will explore negotiation methods and practices that enhance your creative thinking and contextual analysis capabilities, ultimately improving your ability to negotiate in virtually any situation.


This class is about you gaining more value from every agreement you're involved in, understanding what to do, when to do it and, most importantly, providing you with the inspiration to do it.

Meet Your Teacher

More than 10 years of experience in general management and manufacturing industry, Emirul Academy provides consultancy, training and technical support services in the field of Quality Management and Improvement in order to enhance product and service quality, competitive edge as well as reducing the cost attributed to poor quality.

Our courses are structured to provide high quality training courses for corporate and personal development to help organizations’ create an environment of continual learning and close skills gap.

See full profile

Class Ratings

Expectations Met?
  • Exceeded!
  • Yes
  • Somewhat
  • Not really
Reviews Archive

In October 2018, we updated our review system to improve the way we collect feedback. Below are the reviews written before that update.

Why Join Skillshare?

Take award-winning Skillshare Original Classes

Each class has short lessons, hands-on projects

Your membership supports Skillshare teachers

Learn From Anywhere

Take classes on the go with the Skillshare app. Stream or download to watch on the plane, the subway, or wherever you learn best.


1. Intro Video: Many people dread negotiation, not recognizing that they negotiate on irregular, even daily basis. Most of us face formal negotiations throughout our personal and professional lives. For example, discussing the terms of a job offer with a recruiter, haggling over the price of a new car, hammering out a contract with a supplier. A conflict or negotiation situation as one in which there is a conflict of interests are what one wants, isn't necessarily what the other ones and where both sides preferred a search for solutions rather than giving in or breaking off contact. Then there are the more informal, less obvious negotiations we take part in daily. For example, persuading a toddler to eat his peas, working out a conflict with a coworker or convincing a client to accept a late delivery. Different types of negotiations require different tactics. Negotiating the price of a car is different from negotiating the terms of a multi-million dollar acquisition, not only in terms of overall value and importance, but also with regard to the number of parties and stakeholders involved. You negotiate differently depending on whether it is for yourself or on behalf of another party, or between coworkers, loved ones, or strangers. Not surprisingly, the emotions vary depending on what is at stake. Other factors affecting the choice of tactics and likelihood of successful outcomes include culture of the parties, time available, suspected length of the relationship, and previous experience between the parties. There is no single negotiating recipe. You have to adapt the strategy to the situation. This course will help you be a better negotiator by learning the negotiation fundamental strategies, skills, and tools. 2. What is Negotiation: Negotiation as a method by which people settle differences. In any disagreement, individuals understandably aim to achieve the best possible outcome for their position or perhaps an organization they represent. However, the principles of fairness, seeking mutual benefit and maintaining a relationship, or the keys to a successful outcome. When does negotiation occur? Negotiation can occur in any business situation, but people negotiate in everyday situations outside of the workplace. It occurs when there is more than one possible outcome from a situation in which two or more parties have an interest, but they have not yet determined what the outcome will be. For example, negotiation occurs between a buyer and seller in the purchase of a second-hand car, or even between groups of friends when they decide which film to see at the cinema. Business negotiations can include producing deals with suppliers, partner businesses are customers, interdepartmental or team discussions to determine aims, processes and resources. Management and staff discussions to discuss job priorities and workload. Discussions between management and trade unions. For example, rates of pay, recruiting new people to the business, for example, interviews. In a way, both business relationships and personal relationships are shaped through the process of negotiation. Success in both business life and personal life depends on having good negotiation skills. In practice, personal negotiations require essentially the same skills as business negotiations. Why learn to negotiate? Many situations will have more than one potential outcome. Learning how to negotiate enables individuals to understand fully how complex many situations are and how to manage the situation more effectively. Good negotiation skills are beneficial to both individuals and businesses. The benefits to individuals are better outcomes from negotiating situations, resolving differences of opinion without bad feeling. A better understanding of other parties aims, motivations and beliefs. Creating better business relationships, less stressful negotiations. The benefits to businesses are reduced costs and overheads through better deal-making, more opportunities for business development. Avoidance of the cost of failing to make the crucial deals. Better relationships with stakeholders and other involved parties. More positive and less stressful work and business relationships. Goals and outcomes. When negotiating, it is important to bear in mind that goals and outcomes are not the same thing. Goals is the needs, wants, and preferences that individuals consider before they negotiate. Outcomes, ISA, possible result of negotiation. There are three outcomes that are possible when negotiating a win-win. Where both sides, when win-lose, where one side wins, the other loses, or inefficient, equitable. Were all items shared equally? Goals. Goals are the needs, wants, and preferences that individuals bear in mind before they negotiate goals or the why behind the want. If outcomes represent what somebody wants from a negotiation, goals, explain why they want it. A goal determines what outcomes are acceptable if individuals decide on a particular outcome and try to achieve it, only that outcome is acceptable. Having goals means that negotiation can result in more than one outcome. Individuals can then decide what is more acceptable. Not all goals will be equally important. Outcomes. And outcome as a possible result of negotiation. Outcomes can be general or specific, factual or subjective, absolute, or relative. If negotiation only consists of both sides identifying a preferred outcome, making it their goal and forcing it on the other, haggling or arguing will result. This results in an unwise decision or no decision, inefficiency and potential damage to relationships. Entering negotiations with only a specific outcome in mind can be very counterproductive. Negotiators should consider the wider goals. Here is an example. Potential client negotiates with a contractor for an office cleaning contract. The goal is to have a well cleaned office by 9 AM each day, regardless of how many people are ours, the contractor has to provide. One possible outcome of the negotiation might be for the client to employ two people each day cleaning for two hours. 3. Planning Your Negotiation Strategy: Pre-Negotiation Strategy Plan Checklist: Negotiations should always start with a plan. Planning and preparation will help lead you to success, to perform well and perform well consistently, we must first learn to prepare, planning your negotiation strategy should always come before selecting negotiating tactics. Your negotiation strategy serves as the foundation for the approach and techniques that you use to achieve your goals. You need to invest more time preparing for your negotiations to create a successful negotiation strategy. Let's look at an negotiators checklist to see how we might better prepare for our negotiations. Negotiators preparation checklist Number 1, assess the situation. Each negotiation is going to be different, no matter how often we've addressed similar situations, we will naturally be negotiating with people who have different styles, goals, and objectives. These people will be coming from different circumstances and have different standards. So always take stock and gauge which negotiation skills each negotiation will demand from you and your team. Number two, what kind of negotiation? There are three kinds of negotiations to prepare for. A onetime negotiation where we will unlikely interact with a person or company. Again, the start of a repeated negotiation where we will be meeting the other person or company. Again, a negotiation where we are going to form some kind of long-term relationship. Most of our business negotiations are likely going to fall in the last two categories. We will be handling a lot of repeat negotiations. We will be negotiating with regular suppliers or engaging in labor negotiations with the same union reps. For example, perhaps we will be seeking a long-term negotiated agreement such as a joint venture. We will be mutually entwined over a long period of time. More time is required to prepare your negotiation strategy for the third type. Number 3, what type of conflict might we face? There are basically two types of conflict situations we may encounter in a negotiation. Conflicts can present themselves singularly or can be a mixture of the two. It is vital that the negotiator carefully analyzes the conflict issues both individually and collectively to fully appreciate the unique challenges of each. The first form of conflict might simply be called agreement conflict. This is where one person's views or position as in conflict with another other members of a group. This is a situation that takes into account conflicting views relating to opinions, beliefs, values, and ideologies. For example, to executives may have different views about whether a strategic initiative should be prioritized. Another example may consist of a trade dispute between two countries and entail ideological or religious based differences. Alternatively, the conservative viewpoints of management might conflict with the more left-wing approach of union leaders. The second form of conflict entails the allocation of resources like money, quantity, production, or simply put, things. Any physical commodity will fall into this category of conflict. Other issues might entail the allocation of resources as a separate segment of the trade dispute. Resource issues, though, are more tangible as they comprise knowable items or particular products. One glaring example occurs when subsidized farmers of one country dump cheaper products onto the market of another country at the expense of the indigenous farmers of that country. By analyzing the types of conflict into categories, negotiators can have a better understanding of the real measure of the disputes and frame or focus their strategies more effectively. Number four, what does this negotiation mean to us? There are only two reasons why we enter into a negotiation. The first reason occurs when out of necessity we