Steve Veltkamp is a speaker, trainer and entrepreneur with a passion for freedom through self-employment. Trained as an instructor and qualified as a Master Training Specialist in the Navy, he created Biz$hop. Called a "master of multi-tasking" in Success Magazine, his business ventures include import/export, consulting, publishing, webmaster services, and seminars. Steve is the Executive Director of the Olympic Home Based Business Association, the Global Trade Society, and the Olympic Chapter of the International Webmasters Association. A noted expert on home-based business, he has spoken at national and regional conferences.

Since 1992, Steve has been teaching others how to start a business or make an existing business more profitable. He shares a wealth of tips in each three hour seminar, described by attendees as "info-packed" and "fun." His no-nonsense, down to earth teaching style helps students become free and stop being wage slaves!

Some have said that everything in life is a negotiation. You negotiate to buy something in a store, you negotiate who will take out the garbage at home, you negotiate how close you will be at any given time to someone.

Negotiating is simply the process of adjusting your behavior and the other side's behaviour to influence the outcome.

It is also a very fun game.

Some object to it being described in this way, especially since there can literally be life or death in the outcome, such as when a cease-fire is being negotiated in a conflict.

It is however, regardless of the outcome, a testing of the skills, mental abilities and resolve of each of the participants. Perhaps no other time will you be tested as thoroughly.

By Victoria Pynchon

Website: www.settlenow.com

From Mediate.com

According to Harvard Business School Professor Michael Watkins' new book Breakthrough International Negotiations truly great negotiators operate on seven basic principles.

Principle 1: Great negotiators shape the structure of their situations

Great negotiators never get mired down reacting to counterparts' moves. Instead, they work to mold the basic structure of the negotiation by involving the right people, controlling the issue agenda, creating linkages that bolster their bargaining power, and channeling the flow of the process through time.

Principle 2: Great negotiators organize to learn

Great negotiators diagnose the essential features of the situation, familiarize themselves with its history and context, and probe the backgrounds and reputations of their counterparts. Understanding the limits of public and privately-gained knowledge prior to the bargaining session, great negotiators continue learning at the negotiation table -- carefully gauging reactions and responses while testing hypotheses by asking diagnostic questions and putting offers on the table.

Principle 3: Great negotiators are masters of process design

Great negotiators are cognizant of the potential benefits and costs of setting up a secret channel and understand that details as small as the timing of a meeting or the shape of the negotiating table can make a difference. They know that a bad process—one perceived as unfair, illegitimate, or simply confusing—can create unnecessary and often intractable barriers to agreement.

Principle 4: Great negotiators foster agreement when possible but employ force when necessary

Great negotiators understand the delicate interplay between negotiation and coercive power and make skilled use of explicit and implicit threats. They also recognize the need for threats to be credible, because the cost of using force can be very high. Great negotiators also recognize that their counterparts will view any agreement achieved by means of coercive power as illegitimate and feel free to violate its terms in the absence of continuously applied coercive power. They also understand that backing weak players into a corner triggers resistance and escalation.

Principle 5: Great negotiators anticipate and manage conflict

Great negotiators mediate their own disputes. They are skilled at diagnosing potential sources of conflict. They recognize the potential for escalation in zero-sum thinking, mutual perceptions of vulnerability, and a history of distrust or injury that has transformed perceptions. They are also equipped to craft strategies to overcome these barriers, by reframing issues or setting up confidence-building mechanisms. Great negotiators are skilled at developing trust backed by a seriousness of purpose and unwavering adherence to the principles they must protect.

Principle 6: Great negotiators build momentum toward agreement

Great negotiators channel the flow and pace of the process -- developing attractive visions of a desirable future; proposing a formula or framework or face-saving compromise; and, erecting barriers to backsliding that impel the process forward.

Principle 7: Great negotiators lead from the middle

Great negotiators work internally to shape their mandates and negotiating instructions, and to sell the resulting agreements to constituents. At the same time, they build credibility and productive working relationships externally while advancing the interests of their sides. Great negotiators pay close attention to how the other side makes decisions, and use their insights to tailor their own moves. They even help their counterparts sell agreements.

