Control the Negotiation Before It Begins

Article from Harvard Business Review by Deepak Malhotra

Some pointers that I've got are:

1. Negotiate Process Before Substance

The more clarity and commitment you have regarding the process, the less likely you are to make mistakes on substance. Negotiating process entails discussing and influencing a range of factors that will affect the outcome of the deal. Ask the other party: How much time does your company need to close the deal? Who must be on board? What factors might slow down or speed up the process? Are there key milestones or dates we should be aware of? Remember to find out simple things such as, Who will be in the meeting tomorrow? What will the agenda be? Since we are not going to discuss the issues of importance to us in the next meeting, when will we address them?

Of course, you can’t always get clear answers to every question at the outset—and sometimes it is premature to ask certain questions. But you should seek to clarify and reach agreement on as many process elements as possible—and as early as is appropriate—to avoid stumbling on substance later.

2. Normalize the Process

Unless business partners understand what is “normal” in a given context or culture, they are likely to misunderstand or overreact to adverse events. The same is true in negotiations of all kinds: It is important to normalize the process. If you’ve ever been involved in an ugly conflict that went into mediation, you may have seen this in action. When a good mediator sits down with parties who are in a bitter dispute, she might say something like, “You think you hate each other today? I can assure you, about three days into this process, you’re going to hate each other even more. And when that happens, I want you to remember something: That’s normal.”

If the mediator does not give this warning, the parties are much more likely to abandon the process when emotions heighten and things seem to be falling apart. But if she explains at the outset that it’s normal for things to get worse before they get better, the parties are more likely to keep at it. By normalizing the process, she effectively manages their expectations.

The same principle applies to any negotiation where there’s a risk that things will not go perfectly smoothly. If you anticipate delays or disruptions on your side, tell your counterparts. This allows you to shape how they will interpret a negative event should one occur and to ensure that they do not overweight its significance. You’ll have a much harder time trying to influence their perceptions or win back their trust after something goes wrong that they did not expect.

Normalizing the process entails discussing, in advance, any factors that might cause the other side to question your intentions or ability or to doubt the likelihood of a successful outcome. You might explain typical barriers that need to be overcome, moments during the process when it’s common for parties to feel anxious or pessimistic, events that might delay progress, and the difference between disruptions that are commonplace and easy to resolve and ones that are more serious.

Encourage the other side to do the same for you. People often hesitate to discuss “what might go wrong,” because they’re focused on presenting themselves and the merits of the deal in the best possible light. This is especially true in certain cultures and in contexts where competition is fierce. Your counterpart might be thinking, “Why should I talk about problems if my rivals are pretending things will be great?”

That’s understandable. If other parties think that mentioning a potential disruption could cost them the business, or that you’ll use it as a lever to extract greater concessions, they’re unlikely to be truthful. To encourage people to be open about problems, make it safe for them. Explain that you are experienced enough to know that every deal and relationship is likely to encounter difficulties and disruptions, and that you want to learn more about the specific risk factors that might play a role in this case. And if you can signal (or commit to) having no intention of holding those factors against them, you have a better chance of reaching an understanding that works for both sides.

3. Map Out the Negotiation Space

This consists of every party that can affect the negotiation, along with any party that will be affected by the negotiation. In my experience, a strategy that makes perfect sense when you’re thinking bilaterally—that is, about the relationship between any two parties in the negotiation—can suddenly become ineffective or even disastrous when you take a multilateral perspective. I encouraged my client to evaluate the interests, constraints, alternatives, and perspective of all the relevant parties.

In the real world, you’ll never have as complete a picture as you’d like, but you put yourself at further disadvantage if you focus too narrowly on the party on the other side of the table. You have to assess the perspective of all the parties that can influence or are influenced by the deal: Who has the ability to influence the person on the other side of the table? How might the strategy or actions of other parties change your alternatives, for better or worse? How does the deal affect the interests of those who are not at the table? How will this negotiation affect your leverage with future negotiation partners? If multiple parties are involved in the deal, does it make sense to negotiate with them simultaneously or in sequence, together or separately?