have to. This could be due to some immediate need, such as urgency to find a particular supplier. It could also be that we face severe cutbacks in personnel if we can't increase our business. The second reason occurs when we are seeking out an opportunity. This situation may arise simply because an opportunity has sprung up where we can increase our overall business at an opportune time. The reason for entering into a negotiation will affect both our approach, negotiation strategy and also our relative negotiating power in comparison to the other side. Number 5, the ripple effect. We also need to ask ourselves whether the results of the negotiation we are conducting will affect other negotiations are agreements later. Many companies today have international interests and agreement with a company in one country may affect how Talks will be impacted or influenced later with other companies in other countries. It's vital that we, as negotiators, consider the impact or consequences of an agreement in developing our strategy. Number 6, do we need to make an agreement? We either enter into negotiations because we have to or because we want to. Part of our strategy will involve a careful analysis of our BATNA best alternative to a negotiated agreement. If an agreement is absolutely essential and we have few alternative options in the event of tux collapsing, our BATNA will affect our strategy. Alternatively, the negotiated agreement may not be essential because we have a strong option and can walk away with confidence. This also would influence the approach to our strategy. Number seven, do other negotiators need to formally approve the agreement? Many agreements made during the negotiating process require formal approval or ratification before an agreement as official. Once negotiating management and union members have reached an agreement, union members may need to vote before the agreement is accepted. A Board of Directors, CEO, stakeholders, or other outside constituents, may also need to review and ratify an agreement before the agreement can come into effect. Lastly, number eight, is the clock ticking. Time has an impact on the course of negotiations from two perspectives. First, deadlines that might be imposed to either make or break an agreement. Offers with expiry dates may be tendered. Time can be both a tactical weapon. Who does it hurt more to delay and strategic imperative. Who risks missing the boat to competitors? Second, we all know that time is money. Negotiations consume our time and a factory or a production line that shuts down while the negotiation clock is ticking costs money. The point to remember is that the longer the negotiations dragged out, time will negatively affect the bottom line. 4. Planning Your Negotiation Strategy: Defining negotiation targets: There are several key principles to consider when engaging in successful negotiations. Understanding these principles beforehand and knowing the concessions you are and are not willing to make can provide clear parameters during the process. It is important to define clear negotiation targets while remaining in control and giving a negotiator all the relevant facts and data. Before any negotiation, you need to identify your negotiating opportunity. The possible target are the least acceptable agreement or LAA, the most desired outcome, or MDL, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement or BATNA or BATNA. And finally, zone of possible agreement or ZOPA or ZOPA. This diagram illustrates each party's best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Mutual motivation is the place where you assert positions to address aligned interests. The zone of possible agreement, or ZOPA, describes the intellectual zone in negotiations between two parties where an agreement can be met and to which both parties can agree. Within this zone, an agreement as possible outside the zone, no amount of negotiation will yield an agreement, sometimes referred to as the bargaining range. Your least acceptable agreement, or LAA, is the minimum you need before walking away. It is the minimum you are willing to accept, and so forms one of the outside parameters of your negotiating envelope. If you can achieve any result between your LAA and MDL, you are better with an agreement than without one LAA as broader than a bottom line because it satisfies interests and covers multiple issues. Bottom line has a more negative connotation as an unsatisfactory results taken reluctantly. Your best alternative to a negotiated agreement or BATNA, is a well conceived plan that you are willing to execute if there is no agreement. Your plan B, never enter into a negotiation without knowing your BATNA. Knowing the BATNA only will help you start from a position of strength. Determining the MDL. In the words of us motivational speaker, Les Brown said, shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars. That's a great philosophy as many negotiators do not aim high enough or are too quick to concede. An aspirational MDL can help us maintain our position in a negotiation. As we reveal our MDR, the other party then has to move us much further to bring us into the Zona. And this increases the likelihood of the deal being closer to their law than MDL. In other words, they have to work hard just to get us to a point where agreement is possible. So when determining m dose, we should aim high. Assume we won't get everything we want. And remember that as compromises inevitable, the more headroom the better determining the LA. Whereas finding good MDS as a bit of informed guesswork, the LAA requires more certainty. Having a clear and accurate set of LA as for all the negotiation requirements as critically important, get this wrong and the consequences can be catastrophic. Determining our BATNA is the concept of the BATNA is concerned with using the power of alternatives by creating choices, to making a particular agreement or doing something different. Batnas exist both at the level of the entire deal and some of the individual negotiation requirements. They are an essential weapon and ideally a negotiator needs as many as possible. Effective use of BATNAs is a case of being prepared to do something different. At a deeper level. This may mean taking the entire business in a completely different direction. And such BATNA would need to be fully agreed in advance by relevant stakeholders and decision-makers. Corporate strategy can often be determined are shaped by the outcomes of specific negotiations. There are three types of BATNA, the walk-away BATNA, the interactive BATNA, and the third party BATNA. First, the walk-away BATNA. For example, if the supplier or client I am dealing with is not willing to cooperate or negotiate fairly. I may have to get another supplier or find another client, or in more dire circumstances, I might find another job. Next is the interactive BATNA. Interactive BATNA is include economic, political, and social non-cooperation. An example of economic cooperation would be the boycotting of advertisers to influence the change of television programs. An example of political non-cooperation would be a filibuster or voting in a new Congress. Employees who chose to run a processor machine its specification when they know they can achieve higher quality or better performance, is an example of social non-cooperation. Lastly, the third party BATNA. A third party BATNA is using a neutral third party or higher authority to resolve a situation. For example, an employee might go to their one over one manager or to a human resource representative if their immediate supervisor is unwilling to resolve a problem fairly. Mediation and arbitration are both examples of a third party BATNA. Litigation is also a third party BATNA as well. Position-based bargaining tends to push parties to jump to their BATNA. Increase in the number of equal employment opportunity or EEO cases may be the result of people dealing with a position-based mindset. One must remember that the use of these kinds of BATNA often exact considerable costs from each of the parties. A more sophisticated use of interest-based negotiations might alleviate the necessity of accessing our BATNA is on such a regular basis. Here are some tips on leveraging badness. The BATNA as a unilateral option that does not depend on the consent of the other party. The more BATNA is you have and the more willing and ready you are to execute one, the less likely you will need a BATNA. Consider short-term and long-term badness. Sometimes you don't have a BATNA and must reach agreement. Be sure to continue working on a long-term BATNA for future use. Having well-thought-out badness that you are willing to execute provides you with a tremendous amount of power during negotiations. You want to find a graceful way to ensure the other side knows you have badness and we'll execute. Start to let the other side, no, you have badness during the exchange stage, although not necessarily what they are. Bargaining, you will decide if and when to reveal your BATNA is. If you were having trouble learning and assessing your counterpart's BATNA. This may indicate you need to build more trust before probing further. Badness can be used as an advisory or a threat. Threats, damage relationships, advisory strengthen them. Misreading the strength of your counterpart's BATNA can result in impasse after extensive time has already been invested in bargaining. If you have fairly assess the parties, BATNA is yours and theirs, you might choose to execute your BATNA before entering the bargaining stage. You certainly don't want to spend time in bargaining only to get to the concludes stage and have to execute your BATNA. Misreading the strength of your counterpart's BATNA can result in iPads after extensive time has already been invested in bargaining. If you have all the power in a negotiation, it is wise not to talk about your BATNA. When parties with power flaunt their BATNA, the less powerful counterpart builds and offensive. For example, your competitors all need this product and we have limited capacity. We can get this from any number of suppliers. There are seven others who want the same location, et cetera. Finally, renegotiations discussions almost always involve a battle of badness. 