Negotiators who participate in shaping their mandates have a clear vision of what they want to achieve, and work to shape internal and external perceptions to maximize their ability to advance their sides' interests—and their own.

NLP stands for Neuro Linguistic Programming, a pseudo-science that studies what techniques make people behave in certain ways and how to turn those techniques into models for use at will. The one word definition of NLP is "modeling."

The NLP practitioner looks at those who have been very effective at convincing others to follow them, and then tries to copy what works. Is this manipulation?

The following is from an article by Shlomo Vaknin, C.Ht in NLP weekly, titled "Forced Manipulation."

Well, when I think about it deeply, I can’t avoid concluding that the assumption - NLP techniques are manipulative - is actually true. There’s a negative aspect to the things we learn. We learn how to “mess around” with other people’s consciousness and sub consciousness. We learn to manipulate people to think as we are, to like us, to follow our lead. We learn to (ab)use people’s automatic trust factor by using rapport, mirroring, Milton language patterns and tons of other techniques.

Cults do the same. They induce people into some kind of trance, usually in big groups and with the use of the hypnotic laws of one-up-man-ship. They reprogram people to believe them, using techniques that are very similar, or even derived from, NLP and Hypnosis.

There’s a negative aspect to the learning of influence, persuasion and therapeutic. There’s a negative aspect to conversational hypnosis, the one that is done and used without the acceptance of the “client” or “victim”.

There are plenty of positive aspects, of course, but that specific concern about manipulating others is the one that now intrigues me.

The fact is, that NLPWeekly is a success simply because people want to learn how to help others, and for a more personal reasons - they want to learn how to avoid being manipulated. You see, if you learn the methods of persuasion, of hypnotic language, of subconscious patterning and so on - you have a tool to affect others, if you wish - but you also have a set of tools to avoid being (ab)used.

Psychics use a lot of these techniques - we spoke about them already, if you remember. Politicians use it. Sales people obviously are masters of persuasion, unless they are poor communicators with no wish to be skillful in their craft. Children are good at it, as well as con artists. Advertisers are polishing their skills all the time, finding new ideas to pop their customer’s product into your consciousness when buying decision is due.

These are all manipulations. In a perfect world, we won’t have advertisements in public restrooms, after every 300 meters of a freeway, under our grocery receipts, and in so many annoying formats. Even though they annoy us, they still manage to manipulate our minds to be attracted to the products. Even when you say to yourself - this is too much - they are still making their way through.

This is called forced manipulation, when the intention of the manipulator is to find ANY way to get to you, no matter how bad you’d feel with their tactics. Cult leaders are using this negative form of manipulation as well - they hammer your most hurtful thoughts at you, in front of a bunch of strangers. You might get into hypnosis almost immediately, trying to seek remedy - which always come right after… some people give in only to avoid confrontation, get approval or simply because it hurts to much. If you come to think of it, the source of the pain is not your hurtful thoughts - but the person who induces them.

There would be 3 ways of living, surrounded by manipulators and forced manipulations tactics:

First, you could ignore it all. You could say to yourself - I’m strong enough and no one can get to me. That would be the wrong approach, since some day, somehow, in some way - you won’t even know, but you’d suddenly realize it happens to you so much that you can’t even control it.

The second approach is being careful. Being suspicious of every little thing, every person and in every situation. That could work, but for how long could you stay conscious of your surrounding? Not much, for sure. How many details and formulas (tactics) could you investigate while still living normally? Not a lot. That is also a bad strategy, since you’d be a stressful overwhelmed and neurotic within a short time.