Your analysis might suggest a change of strategy—that you should negotiate with a different party first, delay the deal or speed it up, bring others into the room, expand or contract the scope of the deal, and so on.

4. Control the Frame

The outcome of a negotiation depends a great deal on each side’s leverage—the better your outside options are and the more ways you have to reward or coerce the other side, the more likely you are to achieve your objectives. But the psychology of the deal can be just as important.

In my experience, the frame, or psychological lens, through which the parties view the negotiation has a significant effect on where they end up. Are the parties treating the interaction as a problem-solving exercise or as a battle to be won? Are they looking at it as a meeting of equals, or do they perceive a difference in status? Are they focused on the long term or the short term? Are concessions expected, or are they seen as signs of weakness?


Effective negotiators will seek to control or adjust the frame early in the process—ideally, before the substance of the deal is even discussed. Here are three elements of framing that negotiators would be wise to consider.

A. Value versus price.

One of the most common mistakes salespeople make in those situations—without even realizing it—is to apologize for having a high price. They do this when they say “I understand it’s pricey, but…” or when they hastily signal a willingness to adjust the price. My advice: Always justify your offer, but never apologize for it. When you apologize, you signal that even you don’t think the price is appropriate, and you give the other side license to haggle. The entire frame of the negotiation becomes about price, when what you really want to discuss is value.

A better response would be, “What you seem to be asking is, How is it that despite a higher price, we still have a long and growing list of customers? We both know that no one will pay more for something than it’s worth, so let’s discuss the value we bring so that you can decide what’s best for you.”

In negotiations of all kinds, the sooner you can shift the discussion away from the cost to your counterpart and focus on the value you bring to the table, the more likely it is that you will be able to monetize that value.

B. Your alternatives versus theirs.

Research and experience suggest that people who walk into a negotiation consumed by the question “what will happen to me if there is no deal?” get worse outcomes than those who focus on what would happen to the other side if there’s no deal. When you are overly concerned with your own alternatives, and especially when your outside options are weak, you think in terms of “what will it take (at a minimum) to get them to say yes?” When you make the negotiation about what happens to them if there is no deal, you shift the frame to the unique value you offer, and it becomes easier to justify why you deserve a good deal.

C. Equality versus dominance.

To keep the dominance frame from taking hold, we started shaping expectations and perceptions at the very beginning, before we even considered the economics of the deal. For example, any time our counterpart made a procedural demand—however small—that we felt they would not have made of an equal, we respectfully pushed back on it. Any time they included a provision in the term sheet that seemed one-sided, even if it would not have been a costly concession, we redrafted it to be symmetrical. And throughout the negotiation, we made sure they understood that although our firm was much smaller, we were equals in this negotiation because of the tremendous value we offered. While I am not an advocate of nitpicking on minor issues, in this case we did so intentionally to help set the right frame.

Negotiators can shape the frame in countless other ways and on many other dimensions. At the very least, you want to ensure that the psychological lens that takes hold respects the value you bring to the table.

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big

Emotion and the Art of Negotiation

Article from Harvard Business Review by Alison Wood Brooks

Some pointers that I've got are:

Avoiding Anxiety

Anxiety is a state of distress in reaction to threatening stimuli, particularly novel situations that have the potential for undesirable outcomes. In contrast to anger, which motivates people to escalate conflict (the “fight” part of the fight-or-flight response), anxiety trips the “flight” switch and makes people want to exit the scene.

Because patience and persistence are often desirable when negotiating, the urge to exit quickly is counterproductive. But the negative effects of feeling anxious while negotiating may go further.

People experiencing anxiety made weaker first offers, responded more quickly to each move the counterpart made, and were more likely to exit negotiations early (even though their instructions clearly warned that exiting early would reduce the value they received from the negotiation). Anxious negotiators made deals that were 12% less financially attractive than those made by negotiators in the neutral group. We did discover one caveat, however: People who gave themselves high ratings in a survey on negotiating aptitude were less affected by anxiety than others.