5. Planning Your Negotiation Strategy: Understand the Importance of Gathering Information: Every negotiation is about power. Who has it, who wants it, and where did it all go? As negotiators, we are always looking for negotiation styles and negotiating techniques that we can use to become more powerful. It turns out that there is one simple way that we can make this happen is by getting more information. Getting ready for a negotiation takes a lot of work. There is the identification of all of the issues, understanding what concessions you'll be willing to make. Clearly laying out what kind of deal that you are looking for and et cetera. Why should we spend even more time researching the people that will be negotiating with? When you go into your next negotiation, you need to know who you'll be negotiating with. If you want to any hope of getting that deal that you want. The things that you need to know include what the backgrounds of the other negotiators are. One of the most important things that you are going to want to find out about them is what they're negotiating track record as what has happened during other negotiations. You'll also want to know what negotiation styles and negotiating techniques they like to use. The reason that you are so interested in finding out as much information as you can about who you will be negotiating with is because any kind of insights that you can gain regarding the people that you'll be negotiating with can help you to get a better deal. Whatever the negotiation really comes down to as two sets of people talking with each other. This means that the more that you know about them, then the better prepared you will be to get the deal that you want. If it turns out that you know more about them than they know about you, then you are probably going to walk away with the best deal. When we walk into our next negotiation, we'd like to be in the strongest position possible. In order to do that, it all comes down to knowledge. The more of this stuff that we have, the stronger our position is going to be. What this means for us in practical terms is that we need to take the time to gather as much information about what we'll be negotiating about and who will be negotiating with before the negotiation start. One of the most important points about this information gathering exercise that a lot of new negotiators don't realize is that the best kind of information to get is information that the other side of the table doesn't want you to have. Likewise, if you have information that the other side of the table doesn't have, then all of a sudden the power dynamics of the negotiation have shifted and you are in a much stronger position. Honesty and negotiation have a very interesting relationship. In order to be able to reach the deal that you want, it is often in your best interests to control what information you choose to reveal to the other side and when you choose to reveal it to them. Note that this is very different from lying. When we obtain important information that the other side really doesn't want us to have. This can help us to clarify the issues that are important to us and will show us the path that we want to follow. If one of the things that we discover is that the other side has been lying to us, then that will change everything. Lying in a negotiation can take on two different forms. The first is flat out lying, the other as when the other side chooses to not reveal a material fact to you that is critical to what is being negotiated. In either of these cases. If you discover that you've been lied to, then you are going to need to start to take every possible measure that you can in order to protect both yourself and the party that you are negotiating for. In order to be successful in your next principled negotiation, you need to have more power than the other side of the table. The trick is to learn how you can get this power. It turns out that by gathering information about both what is being negotiated as well as who is doing the negotiating. You can get the power that you need by gathering information about what will be negotiated before the negotiation starts, you'll be able to properly prepare to negotiate. The power dynamics of the negotiation will change once you have information that the other side does not know that you have. Having this information will guide your negotiating and will determine how the negotiations proceed for you. Information as power as a negotiator, you need to get as much of it as you possibly can. Take the time to properly prepare for your next negotiation by doing your homework. And you'll be impressed by the type of deal that you'll be able to negotiate. The other side has the information that you are going to need to get your hands on in order to guide this negotiation to successful conclusion. No matter what negotiation styles or negotiating techniques are being used. Now the big question is, how are you going to get the information that you need? The very first thing that you need to keep in mind is that when you show up at a negotiation, you want your behavior to enable the flow of information. What this means for you is that you are not going to want to prematurely judge the other side are their objectives for the negotiation. You don't know what they want or need, so don't try to guess. Rule number one. Don't be afraid to admit that you don't know. Why are people reluctant to gather information? Because to find things out, you have to admit that you don't know. And most of us are extraordinarily reluctant to admit that we don't know. So the first rule for gathering information as don't be overconfident. Admit that you don't know when admit that anything you do know maybe wrong. Rule number two, don't be afraid to ask the question. If you want to learn about another person, nothing will work better than the direct question. It's a strange fact of human nature that were very willing to talk about ourselves. Yet we're reticent when it comes to asking others about themselves. We fear the nasty look and the rebuff to a personal question. We refrain from asking because we expect the response. That's none of your business. Yet, how often do we respond that way to others? When you get over your inhibitions about asking people the number of people willing to help you will surprise you. Rule number 3, ask open-ended questions. Power negotiators understand the importance of asking it, of taking the time to do it properly. You'll get even more information if you learn how to ask open-ended questions. Close-ended questions can be answered with a yes or a no or a specific answer. For example, how old are you is a closed-end question. You'll get a number and that's it. How do you feel about being your age is an open-ended question. It invites more than just a specific answer response. When must the work be finished by is a closed ended question. Tell me about the time limitations on the job is an open-ended request for information. Rule number 4, where you ask the question makes a big difference. Power negotiators also know that the location where you do the asking can make a big difference. If you meet with people at their corporate headquarters surrounded by their trappings of power and authority and their formality of doing business. It's the least likely place for you to get information. People in their work environment are always surrounded by invisible chains of protocol. What they feel they should be talking about and what they feel they shouldn't. That applies to an executive in her office. It applies to a salesperson on a sales call and it applies to a plumber fixing a pipe in your basement. When people are in their work environments, they're cautious about sharing information. Get them away from their work environments. And information flows much more freely. And it doesn't take much, sometimes all that it takes us to get that Vice-President down the hall to his company lunch room for a cup of coffee. Often that's all it takes to relax the tensions of the negotiation and get information flowing. And if you meet for lunch at your country club surrounded by your trappings of power and authority where he's psychologically obligated to you because you're buying the lunch, then that's even better. Rule number 5, ask other people, not the person with whom you will negotiate. If you go into a negotiation knowing only what the other side has chosen to tell you, you are very vulnerable. Others will tell you things that the other side won't. And they will also be able to verify what the other side has told you. Start by asking people who've done business with the other side already. I think it will amaze you even if you thought of them as competition, how much they're willing to share with you. Be prepared to horse trade information. Don't reveal anything that you don't want them to know. But the easiest way to get people to open up is to offer information in return. People who have done business with the other side can be especially helpful in revealing the character of the people with whom you'll be negotiating. Can you trust them? Do they bluff a great deal in negotiations or are they straight forward in their dealings? Will they stand behind their verbal agreements or do you need an attorney to read the fine print in the contracts? Next, ask people further down the corporate ladder than the person with whom you plan to deal. Let's say you're going to be negotiating with someone at the main office of a nationwide retail chain. You might call up one of the branch offices and get an appointment to stop by and see the local manager do some preliminary negotiating with that person. He will tell you a lot, even though he can't negotiate the deal about how the company makes a decision, why one supplier as accepted over another, the specification factors considered the profit margins expected the way the company normally pays, and so on. Be sure that you're reading between the lines in that kind of conversation without you knowing it, the negotiations may have already begun. For example, the branch manager may tell you they never work with less than a 40 percent markup when that may not be the case at all, and never tell the branch manager anything you wouldn't say to the people at his head office, take the precaution of assuming anything you say will get back to them. Next, take advantage of peer group sharing. This refers to the fact that people have a natural tendency to share information with their peers. At a cocktail party, you'll find attorneys talking about their cases to other attorneys when they wouldn't consider it ethical to share that information with anyone outside their industry. Doctors will talk about their patients to other doctors, but not outside their profession. Power negotiators know how to use this phenomenon because it applies to all occupations, not just in the professions. Engineer's, controllers, foreman, and truck drivers all have allegiances to their occupations as well as their employers. Put them together with each other and information will flow that you couldn't get any other way. If you're thinking of buying a used piece of equipment, have your driver or equipment supervisor meet with his counterpart at the seller's company. If you're thinking of buying another company, have your controller take their bookkeeper out to lunch. You can take an engineer from your company with you to visit another company and let your engineer mix with their engineers. You'll find out that unlike top management, the level at which you may be negotiating, engineers have a common bond that spreads throughout their profession, rather than just a vertical loyalty to the company for which they currently work. So all kinds of information will pass between these two. Naturally, you have to watch out that your person doesn't give away information that could be damaging to you. So be sure you pick the right person. Caution her carefully about what you're willing to tell the other side and what you're not willing to tell the difference between the open agenda and your hidden agenda. Then let her go to it, challenging her to see how much she can find out. Peer group information gathering is very effective. 6. Planning Your Negotiation Strategy: Brainstorm Options Before You Negotiate: A common mistake is to go into a negotiation thinking that there is only one acceptable outcome, which is what you want. One of the best things you can do to prepare for a negotiation is to think about all the possible options that may exist for you and the other side. Unprepared or rookie negotiators often don't devote time to think about the other options which may be also acceptable or even better. The error in this approach is to think that the pie is fixed. Instead, try expanding the pie before you divide it. In other words, think of what might be added to the deal to make it more acceptable to the other party. For example, a customer might ask the salesperson for a discount. Instead of responding with a discount or arguing against it, ask yourself what can be added to the existing deal to make it a better for the other side, maybe more generous payment terms would help or you could add an extra month on the service contract. These concessions may see minor to you, but they may be perceived as significant by the customer. Remember, it is what they think that counts. One way to come with other options is to brainstorm, which is a process for generating new ideas. There are many ways to brainstorm new ideas or options, but before you can begin, it is necessary to give yourself the freedom to invent new ideas. New ideas don't have to be perfect and they may or may not be used. All ideas are good and welcome. As a single negotiator, you can do this by yourself. First, write down all potential ideas or options. Let yourself go and get a little crazy list, anything that might work. When this is done, review the list and eliminate the impractical or impossible ideas. By doing this, you are left with a list of possible solutions. Or if you were negotiating as a team, you can bounce ideas off each other by using the same process. Create a list and vote on what seems possible. Think in terms of what the other side might want or need. Tried to put yourself in their shoes. What is important to the other side? What motivates them? What do they fear? You can also seek the input of third parties, explained the situation as best you can and ask them what they might propose. This can be a very powerful reality check on the reasonableness your options. Sometimes you can get too close to the problem and you can lose your objectivity. A third party might see things very differently than you. Another very successful technique is to brainstorm directly with the other party before the actual negotiation. The key here is self-disclosure. A good way to present this brainstorming suggestion to the other side is to admit that you were having some struggles and coming up with a good solution. Say that you would like to bounce some ideas off them first, remind the other party that you are not negotiating, but just brainstorming some possibilities. Sound risky. It can be, but it can also be a very effective way to build a relationship. Self-disclosure as the behavior of a trustworthy person. It can also be a great way to uncover new ideas and options. Avoid premature judgments about what is possible by brainstorming the possibilities first, remember that the consequences of not thinking ahead, maybe to just split the difference, which is often a poor option for both parties. 7. Planning Your Negotiation Strategy: Seven Elements of Negotiations: Much like when we take a journey, if we know where we want to go, we are better able to prepare, deal effectively with the terrain, and know when we have reached our destination. Similarly, a clear definition of the elements of successful negotiation allows us to better prepare, diagnose, conduct, and review our negotiations. Members of the Harvard Negotiation Project has developed a framework to help people prepare more effectively for negotiation. The seven elements framework describes the essential tools needed to identify our goals, prepare effectively to minimize surprises, and take advantage of opportunities as they arise in negotiation. Here we overview the seven elements. Number one, interests. Interests are those needs, aims, hopes, and concerns that one seeks to address in the negotiation. Interests are not positions. The stated demands or preconceived answers that people often bring into a negotiation. Instead, interests are those things that underlie or shape or position. For example, once underlying needs, aims, hopes, and concerns. Number two, options. Options are the range of possibilities on which the parties might conceivably reach agreement. They are the possible solutions that meet at least the main interests of the negotiators. Unlike an alternative, something is an option if and only if making it possible would require the agreement of both negotiators. Number 3, legitimacy. Legitimacy consists of those objective criteria or standards that can be used to determine the fairness of a possible option. External standards of fairness might include laws and regulations, industry standards, past or current practice. Some general principles such as reciprocity or precedent, or some kind of objective process, such as appealing to the judgment of an impartial third party. Number 4, commitment. Commitment is the option or package of options upon which the negotiators ultimately agree. They are the oral or written statements about what each party will or will not do, how, by when, etc. Note that there are times when a commitment should not be reached, since there are times that the negotiators cannot develop a mutually agreeable solution that is better than what one or both could do away from the table without each other. Number five, alternatives. Alternatives are those things that each negotiator can do without the other party to meet his or her interests. Alternatives are not arbitrarily established bottom lines, but real walkaway possibilities. They may be things the negotiator can do on their own or things they can do by negotiating with a party other than the one currently at the table. Each negotiator will have a range of alternatives, including doing nothing, waiting, negotiating with someone else. Some may be more realistic than others, and some may better meet one's interests than others. Nonetheless, one of the alternatives will meet the negotiators interests better than the rest. This one is the negotiators BATNA, Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, as explained before, with the party with whom you are currently negotiating. Note that a negotiator should not commit to an agreement that does not satisfy his or her interests better than their BATNA. Number 6, communication. Communication relates to how the two negotiators talk with one another. This element and the next relate to the process rather than the substance of how the negotiation has conducted. Communication in a negotiation involves the effectiveness of inquiry, advocacy, testing assumptions, building understanding, structuring the flow of conversations, etc. Number 7, relationship. Relationship relates to how the negotiators work and deal with one another. A good working relationship involves and is built by developing trust, engaging in joint problem-solving, dealing well with differences, et cetera. Armed with a better understanding of these building blocks of negotiation, you are positioned to learn more about how to prepare to create and claim value in negotiations, manage fairness concerns, and reach the best deal possible, both for you and for your counterpart. These seven elements should be followed by the negotiators or the parties to meet the interests of the parties which are demonstrably fair and doable. Hence, by following these elements, we can reach up to a good outcome. 8. Negotiation Styles: Ever wonder why negotiators approach the situation from completely different viewpoints? And some are unsuccessful, while for others, it goes easily and smoothly. It might be that they have similar or very different styles. Without awareness of one's own style and idea of what style of negotiation counterpart brings in the advantages and disadvantages of working with differing styles. It may make for a bumpy road to successful outcomes. Negotiators have a tendency to negotiate from one of five styles, competing, accommodating, avoiding, compromising, or collaborative. These are adapted from Thomas-Kilmann conflict styles and tend to correlate well in negotiation. Especially given that there are sometimes tension when two or more parties are trying to meet their differing, are conflicting needs. Competing. A competitive negotiation style is the classic model of I win, you lose. Negotiators that exhibit this style are assertive, self-confident, and focused on the deal and results. These individuals tend to pursue their own concerns. Sometimes if their counterparts expense, and in the extreme, can become aggressive and domineering. On the assertive versus co-operative scale. This style is higher in assertiveness and lower in cooperativeness. Using the substance versus relationship axes, competing negotiators tend to be more focused on the substance then the relationship. This kind of negotiator often uses whatever power and tactics they can. This includes their personality, position, economic threats, brand strength or size, and market share. Negotiators can perceive this behavior as aggressive. At its most extreme, negotiators could perceive compete negotiators as psychotic. Many procurement departments will favor recruiting buyers who are naturally more competitive for contract negotiation. This tends to be cheaper overall than training a buyer to be competitive. When to use, when you need to act or get results quickly. Competition as critical when you are certain that something is non negotiable. These situations usually need immediate compliance. Competition can be an effective defense against negotiators with a conflict profile. However, we would recommend that you use a blended approach. Both sides locking horns in a competitive battle can result in a spiraling deadlock. This negotiation style can be useful when you're buying or selling something as a one-off. An example is when selling your own home or car to a stranger. Such negotiations are likely to be more competitive than if you were selling to a close friend or family member. You are also unlikely to act competitively when in business to business negotiations. Such negotiations tend to focus on relationship building and long-term goals. What's the danger? The difficulty with people who are high compete, which a large percentage of buyers are, is that competitive styles over US competition? This means that the other side knows exactly what behavior to expect and can prepare more easily. In a negotiation of roughly equal power, highly competitive behavior as very likely to lead to deadlock. A deadlock situation will likely get you nowhere. High competes may also be more interested in winning than reaching an agreement. If you're recruiting a negotiator, a very low compete profile score would be something to be careful of. Some negotiators combine high compete with high avoid. Negotiators with this combination of profiles will usually compete first. Then if they don't claim an easy scalp, this kind of negotiator will often walk away from the negotiation table. Unchecked competition can leave business relationships in Tatas, negotiators with accommodating profile styles, whether buyers or sellers tend to lose the most against competitive styles. So if your relationship and market reputation are important to you, be careful to curb your competitive streak to a healthy level. When we feel victimized, it's easy to turn toward revenge. This behavior can result in businesses