Those experiments examined what happens when people feel anxious. But what happens when they express that anxiety, making it clear to their counterparts that they’re nervous (and perhaps vulnerable)? We found that relative to people who did not feel anxious, they were less confident, more likely to consult others when making decisions, and less able to discriminate between good and bad advice. In the most relevant of these experiments, we found that anxious participants did not discount advice from someone with a stated conflict of interest, whereas subjects feeling neutral emotions looked upon that advice skeptically. Although this research didn’t directly address how the subjects would negotiate, it suggests that people who express anxiety are more likely to be taken advantage of in a negotiation, especially if the other party senses their distress.

The takeaway from both research and practice is clear: Try your utmost to avoid feeling anxious while negotiating. How can you manage that? Train, practice, rehearse, and keep sharpening your negotiating skills. Anxiety is often a response to novel stimuli, so the more familiar the stimuli, the more comfortable and the less anxious you will feel. (That’s why clinicians who treat anxiety disorders often rely on exposure therapy: People who are nervous about flying on airplanes, for instance, are progressively exposed to the experience, first getting used to the sights and sounds, then sitting in airliner seats, and ultimately taking flights.) Indeed, although many people enroll in negotiation classes to learn strategies and increase skills, one of the primary benefits is the comfort that comes from repeatedly practicing deal making in simulations and exercises. Negotiation eventually feels more routine, so it’s not such an anxiety-inducing experience.

Another useful strategy for reducing anxiety is to bring in an outside expert to handle the bargaining. Third-party negotiators will be less anxious because their skills are better honed, the process is routine for them, and they have a lower personal stake in the outcome. Outsourcing your negotiation may sound like a cop-out, but it’s a frequent practice in many industries. Home buyers and sellers use real estate brokers partly for their negotiating experience; athletes, authors, actors, and even some business executives rely on agents to hammer out contracts. Although there are costs to this approach, they are often more than offset by the more favorable terms that can be achieved. And although anxious negotiators may have the most to gain from involving a third party (because anxiety can be a particularly difficult emotion to regulate in an uncomfortable setting), this strategy can also be useful when other negative emotions surface.


Managing Anger

Like anxiety, anger is a negative emotion, but instead of being self-focused, it’s usually directed toward someone else. In most circumstances, we try to keep our tempers in check. When it comes to negotiating, however, many people believe that anger can be a productive emotion—one that will help them win a larger share of the pie.

This view stems from a tendency to view negotiations in competitive terms rather than collaborative ones. Researchers call this the fixed-pie bias: People, particularly those with limited experience making deals, assume that a negotiation is a zero-sum game in which their own interests conflict directly with a counterpart’s. (More-experienced negotiators, in contrast, look for ways to expand the pie through collaboration, rather than nakedly trying to snatch a bigger slice.) Anger, the thinking goes, makes one seem stronger, more powerful, and better able to succeed in this grab for value.

Angry negotiators are less accurate than neutral negotiators both in recalling their own interests and in judging other parties’ interests. And angry negotiators may seek to harm or retaliate against their counterparts, even though a more cooperative approach might increase the value that both sides can claim from the negotiation.

In many contexts, feeling or expressing anger as a negotiating tactic can backfire. So in most cases, tamping down any anger you feel—and limiting the anger you express—is a smarter strategy. This may be hard to do, but there are tactics that can help.

Building rapport before, during, and after a negotiation can reduce the odds that the other party will become angry. If you seek to frame the negotiation cooperatively—to make it clear that you’re seeking a win-win solution instead of trying to get the lion’s share of a fixed pie—you may limit the other party’s perception that an angry grab for value will work well. If the other party does become angry, apologize. Seek to soothe. Even if you feel that his anger is unwarranted, recognize that you’re almost certainly better positioned tactically if you can reduce the hostility.

Perhaps the most effective way to deal with anger in negotiations is to recognize that many negotiations don’t unfold all at once but take place over multiple meetings. So if tensions are flaring, ask for a break, cool off, and regroup. This isn’t easy when you’re angry, because your fight-or-flight response urges you to escalate, not pull back. Resist that urge and give the anger time to dissipate. In heated negotiations, hitting the pause button can be the smartest play.