living up to the letter and not the spirit of a contract. This can mean claiming value wherever possible and adding 0 value. Self-defense. The most important thing to remember as don't cave in. Some people say they will make concessions in the face of a competitive negotiator demanding a concession to create goodwill. However, this bad advice can result in a massive loss of profits. A piece and competitive negotiators doesn't create goodwill. Instead, your attempt to appease just creates requests for more concessions. Restate your position firmly using strong language. For example, not we'd like or want, but rather we require or need and never reward bullies. Collaborating. In contrast to the competitive style, a collaborative negotiation styles seek, say, I win, you win outcome. This win-win model focuses on making sure all parties have their needs met. With this style, both relationship and outcome are important. The purpose is to maximize outcome and preserve the relationship. Negotiators that exhibit this style are often honest and communicative. They focus on finding novel and creative solutions that fully satisfy the concerns of all parties and suggest many ideas for consideration before deciding. A collaborative style is appropriate in situations where developing and maintaining a relationship as important, where both parties are willing to understand the other party's needs and objectives and when finding a long-lasting and creative solution as desired. A collaborative negotiation style is often the most difficult to employ because it requires an investment in time and energy in finding innovative solutions. It is successful in situations where the parties goals are compatible, such as within an organizational or family unit. When to use. Under most circumstances, collaboration as the primary style you should use for most goals in business to business negotiations. Use when ordering a relationship and your market reputation are important to you. The other negotiator needs to perform and not just exchange a standard product for cash. High risk deals, for example, new market or new product or both. If there is a large amount of money at stake, your best advice to think about the ways you can build a more trusting, collaborative working relationship. You need to understand the feelings and deeper interests or motivations of negotiators. What's the danger? Be careful not to collaborate with competitive style negotiators unless they agree to and live up to your agreed either written or unwritten rules of collaboration. Die-hard competitive negotiators can be treated in a transactional trading manner. For example, I'll only give you this if you give me that. When we share information, we need to make sure that we share information at the same level of detail too much and we could be exploited too little and the other side can close up like a clam. Collaboration requires more time and needs to be at the right level. So if you're a vendor and your buyer doesn't have the authority or knowledge or won't invest the time, save your effort. It's best to talk to them about your style of negotiation. You could also build a relationship at another level of their organization. The same advice goes for buyers in reverse self-defense. So when might you need to defend yourself against a collaborative negotiator? If you have decided that it's not in your interests to use a collaborative style with a negotiator, decide on your alternative style. Flesh out what behavior you're chosen style translates into. So, a commodity supplier who suffers a great deal of competition in their marketplace, usually we'll try to get their foot in your door. A wise procurement manager will be careful to not investing too much time unless there is value. Your time is short. So be careful who you collaborate with. Avoiding. This style is the I lose, you lose model. Negotiators that exhibit this style are generally less assertive and apprehensive. They prefer to avoid stepping into, are creating tension. They stay neutral, objective, or removed from the situation, or leave responsibility to their counterpart. The individual does not immediately pursue their own interests or those of the other person. And there is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode. This style is used when both outcome and relationship or not important. Negotiations can be costly in terms of time and energy. Do the costs of negotiation outweigh the likely outcome and relationship returns? Not, it may be preferable not to negotiate at all. This strategy is implemented by withdrawing from active negotiations or by avoiding the negotiations entirely. And avoidance style is used in frequently in negotiating and is often used when the negotiation concerns a matter that is trivial to both parties. When to use when the value of investing time to resolve the conflict outweighs the benefit. Or if the issue under negotiation as trivial to both parties. Sometimes there's just not enough at stake to risk. Conflict situation. If there is a lot of emotion in a negotiation, it's pointless pushing through and hammering it out. It's better to allow people to calm down first so that reason and rationality can reappear at that point. And avoid style is likely the most pragmatic alternative. A timeout of 15 to 20 minutes as advisable. What to do when you're dragged into a negotiation, untrained and unprepared. Under these circumstances, avoidance is probably the most sensible strategy. Either avoid the meeting or avoid discussing the issues upon which you need to prepare. What's the danger? Whoever has the greater urgency will usually end up with the short end of the avoidance stick. Stalling is a common sales tactic when the vendor knows that procurement urgently needs their product or service. Conversely, a buyer may hold out until the last day of the quarter or month. This comes from knowing that the salesperson needs to meet his or her target. So be careful about what information you reveal about the urgency of your need. When communication channels or cutoff, you leave the other side to fill in the blanks. The other side may believe you need more time. They also may think that you're no longer interested in a business relationship. This can result in the other side approaching your competition or contemplating downsizing. Mutual resentment is likely to build up, leading to frosty and personal relationships. Avoid profile negotiators are frequently seeking to avoid conflict. Paradoxically, their avoid style instead lands them in more conflict. When differences are eventually aired, emotions and negotiation positions are often more difficult and fixed then they need to be self-defense. Set clear expectations of timing early on in your negotiations. It's best to define milestones in detail with dates attached to each. If the other side is applying and avoid style, consider escalating the issue on one or both sides. Understand their decision-making process and levels of responsibility. Having these insights can assist you in invalidating the other side's reasons for avoiding. This can make your sharp questions more difficult to sidestep. Escalation options should also be clearer to you. If you have a good enough relationship, agree on a process for resolving differences. As John F. Kennedy was quoted as saying, The time to repair the roof as when the sun is shining. Compromising, unlike the collaborative style, the compromising negotiation style follows a, I win, lose some, you win, lose some model. Negotiators that exhibit this style often split the difference, exchange concessions, and seek a quick middle ground solution, which tends to end in moderate satisfaction of both parties needs. Compromising often involves one or both negotiators settling for less than they want or need. This can result in an end position of roughly halfway between both sides opening positions in the absence of a strong rationale or properly exchanged traits halfway between the two position seems fair. Compromising ignores, however, is that the people that take the most extreme positions tend to get more of what is on offer. The path contract negotiators and sales professionals are treading with blinkers on doesn't allow their PI to be expanded. When to use. When you are pushed for time and you are dealing with someone who you trust, it also needs to be clear that it would not be in the other side's interests for them to win a cheap victory. Both sides win and lose. Makes sure you when the right things and lose the right things. Meeting halfway reduces strain on the relationship. However, it usually leaves precious gold on the table with the central banking cartels gold suppression scheme losing its grip. Every ounce of gold counts. It's useful when you have nothing left to offer and a compromise is the only way to seal the deal. In essence, it's useful when you're in a lousy situation. What's the danger? When you use compromising as an excuse for not preparing properly without quality negotiation training, most negotiators wing it and end up compromising. You shouldn't compromise on vital points if the outcome of the negotiation as critical. If you make concessions within your position with no strong rationale, the other side may assume you're going to continue to make even more. The other side may then appeal to you using weak rationale. Whichever negotiator starts with, the more ambitious opening position winds the compromise. So calculate early on who stands to gain if it comes down to compromises. If you get known for being a compromise styled negotiator, lookout, your trading partners could wise up to your negotiation style. They may start to make more extreme opening positions. Bigger opening positions result in greater chances of deadlocks. Compromises cheat both sides out of innovative solutions. Learn from collaborative styles by making it safe to explore options together. Invite the other side to join you in what if frames. This allows you to explore possibilities without the danger of being tied to your idea. Self-defense, only retreat from your position when you have a solid rationale for retreating. Also, only retreat when you're being rewarded in another way. In other words, make a reason to exchange, trade across goals and interests. All too often, negotiators tried to resolve one single goal at a time before moving on to the next table to agenda item, stay with the problem or opportunity for longer. Don't give in so easily to the temptation of splitting differences. Explored other alternatives first, if the other side starts with an extreme opening position, be sure to quickly bring them back to reality. You could also counterbalanced with your own extreme position. Caution. Extreme positions can lead to drawn out dog fights. These can result in more deadlocks. Accommodating. This style can be described as the I lose, you win model and as the direct opposite of the competitive style, negotiators that exhibit this style focus on maintaining relationships with the other party. They tend to smooth over tensions, minimize differences, and are most concerned with maintaining a good rapport and satisfying the needs of the other party. For accommodating negotiators. The relationship means everything and the outcome is not important. The accommodating style might be used in situations where one party has caused harm to another party and needs to repair the relationship. Additionally, this style might be preferred in order to increase support and assistance from the other party and hope they will be accommodating in the future. Accommodation is sometimes the best style to employ because it serves to strengthen personal factors. It can build trust, show respect, and enhance relationships. The major drawback, however, is that it may appear to be condescending towards the other party or caused the other party to feel uncomfortable because of an easy win. When to use. When you or your company are at fault, repairing the relationship is critical. You can also take this approach when you have nothing else that would benefit the other side, ieee, a gift to rebuild bridges. If you are in a very weak position, sometimes your best option is to concede gracefully. Think about it. If the other team can crush you, what is to be the likely outcome if you resist? It may be worth humbly reminding the other side that you both stand to lose if they put you out of business, you can ask the other side if they really want to push you out of the market. If you both intend to work together again, refocus the negotiations on the longer term. Remind the other negotiating team that taking advantage of you now may hurt them in the future. What's the danger? It's usually a bad idea to accommodate when negotiating against high compete styles. Your generosity will likely be seen as a sign of weakness by high compete negotiators. This puts you at risk of being taken advantage of giving away value early in the negotiation can leave you with a poor hand to play in the rest of the negotiation with very little to offer and relying upon the other side's generosity, you're gambling. Giving away value to easily too early can signal to some that you've got very deep pockets. These negotiators may think your gift is just a taster of bigger and better gifts to come to some negotiators. Accommodating style appears to promote harmonious relationships. What these accommodating profiles miss is the myriad of other options available. Strong enduring relationships can be created by other means. Giving away the farm usually just creates one happy negotiator. And it's not you warning, it's faulty thinking to assume that if the goal is unimportant to you, it must have little value to the other team. This line of thinking can put accommodator into negotiation damage control. Remember to do your homework by asking the value of your concession to the other side before making your trade or concession. Self-defense. When someone is offering you a gift at the negotiation table, do you humbly accept their generosity? Be careful, as the gift may be the proverbial Greek gift. In other words, the negotiator may be learning you into reciprocation. This can make you feel obliged to give back something of greater value in return. So keep in mind the relative value to both sides of the item being given. Make sure you don't give back something of disproportionately higher value in return. You also need to be careful of incompetent negotiators. Some negotiators who make big concessions are jeopardizing the viability of their business. Also be cautious that the negotiator isn't agreeing on a deal. Their managers will later veto if their company goes bust because they are giving away too much, you could both end up losing. The following graph illustrates the importance of relationship and outcome with high and low priorities represented for each. The vertical axis represents the degree of concern for the relationship, and the horizontal axis represents the degree of concern for the outcome. Style selection criteria. Deciding what style to use in each negotiating situation. The two most important elements are what outcome has to be gained and how important is the past, present, and future with the other party. There are certain factors to take into consideration as you select a style for each negotiation situation, look at each situation and asses the circumstances, which strategy would work best. Do you really care about the outcome in relationship? And if so, how much? Remember all negotiation styles have advantages and disadvantages. Preferences. What are your personal preferences of the different styles? The stronger you have preferences for a particular style, the more likely you will choose it. Your preferences are influenced by your values. How much do you value truth, courtesy, and respect? How important as ego, reputation, and image to you. These are all factors that contribute to a particular style that you are comfortable with. Experience. Consider your experience with various negotiation styles. The more experienced success you have with a particular style, the better you become at employing it. Perceptions. As you approach any given negotiation session, consider your perceptions of the other party. Ask yourself, how well do you like them? How much do you trust them? How well do you communicate with them? What does the future hold for your relationship? Answering these questions will serve you in selecting your negotiation style. People are often fearful of the negotiation process. Sometimes they lack confidence in their ability to communicate. Sometimes they feel they are incapable of attaining the best deal. Many people use the same method every time they negotiate. Typically, this is a zero-sum approach. They decide what they want and increase it by 20 percent for their opening position. Then the negotiation as process of engaging in compromises. The focus is on positions and not the needs and interests of both parties. Changing the way you think about negotiations as the first step in becoming a successful negotiator. It is important to recognize there are various styles of negotiating that can be used in different circumstances. More importantly, however, is that selecting the appropriate negotiation style depends upon two factors, outcome and relationship. Understanding these concepts will improve your negotiating skills that you will use each and every day. 9. The Behaviors of Highly Effective Negotiators: Highly effective and successful negotiators exhibit different behaviors from less successful negotiators. Every negotiator has a different set of strengths and weaknesses and needs to develop the skills to complement their own circumstances. For commodity buyers, for example, the most important skill may be knowing when to walk away from a negotiation. An HR manager, on the other hand, will rely much more heavily on communication and people skills. Unlike many soft skills that are more innate, negotiation can be taught. In fact, a study by UC Berkeley found that people who believed negotiation could be learned, outperformed and out negotiated those who regarded negotiation as an innate heritable trait. In addition to that, this study proved that in negotiation, practice makes perfect. And with over eight trial negotiations, performance improved steeply. The skills you'll need depend on your environment, your intended outcome, and the people or businesses involved. Here are several key negotiation skills that apply to many situations. Understanding the other party. To negotiate successfully, you need to understand not only the problem itself, but how the other negotiating party sees the problem. You need to look at what their motivation is and what the best-case scenario for them would be. By doing so, you'll establish where the middle ground as and how you can successfully reach a deal. To do this, ask open-ended questions and consider their responses carefully. Clarify any queries you have and make sure you've done your research. One of the most important and underutilized skills, though, is the ability to see the negotiation from the counterpart's perspective. This sounds easier than it actually is. Most negotiators never really tried to see the conversation from the perspective of the other side of the table. In fact, some negotiators become very uncomfortable even trying to do this. It's important to remember that in any complex negotiation, it's not possible to see the other side's perspective completely accurately. There are too many variables, including the unpredictable human element. The skill is not to perfectly predict the other side's beliefs or behavior, but to get a deeper insight into their perspective, done well, the result is faster, more confident, and more effective negotiations. Always be prepared. As with everything in life, preparation is the key to success. Make sure you've done your research and crafted a plan of action. Create a strategy, write it down if at all possible. Consider both sides interests, options to satisfy those interests, the parties alternatives and other critical elements. The best preparation is going beyond your assumptions. For example, we'll have our consulting clients give us a list of possible options for their upcoming negotiation, price points, contract amendments, whatever the parties can respectively agree to. And then we'll have them expand that list by coming up with new options that they haven't yet considered. And then we'll have them expand the list again with more options. And then we'll have them expand that list yet again, the idea is to push negotiators to increase their insight into the negotiation, rather than simply relying on assumptions or their memories of prior similar negotiations. In other words, if you haven't had some new insight into this negotiation, seen away that it's different from your other negotiations or identified a creative option you haven't tried before, then you aren't yet prepared to negotiate. Critical thinking. Negotiation requires a good amount of critical thinking, both in preparation and inaction. Critical thinking may seem like a general term, but it's important. A lot falls under the umbrella of critical thinking, including questioning, probing, analyzing, testing, and exploring. From there, a skilled negotiator will use the information to both asked questions and respond to rebuttal in a systematic manner. So why is critical thinking so important in negotiation? By employing critical thinking before and during a negotiation, you will be equipped to differentiate a good outcome from an unnecessary or unsatisfactory outcome. Building rapport. Building rapport, even if it's just a basic introduction, can significantly improve the outcome of talks. The American Psychological Association found that during email negotiations, those who only exchange their names and addresses reached deals less than 40% of the time. But when personal detail was shared, such as hobbies, deals were reached 59% of the time. This suggests that when people feel a connection with another person. Keener to work with them. The ability to build rapport lets you establish relationships with others where both sides feel supported and understood. Building a rapport requires you effectively communicate your goals, but also understand the other side's wants and needs. Rapport helps ease tensions, promotes collaboration and increases the likelihood of reaching an agreement. To build rapport, showing respect and using active listening skills are critical. Listen very carefully. The accompanying behavior to asking questions is listening carefully. Effective negotiators listen actively. They do not interrupt others and very importantly, they do not think about what to say next when listening to the other person. They listened to