Finally, you might consider reframing anger as sadness. Though reframing one negative emotion as another sounds illogical, shared feelings of sadness can lead to cooperative concession making, whereas oppositional anger often leads to an impasse.

Handling Disappointment and Regret

Disappointment can be a powerful force when it’s expressed to the other party near the end of the negotiation. There’s a relationship between anger and disappointment—both typically arise when an individual feels wronged—and it’s useful to understand how one can be used more constructively than the other. (Think back to how you reacted as a child if your parents said “I’m very disappointed in you” instead of “I’m very angry with you.”) Although expressing anger may create defensiveness or increase the odds of a standoff, expressing disappointment can serve a more tactical purpose by encouraging the other party to look critically at her own actions and consider whether she wants to change her position to reduce the negative feelings she’s caused you.

Research shows that one cause of disappointment in a negotiation is the speed of the process. When a negotiation unfolds or concludes too quickly, participants tend to feel dissatisfied. They wonder if they could or should have done more or pushed harder.

Regret is slightly different from disappointment. While the latter tends to involve sadness about an outcome, someone feeling regret is looking a little more upstream, at the course of actions that led to this unhappy outcome, and thinking about the missteps or mistakes that created the disappointment. Research shows that people are most likely to regret actions they didn’t take—the missed opportunities and errors of omission, rather than errors of commission. That can be a powerful insight for negotiators, whose primary actions should be asking questions, listening, proposing solutions, and brainstorming new alternatives if the parties can’t agree. Ironically, people often don’t ask questions while negotiating: They may forget to raise important matters or feel reluctant to probe too deeply, deeming it invasive or rude. Those fears are often misplaced. In fact, people who ask a lot of questions tend to be better liked, and they learn more things. In negotiations, information is king and learning should be a central goal. One way to reduce the potential for regret is to ask questions without hesitation. Aim to come away from the negotiation with the sense that every avenue was explored.

Skilled negotiators use another technique to minimize the odds of regret: the “post-settlement settlement.” This strategy recognizes that tension often dissipates when there’s a deal on the table that makes everyone happy, and sometimes the best negotiating happens after that tension is released. So instead of shaking hands and ending the deal making, one party might say, “We’re good. We have terms we can all live with. But now that we know we’ve reached an agreement, let’s spend a few more minutes chatting to see if we can find anything that sweetens it for both sides.” Done ineptly, this might seem as if one party is trying to renege or renegotiate. However, when handled deftly, a post-settlement settlement can open a pathway for both sides to become even more satisfied with the outcome and stave off regrets.

Tempering Happiness and Excitement

The National Football League prohibits and penalizes “excessive celebrations” after a touchdown or big play because such conduct can generate ill will. For the same reason, the “winner” in a deal should not gloat as the negotiations wrap up.

Although it’s unpleasant to feel disappointed after a negotiation, it can be even worse to make your counterparts feel that way. And in certain situations, showing happiness or excitement triggers disappointment in others. The best negotiators achieve great deals for themselves but leave their opponents believing that they, too, did fabulously, even if the truth is different. In deals that involve a significant degree of future collaboration—say, when two companies agree to merge, or when an actor signs a contract with a producer to star in an upcoming movie—it can be appropriate to show excitement, but it’s important to focus on the opportunities ahead rather than the favorable terms one party just gained.

Another danger of excitement is that it may increase your commitment to strategies or courses of action that you’d be better off abandoning.


There are two lessons for negotiators. 

First, be considerate: Do not let your excitement make your counterparts feel that they lost. 

Second, be skeptical: Do not let your excitement lead to overconfidence or an escalation of commitment with insufficient data.

Managing Your Counterpart’s Emotions

Negotiating is an interpersonal process. There will always be at least one other party (and often many more) involved. In the adjoining article I discuss how to manage your own emotions during a negotiation. But what about the other people at the table? Can you manage their emotions as well? I suggest two strategies for doing so.

1. Be observant. Perceiving how other people are feeling is a critical component of emotional intelligence, and it’s particularly key in negotiations (as Adam Galinsky and his colleagues have found). So tune in to your counterpart’s body language, tone of voice, and choice of words. When her verbal and nonverbal cues don’t match up, ask questions. For example, “You are telling me you like this outcome, but you seem uneasy. Is something making you uncomfortable?” Or “You say you’re angry, but you seem somewhat pleased. Are you truly upset about something? Or are you trying to intimidate me?”

Asking pointed questions based on your perceptions of the other party’s emotional expressions will make it easier for you to understand her perspective (a task people are shockingly bad at, according to research by Nicholas Epley). It will also make it difficult for a counterpart to lie to you; evidence suggests that people prefer to tell lies of omission about facts rather than lies of commission about feelings.

2. Don’t be afraid to exert direct influence on your counterpart’s emotions. This may sound manipulative or even unscrupulous, but you can use this influence for good. For example, if your counterpart seems anxious or angry, injecting humor or empathetic reassurance can dramatically change the tone of the interaction. By the same token, if your counterpart seems overconfident or pushy, expressing well-placed anger can inspire a healthy dose of fear.

In recent research with Elizabeth Baily Wolf, I have found that it’s possible to go even further in managing others’ emotions: You display an emotion, your counterpart sees it, and then you shape his interpretation of it. For example, imagine that you start crying at work. (Crying is a difficult-to-control and often embarrassing behavior.) Saying “I’m in tears because I’m passionate” rather than “I’m sorry I’m so emotional” can completely change the way others react and the way they view your self-control and competence.

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big

Be Your Own Best Advocate

Article from Harvard Business Review by Deborah M. Kolb

Some pointers that I've got are:

Recognize

Negotiation opportunities aren’t always obvious, especially if you’ve never thought to ask for anything in the past. But some routine situations cry out for bargaining. For example, if you say yes to a special assignment or a request for help when you want to say no, that’s an opportunity to negotiate for something in return. When you’re asked to take on a new initiative, with its attendant risks, that’s an opportunity to negotiate for support. If your workload expands beyond what’s reasonable and cuts into your family time, that’s an opportunity to negotiate for more resources or to change the scope of your role. You must pick your battles, though. The issue should be important to you, but your desired outcome should not only benefit you personally but also benefit your organization, as a result of your increased productivity and commitment and new cultural norms that allow colleagues to achieve the same. The decision to negotiate should be made with a sense of the end in mind.

Prepare

Preparation is critical to any negotiation. But how can you prepare for an informal one that your counterpart isn’t expecting?

First, gather good information.

The more you know about what others have asked for and been granted at work, the more comfortable you’ll feel crafting your own negotiation. You also need intelligence on the parties with whom you’ll be negotiating. How do they like to receive news or special requests? Do they want a lot of advance notice? Do they want you to present a solution or to develop one with you?

Second, position yourself.

Interdependence gives people a reason to negotiate. So look at how your work enables your counterpart and others to succeed; that will help you discern what he or she values in you and assess yourself in a currency that matters. Another way to think about your value proposition and your relative bargaining position is to consider your—and your partner’s—“best alternative to a negotiated agreement,” or BATNA (as Roger Fisher and William Ury call it in Getting to Yes). 

Third, anchor with options.

Negotiations require creativity. When you present many ideas, you’re framing the negotiation in a way that encourages the other party to join. You shouldn’t fixate on a single solution that works for you. Instead consider what matters to your counterpart and find multiple ways to satisfy both of you.

In developing options, it helps to think what good reasons your counterpart might have for saying no to an arrangement you propose. These are on the hidden agenda of any negotiation.

Initiate

Any two people typically feel asymmetrical desires to engage in everyday negotiations. One has a problem or sees an opportunity; the other probably doesn’t and therefore expects business as usual. How can you shift a normal interaction into a collaborative rather than combative negotiation? Start by making your value visible. If the other party stonewalls, you can consider various tactics. One is to round up allies who will vouch for your value and encourage the person to negotiate with you. Another approach is to acknowledge and address one or more of your counterpart’s good reasons for saying no to prove that you’ve thought about his or her perspective. Often the response will be “Right, this is my concern,” which opens the door to a conversation about the issue. You can also introduce a BATNA, but you must do so carefully, so it’s not perceived as a threat. You might mention yours and then retract it. To make your counterpart more aware of his or her own BATNA, ask a question such as “What do you think will happen if we don’t have this conversation?”