understand not to respond. Active listening skills are also crucial for understanding another's opinion in negotiation. Unlike passive listening, which is the act of hearing a speaker without retaining their message, active listening ensures you're able to engage in later recall specific details without needing information repeated. Have patients. In negotiation, it is usually the person with the least time that has the least power. Effective negotiators are aware of this and do not allow time pressure to be used to force their hand. They will always act on hurried, even when they are experiencing real-time pressure. Some negotiations can take a long time to complete a occasionally involving renegotiation and counteroffers. Rather than seeking a quick conclusion, negotiators often practice patients to properly assess the situation and reach the best conclusion for their clients. Building confidence. Confidence, specifically, self-confidence, is one of the more difficult soft skills to teach. Now, make sure you have the confidence to go into this negotiation with your deep comprehension. If you followed all the previous steps, your confidence should come naturally. You know more than anybody on this topic, even your opponent. One of the most important traits of a good negotiator is knowing when to walk away from the deal and to feel confident and secure in doing so. Once the negotiation is veering away from your intended goals, you will know to walk away from there. You can decide whether to re-enter negotiation at a later date, or whether to drop it altogether and work with someone more aligned with your ultimate goals. Manage the overall value of the deal. Effective negotiators will know the impact on their bottom line at each stage of the negotiation. They will recalculate figures as new proposals are made and explored. They know what each concession made costs from their perspective and from that of the other person. They consider concessions in terms of the value they provide and not just the cost of making them. Before entering any negotiation, especially one that directly involves money spend, Know Your Numbers. Keep in mind that dollar amount is not always correspond directly with actual value prices. What you pay value is what you get as what Warren Buffett. Value is different from cost. Cost as of course, the dollar amount that is attached to something like a pay increase, a purchase, or an acquisition. Value as the continual growth and offer that comes afterward. Value as the accompanying importance, usefulness and dividend from an investment. For example, if you're negotiating a pay increase, focus on the value of your work rather than the dollar sign attached to the actual increase. Prepare figures that reflect the value of your work, the growth you achieved, and your detailed plans for further growth. Coming into a negotiation, flaunting your value will make a huge impression on your opponent. Create and maintain an appropriate negotiating climate by carefully considering the behaviors they displayed to the other person, effective negotiators make considered contributions to establishing and maintaining a positive climate for the negotiation to take place within. They will avoid displaying behaviors, may irritate and provoked the other person. The exception would be when having considered the power balance and possible repercussions, they choose to adopt a hard bargaining approach and then create an appropriate climate. For example, by using a series of power play tactics designed to undermine the other person's confidence that supports their success with this strategy. So having explored these behaviors, please take the time to consider how you measure against these. Where do you need to focus your attention so that you can become a more effective negotiator. 10. During Negotiation: Upon entering the meeting room or any other negotiation with do preparation, then consider adding these techniques to your repertoire. These are all good solid people skills that will put people at ease and reflect on you positively. Whether you're in a divorce settlement and its furniture or homes up for grabs, or you are a bigger business out to merge temporarily with a smaller business. These skills will be invaluable. Start each negotiation with a friendly handshake and decent eye contact. Be sure as always that you have dressed in a manner that the other party will not find offensive. In other words, make sure you are taking this negotiation seriously by trying to prevent hindering viewpoints in advance of entering the negotiation. Consider telling a joke. Like most good talk show hosts, be sure to tell a story to break the ice. It reminds people that though there are dollars and cents to consider, you are also a human being. It puts you in the other person at ease and it also makes you look good. Always choose to tell a story that makes you sound human or revolves around you in some way. Telling a joke about an ethnicity or minority as completely out, tried to quietly lay out the ground rules after the story. Remind the party that you're negotiating and of why you are interested. Tried to have a few good reasons. Point out the positives that may be accomplished. But of course, let them know that though you are negotiating, it may take time to do the deal, and that is to be expected when so much is at stake. Good manners now come into play. Remember good eye contact. Remember to maintain your composure, your posture throughout with good eye contact. This reflects well on you that you are willing to listen. Chances are the other person will offer less than they would actually deliver. Though you would be tempted to pepper the person with the presentation with question after question. Hold on to them by taking notes. Unless there is a serious misunderstanding. Do not try to ask questions until after the presentation. This could break the flow of their presentation. While in negotiations, avoid negative body movements such as sloped shoulders. This means disinterest. Make sure not to tap or shuffle. Maintain a studious composure. Don't doodle whether you're a big company thinking of merging with a little company for a project, the bigger company must come off good if not better than the smaller company. You want people to be in negotiations with you, otherwise you would not have come to the meeting. Your secretary would still be saying that you'll phone them back. Listen to the presentation and take notes. It means that you're interested in that they do have points of interest. It also helps you to stay on task. When it is a natural break or the presentation is over, ask questions. To maintain complete control in a negotiation, you would not offer one square thought, but of course, this would not go over well with a company that spent time on a presentation. Praise the good points in the presentation and ask a few questions, perhaps direct questions to find out where you meet in terms of negotiations. Put down some points on paper that you both can mutually consider and make a copy. Sketch these out with possible scenarios of how it works in conversation. Try not to get hung up in the details. These can be tied up later. A first negotiation typically leads to a second negotiation when you do not immediately agree to everything. When things mean so much, such as two businesses coming together for an event, you need to make sure that you consider such things as reputation. Will partnering with this company adversely affect you? Are the stakes to high? Do you want more guarantees? What are the expenses? If your company covers one thing, what will their company cover or are the budgets merged? In terms of settlement agreement on the first round is almost unheard of and the reasons for this are plentiful. So make sure that after a reasonable time UN the proceedings and ask for a second negotiation after you both have considered all the points that bring up those who rushed to the altar are often disappointed. So key here as having more than one negotiation and repeating many of these same successful people skills, great skills to improve your negotiation repertoire. 11. Negotiating with difficult, aggressive, and controlling people: Do you deal with aggressive, intimidating or controlling people at work or in your personal life. On the surface, these individuals can come across as domineering, confrontational, demanding, hostile, or even abusive. However, with astute approach and intelligent communication, you may turn aggression into cooperation and condescension into respect. Dealing with people involves negotiating with counterparts you mistrust, dislike, or even think are evil. Nonetheless, a skilled negotiator knows where to find and create value in any negotiation. When dealing with difficult people, integrative bargaining strategies, including knowledge of your BATNA, best alternative to a negotiated agreement, and Zopa, zone of possible agreement will help you overcome any perceived differences between yourself and your counterpart. So you can succeed in dealing with difficult people in your next turn at the bargaining table, no matter of who or what your counterpart may be. William Ury, author of Getting Past No, negotiating with difficult people, describes his five-step strategy for dealing with hard bargainers and difficult people. He calls his method breakthrough negotiation, a way to change the game from face-to-face confrontation into side-by-side problem-solving. These steps are, don't react. Go to the balcony or anywhere you can go to step back from the brink. Disarm them by stepping to their side. One of the most powerful steps to take and one of the most difficult is to try to understand the other person's point of view. Ask questions and show genuine curiosity. Changed the game. Don't reject, reframe. Instead of locking into a battle of wills are fixed positions. Consider putting a new frame on the negotiation. Make it easy to say yes. Look for ways to help your opponent save face and feel that he's getting his way. At least in some matters. Make it hard to say no. Use your power and influence to help educate your opponent about the situation. Other strategies for handling hard bargainers are unpleasant. People include, number one, meet in private if possible, when it's safe, impossible to do so. Negotiate with people in private where they may be more flexible. In most but not all cases, avoid disagreements with them in front of others where they're more likely to be inflexible out of there need to be in-control, compete and win. The exception as if the difficult individual is hostile or abusive, then strong intervention with witnesses may be needed to neutralize their home court advantage. Whenever possible, meet with difficult individuals at a neutral location. For example, conference room instead of their office, coffee shop instead of their home to help reduce their sense of home court dominance when speaking with you on their own turf. Number three, be assertive and professional in communication. Many difficult people respect those with strength and listen more to those who communicate with assertiveness. Number 4, bring solutions. Let the difficult person know that you yourself are in control. If there is an issue, don't go to the difficult person just to discuss the problem. Go with solutions in mind. Many difficult individuals work most positively with those who present themselves from a position of strength. They're more willing to communicate and work with those who take the initiative and lend their cooperation to those who show they can help themselves. Number five, focus on consequence, the ability to identify and assert consequences as one of the most important skills you can use to extend down a difficult person. Effectively articulated consequence gives pause to the challenging individual and compels him or her to shift from obstruction to cooperation. 