Navigate

Once you’ve enticed the other party to engage in a negotiation, you must go into the conversation with an open mind. The proposals you’re prepared to offer are just starting points for an agreement. 

Three types of questions can help the two of you develop a plan that works for everyone.

1. Hypothesis-testing questions start with “What if” and enable you to introduce ideas, whether broad or specific, and solicit a reaction. 
2. Reciprocity questions involve if-then scenarios and build the notion of trading into the negotiation: “If I agree to do X, then what will you do?” 
3. Circular questions, which simultaneously introduce and gather information, ensure that the conversation is collaborative, not adversarial. They emphasize the relationship between you and your counterpart and often unearth deeper issues at stake. 

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big

Give and take - In negotiations, you can make concessions and still get what you want

This post came out from The Straits Times (4 August 2014)
Title - Give and take

Some pointers that I've got are:
1. Don't offer a concession right away
2. Don't offer a large portion of your $1,000 at once
3. Don't give a concession without getting something in return
4. Label all of your concession

On Don't offer a concession right away

• If you appear too willing to give away concessions, your negotiating partner will assume you will give more as the negotiation progresses. Make your partner work for everything he gets. The harder he works, the less he will demand and the more he will value the result. 

On Don't offer a large portion of your $1,000 at once

• Offering a substantial concession initially may signal that more concessions are available for the asking. Start with a modest concession, with later concessions of diminishing size. As your concessions get smaller, you signal that you are approaching your bottom line.

On Don't give a concession without getting something in return

• If your counterpart asks you for a concession, ask him for something in exchange. For example, you could say "I could do X for you if you do Y for me". 
• This lets him know he will not get anything for free, and he will be less likely to ask for something if he knows it will cost him. 
• You may be tempted to offer a concession to break a deadlock in the negotiation. If you do make a unilateral concession to get a stalled negotiation moving again, make sure you don't give another one until your counterpart concedes something to you.
• If you give two concessions in a row without reciprocation, your counterpart will ask for a third, and a fourth, and a fifth.

On Label all your concession

• Everytime you give something, make it clear it is something of value that requires reciprocation from the other party. Do not allow your concessions to be dismissed as minor. 

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big

Improve your negotiation skills

This post came out from The Straits Times (6 October 2015)
Title - Improve your negotiation skills

Some pointers that I've got are:
1. Probe
2. Organise
3. Listen and leverage
4. Interest
5. Communicate
6. Ending

On Probe

• Probing is not only getting the finer details, but also about being emotionally sensitive by asking the right questions at the right time.
• When doing probing questions, ask yourself why are you doing this, how do you think this action is going to help you.

On Organise

• You need to mentally prepare yourself when negotiating, as it can be a time consuming and emotionally draining process.
• Try to make yourself as comfortable as possible to ensure that the negotiation will go as smoothly as possible.

On Listen and leverage

• When negotiating with others, be sure to listen to what is said and unsaid. Non verbal cues constitute 55 per cent of communication.
• Leverage refers to utilising information shared among the parties involved in the negotiations. 

On Interest

• Establishing rapport is important, and understanding the other party is vital. When someone shows genuine interest when speaking to you, determine where their interest lies as quickly as you can. Be sincerely interested in their interest so that you can deepen the level of connection.

On Connection

• Watch how you communicate to the other party as this could either break or make the deal. It is easy acceptable to use slang or colloquial words when talking to your peers, but not with the parties involved in the negotiation. Keep your language simple and concise to avoid misunderstanding.

On Ending

• How one concludes the negotiation process is equally important as the introduction. Ideally, questions should have been answered or more time requested for either party to get back to the other.
• If specific action is required by either party, that should be clearly stated as well.

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big

Master the art of persuasion - Succeed at the negotiating table by planning and strategising ahead

This post came out from The Straits Times (19 Jan 2012)
Title - Master the art of persuasion

Some pointers that I've got are:
1. Thorough preparation
2. Personality factors
3. Negotiation skills
4. Conflict handling strategies

On Thorough preparation

• The first thing to do is examine the subject matter, which will help you formulate the framework for negotiation. Try to understand the rules and limitations, rewards and penalties of the situation.
• Analyse the parties involved, and study past negotiations for patterns, implementation and decisions taken. Establish the objectives of the negotiation. Once you have understood the background of the situation, you can prioritise the issues.
• After identifying the areas of contention and dispute, establish an agenda to give the discussion better focus. Crystalise your position by looking at the needs of both parties. Ask yourself what you are willing to concede.

On Personality factors

• A successful negotiator needs these qualities: knowing how to prepare and plan; knowing the subject; ability to think clearly and rapidly; knowing how to listen; good judgement; integrity; ability to persuade people; patience; and a decisive mind. 
• List the qualities you possess and those you do not. Remember, anyone can acquire the qualities needed to be an effective negotiator.

On Negotiation skills

• The acronym RESPECT summarises the step-by-step process for winning your arguments
• Ready yourself. Prepare yourself by identifying your interest and your opponent's. List and rank the issues involved. Gather relevant information and consult with others to test your assumptions. Devise a time plan, venue, strategy and appropriate tactics.
• Explore each other's needs. Ask questions and listen to your opponent's position. Maintain a positive and open non-verbal climate by speaking clearly and confidently. Use assertive language and silence for effect and results.
• Signals. Watch out for signals that indicate movement towards agreement or settlement. Clarify all signals with follow-up questions, then reciprocate with your own signals.
• Probe with proposals. After stating your conditions clearly, use effective communication techniques to reach tentative agreements. If an impasse sets in, repackage your proposal to create various options and win-win solutions.
• Exchange concessions. Give yourself plenty of room to negotiate, and remember that all offers should be realistic. What you agree to give up should be monitored closely and conceded slowly.
• Close the deal. Listen for questions or statements that indicate a readiness to close the deal, and look at the opponent's body language. Is it consistent with what he is saying? Should there be an impasse, try approaching the issues from another angle.
• Tie up loose ends. Always verify agreements in writing. Question ambiguities and confirm all agreed positions in black and white. 

On Conflict- handling strategies

• Planning your negotiation strategy will prepare you psychologically for the battle. There are typically five negotiation strategies, depending on the outcome of your preparatory work and your grasp of the issues involved.
• Competing - being forceful. This involves reinforcing your stand. Use if you are not concerned with the other party's needs. You may use this in an emergency situation, when the other party is untrustworthy, or when you are sure you have the right solution.
• Collaborating - problem solving method. When ensuring all parties get the most benefits, collaborating is a good strategy. This method is particularly useful when the issue at hand is too important to compromise on. Collaborating often leads to creative solutions and win-win outcomes.
• Avoiding - withdrawing. If the issue is trivial or your opponent outmatches you, you may choose not to confront the issue. This strategy is best when the potential disruption arising from the confrontation may be greater than the potential benefit from solving it. 
• Accommodating - yielding. Choose this strategy when you find that the position you have taken is wrong or when you wish to minimise a losing position. You can also adopt this strategy when the other party's issues have priorities over yours.
• Compromising - horse trading. If a quick, temporary solution is required, then a simple compromise may be all that's required. Choose this strategy when both parties goals' are equally important and using more aggressive strategies is not worth the disruption that will inevitably follow.

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big

The art of strategic negotiation

This post came out from The Straits Times (10 July 2015)
Title - The art of strategic negotiation

Some pointers that I've got are:
1. Frame your case positively
2. Focus on interests over positions
3. Stress common ground, not differences
4. Manage information skillfully
5. Aim higher
6. Understand and leverage your power
7. Concede strategically

On Frame your case positively

• Framing is persuasive messaging with a favorable frame of reference. Use compelling themes to frame the negotiation in your favour. 
• Effective framing is about presenting information persuasively. Enhance your value proposition with compelling framing. Begin by anchoring your point with strong facts early in the negotiation process.