12. Avoiding Misunderstanding in Negotiation: Misunderstanding as a common cause of negotiations breaking down. Such breakdowns may occur due to differences of viewpoint, background, or cultures, as well as many other factors. In negotiation. Especially it is possible not to hear what others intend to say due to lack of assertiveness on the part of the other person or ineffective listening. This part covers some ways that misunderstandings in negotiation can be reduced, helping to pave the way for a successful negotiation. Because misunderstandings in negotiation can easily occur, it is important to clarify individual goals. State the issues clearly. Consider all viewpoints. Clarifying meaning. Clarify the goals of negotiation. It is essential to have a clear understanding of what the other side is seeking to achieve. This is not always what they initially state as their aims. Looking at interests often allows for an understanding of the real goals. Similarly, it is worthwhile clearly stating what your own goals are so that both parties can work together to seek mutual benefit. Hardened old-school negotiators, such as old-style union officials, will often maintain that stating your goals undermines your position. This is only true if you are using a win-lose negotiating style. If you were looking for common ground and a win-win situation, then stating your goals assertively and openly as the first step to success. State the issues clearly. It is important to identify the real issues involved and discard those that are not relevant. This enables the focus of the negotiation to remain firmly fixed on the interests and differences of the individuals involved without arguments spreading to other areas of work. You may find it helpful to write on a whiteboard or flipchart the areas of interest and those which you have agreed or not relevant for the discussion. That way, if one person goes off at a tangent, others can point out what was agreed. Remember, though, that is negotiations proceed. Other areas may become important and may need to be added to the list. Different people have different interests. What do you regard as essential may be viewed by someone else as trivial by setting out all the issues clearly at the beginning of the negotiation and also making clear which are more valuable to you. Win-win areas become clearer. Consider all viewpoints. During negotiation, a great deal of time can be spent in establishing the facts. However, it should be realized that facts tend to provide another area over which to disagree, because people can see the same situation and events in completely different ways. Another person's worries, even if totally unfounded, are still real worries and need to be taken into consideration. Conflicts often arise because of differences in personal viewpoints. Remember that to accept and understand someone else's viewpoint does not imply agreement with that point of view. Rather, it shows respect for the person and the wish to work together to find a mutually satisfactory solution. Similarly, it is helpful to encourage the other person to understand your viewpoint and open, honest, and accepting discussion of the differences in perspective will often help to clarify the issues and provide the way forward to a resolution. Clarify meaning. Good communication skills are essential for negotiation. Improving and developing your communication skills will help to minimize the problems associated with misunderstandings in negotiation. Such skills include active listening, questioning, reflecting, and clarification, verbal and nonverbal communication. Good negotiation involves offering your viewpoint in an assertive manner rather than taking an aggressive stance or passively listening to different views. By being assertive, you will help to ensure that the needs of all concerned are met. 13. Why Negotiations Fail: Why negotiations fail. When we think of failed negotiations, most of us picture negotiators walking away from the table in disappointment. But that's only one type of disappointing negotiation. Failed negotiations also include those that parties come to regret over time and those that fall apart during implementation. The following three types of negotiation failures are ones we can all learn to avoid when negotiating. First, we walk away from a good deal. It's common for a negotiator to reach an impasse, even when their best alternative to a negotiated agreement or BATNA is worse, are projected to be worse than the deal that's on the table. Threats, strong emotions, and overconfidence are all common contributors to such mistakes. Here's an example from the 2016 US presidential campaign back in January when president elect Donald Trump was one of 12 Republican candidates, key threatened to boycott a scheduled January 28th debate in Des Moines, Iowa. Unless fox, which was hosting the debate agreed to replace Fox News anchor Meghan Kelly with another moderator. For many months, trump had criticized Kelly for her questioning of him during her moderation of the first Republican debate in August 2015, Trump may have thought that fox would back down and replace Kelly. Instead. The network refused to meet his demand and also mocked him on Twitter and angered Trump, boycotted the debate and went on to finish second in the Iowa caucuses. A disappointment that he conceded could have been due to his absence from the Des Moines debate as reported by CNN. When we issue a threat in negotiations, we need to be sure that we will feel comfortable turning to our BATNA in the event that the other side refuses to meet our demands before issuing a threat, carefully analyze your BATNA, compare it to the deal on the table, and then make the most rational choice as painful as that sometimes can be. Next, we make a deal that we later regret. The flip side of rejecting a deal that's better than your BATNA, of course, is accepting a deal that's worse than your BATNA. In business negotiations, we're often unaware that we've left value on the table until later. If ever. For example, car buyers often think they got a bargain at the dealership. Even if they failed to research the lowest price, they could get comparison shop or search for the best loan terms. At other times, we experienced buyers or sellers remorse. Take the case of Abbott Laboratories, which agreed to by diagnostic device provider a leader for fifty-six dollars per share or about $5.8 billion in January 2016, the M&A negotiation was set to make Abbott the largest provider of rapid medical tests, according to Abbott CEO miles white. But Abbott began regretting the deal in mid-March after reportedly learning that the US government was investigating a leader in an overseas bribery probe, Abbott offered to pay a Lear the $50 million termination fees stipulated in their contract to back out of the deal, but a Lear refused to accept it. It announced a deal to acquire St. Jude Medical, another medical device manufacturer for twenty-five billion dollar credit rating agency, Moody's threatened to downgrade abbots credit rating if it closed both mergers as planned, making matters worse, the news broke in July that earlier was facing a federal criminal investigation over it's Medicare and Medicaid billing practices. In August, a leisure suit Abbott and ask the judge to force the merger to close. In its legal response, avid accused a Lear of withholding information about its finances in federal probes beyond M&A negotiation, in all types of business negotiations, and to cut corners on due diligence when goodwill and enthusiasm are running high. The wise negotiator considers the potential risks and downsides of a deal as thoroughly as possible. Finally, we negotiate a deal that's too weak to last. A related type of failure in negotiations as an agreement that reaches the finish line, but quickly falls apart during the implementation phase. Such deals often collapse due to a failure to confront conflict during negotiations or to give the deal a sound structure. Returning to the 2016 US presidential race, consider the temporary packed reached by Senator Ted Cruz and Ohio Governor john cases when they were both trailing Trump for the Republican nomination this spring. In March, K6 team approach the Cruz campaign with a plan aimed at stopping Trump from gaining the delegates he'd need to win the party's nomination at its July Convention on April 25th, cruise, in case it reached a pact, the Cruz campaign would focus its time and resources in Indiana and in turn, clear the path for governor casing to compete in Oregon and New Mexico. The New York Times reports, the campaign said they expected their allies and third party donors to follow their lead. But the same day that Cruz case if deal was announced, it already seemed to be on shaky ground. When reporters asked case like how Indiana residents should vote, he said they ought to vote for me. Meanwhile, crews didn't ask his supporters in Oregon and New Mexico to switch their allegiance to casing. The Pact collapsed and Trump won Indiana's Republican primary. That night, crews dropped out of the race. Casing followed suit the next day. The mistrust that built up over months of campaigning likely spoiled crews in K6 deal. The best negotiators build rapport and trust throughout the negotiation process and negotiate the terms of implementation thoroughly. Best preparation, you may not always be able to negotiate a successful outcome. You must plan for what to do in case negotiations fail. If you allocate time and resources to planning alternative solutions, you can avoid unnecessary stress and poor business outcomes. Having an alternative plan will help you to reduce your own internal pressures. Minimize your chances of accepting an offer that is not in your best business interests. And set realistic goals and expectations. Preparing an alternative plan. It's important to remember that when it comes to negotiating, there's always more than one positive solution for your business. Ensure you have an alternative plan. Consider your best alternative to a negotiated agreement, also known as BATNA. Take pressure off yourself by identifying several other options or alternatives to the outcome you're seeking. Brainstorm all available alternatives to the process you are negotiating. Choose the most promising ideas and expand them into practical alternatives. Keep the best alternative in reserve as a fallback. Take a firm and assertive stance when proposing ideas are drawing definite lines in your negotiation. Being willing to walk away is a powerful tool. Clearly determined the worst possible outcome you are prepared to accept in the negotiation. Consider mediation. If negotiations are unsuccessful, be prepared to consider dispute resolution. Third party mediation can establish a constructive environment for negotiation that requires both parties to discuss proposed and resolve issues fairly and objectively.