On Focus on interests over positions

• Go beyond what is articulated to find out exactly what the other party's interests are.
• Note that there is a difference between a position and an interest. 
• Positions are more specific and measurable, while interests are more general and subjective. Interest is the underlying motivation for the position. In other words, a position is what one wants, and the interest is why one wants it. 
• Uncovering and identifying interests allow both parties to be more creative and productive in looking for a win win situation.

On Stress common ground, not differences

• Good negotiation are rarely adversarial in nature. Look for common ground: Deadlines, interests, shared experiences
• Commonalities create positive feelings and a sense of shared destiny. Do this as early as possible in the negotiation process to establish the right emotional footing for a conducive negotiating climate. 

On Manager information skillfully

• Those who know how to leverage and uncover information will perform better than those who do not. Knowing what information to share and when to share it can help you build rapport and trust.
• By skillfully uncovering information from other party, you can link your value proposition to their interests and needs. 
• Strategic negotiators often ask more open-ended questions than average negotiators. They encourage the other party to do most of the talking, while they listen carefully. In strategic negotiation, the quality of your question determines the quality of the information you get. 

On Aim higher

• Top negotiators set higher targets for all aspects of the negotiation. Communicating a higher target influences the other party's perception of your value. 
• When you ask for more, you expand the range of reason, and tend to get more. It also builds negotiating room into your proposal. Effectiveness at the conference table depends on overstating one's demands.

On Understand and leverage your power

• You can increase your competitive advantage in a negotiation by understanding power sources and leveraging them. Typical power sources come from factors like financial strength, information, situations, time, technology and people.
• In negotiation, your personal power derives from your conviction, confidence and negotiation skills.

On Concede strategically

• In a negotiation, how you concede is as important as what you concede. Your concession pattern will send a message to the other party. Set your targets high enough to give yourself room to accommodate concessions. Be reluctant to give away concessions.
• Go for the quid pro quo ("something for something") approach. If you give away a concession without asking for something in return, you are encourage the other party to ask for more.
• Negotiation should start off as an exchange of information and then progress to an exchange of value. Trading concessions is a natural part of that process. 

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big

Tough negotiator

This post came out from The Straits Times (3 July 2015)
Title - Handling a tough negotiator (The first step lies in understanding the reason behind the behavior

Some pointers that I've got are:
1. Testing you
2. Playing tactics
3. In a bad mood
4. Unpleasant by nature

On Testing you

• Some negotiators like to come on strong, just to see how you will react. They are hoping to intimidate you into giving up more than you would like. 
• With such people, you need to hold your ground. If you stand up to them, you have passed the test and they will respect you. 

On Playing tactics

• Sometimes the hard negotiator is being tough for the sake of it. Even if you stand up to him, he will continue to push hard. 
• He has learnt through experience that he can often get a better outcome when he is more demanding, so he will try to wear you down. If this is his game, you must brace yourself and focus on what you want to get out of the deal. 
• The worse thing you can do with a difficult negotiator is to offer concessions in a misguided effort to appease him. But the message he will receive is that by being tough, he is getting more, so he will continue to use the tactic as you have proven him right.
• Thus, each time your hard bargaining counterpart asks you for a concession, ask him for something in return. Make him understand there will be no free lunch. 

On Bad Mood

• Your negotiating counterpart may just be having a bad day. As a result, he or she may be hostile, irritable or difficult to deal with.
• Thus, this is a good time to ask "Did I do anything to offend you?"
• If yes, you can ask about the what exactly you did that caused that offence, apologize for it and continue to negotiate calmly. If no, it will become obvious to the negotiator that he or she has no reason to vent the anger on you, and this will likely to clam him or her down.

On Unpleasant by nature

• There are a few people who simply do not play well with others. They may be arrogant, demanding, or just plain obnoxious.
• For these people, you will not be able to change him, but do not stoop to his level either. Take the high road and do your best. Be polite and profession, stay focused on your objectives and work towards an agreement that satisfies him or her. 

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big