The third approach, which I believe is the best one, is to learn it all and let it sink in. It does not mean that you’re now a manipulator yourself. It means, that after you learn it all and let it become a subconscious competence (remember the levels of earning a skill) - that you’d recognize patterns and decide whether to give in or ignore. You will also be able to pull out your toolbox of persuasion and use it when needed. Whatever you use it for - that depends on your own morals and ethics. However, you’d be safe from manipulators and forced manipulation tactics… well, at least until they re-invent the human psychology and come up with new strategies, but even then, I’m sure there would be a NLP modeler who would make it public.

Building Rapport, by Jamie Smart

Researchers at Boston University Medical School studied films of people having conversations. The researchers noticed that the people talking began (unconsciously) to co-ordinate their movements (including finger movements, eye blinks and head nods.) When they were monitored using electroencepholographs, it was found that some of their brain waves were spiking at the same moment. As the conversations progressed, these people were getting into rapport with each other.

The phenomenon of rapport is well-known in the world of NLP and beyond as a starting-point for influential communication. It’s mentioned in countless NLP and influence texts, and crops up in most sales training programs. Yet what ‘is’ rapport, and how can you use it to help yourself and others?

What is rapport?

Rapport has been described as what happens when we get the attention of someone’s unconscious mind, and meet them at their ‘map of the world.’ It is more commonly understood as the sense of ease and connection that develops when you are interacting with someone you trust and feel comfortable with. Rapport emerges when people are in-sync with each other.

Rapport is an emergent property of the system (group), like a fit of the giggles or a pregnant pause. As such, it’s not possible to ‘cause’ or ‘do’ rapport; you can however massively increase the likelihood of rapport emerging when you are communicating with another person.

Mirror, mirror…

On a basic level, we like people who are like us. One way to help rapport to develop is to mirror the micro-behaviours of those we wish to influence. Any observable behaviour can be mirrored, for example:

* Body posture

* Hand gestures

* Head tilt

* Vocal qualities (pace, rhythm, tonality)

* Key phrases

* Blink rate

* Facial expression

* Energy level

* Breathing rate

* Anything else that you can observe…

To mirror another person, merely select the behaviour or quality you wish to mirror, then do that behaviour. If you choose to mirror head tilt, when the person moves their head, wait a few moments, then move yours to the same angle. The effect should be as though the other person is looking in a mirror. When this is done elegantly, it is out of consciousness for the other person. However, a few notes of caution are appropriate:

* Mirroring is not the same as mimicry. It should be subtle and respectful.

* Mirroring can lead to you sharing the other person’s experience. Avoid mirroring people who are in distress or who have severe mental issues.

* Mirroring can build a deep sense of trust quickly. You have a responsibility to use it ethically.

1) Practise mirroring the micro-behaviours of people on television (chat shows & interviews are ideal.) You may be surprised at how quickly you can become comfortable as you subtly mirror the behaviours of others.

Pacing and leading

Pacing and leading is one of the keys to influencing people. It refers to meeting them at their map of the world (pacing) and then taking them where you want them to go (leading.) Rapport is a basic, behavioural signal that you have met someone at their map of the world. The simplest, most effective test for rapport is "if you lead, they follow."

2) Choose a safe situation to practise mirroring an element of someone else’s behaviour. When you have mirrored them for a while, and think you are in rapport with the person, scratch your nose. If they lift their hand to their face within the next minute or so, congratulate yourself – you have led their behaviour!

Skilled communicators have a wide range of behaviours they can mirror to build rapport. You can find a way to mirror virtually anything you can observe.

3) Increase the range of behaviours that you can mirror, and introduce deliberate rapport-building into situations where it will benefit you and others (nb. Use your common sense and choose low-risk situations to practice in.)

More advanced

Many people (especially in sales) are familiar with rapport-building techniques and are particularly aware of body posture mirroring. Cross-over matching involves matching another person’s behaviour with a different behaviour of your own (eg. matching their breathing rate to your head tilt, or their eyeblinks to your foot-taps.) This is a way of building rapport that is very difficult to detect, and still highly effective.

Summary

Building rapport through mirroring is a powerful way to build a sense of trust and connection…

1) Practise mirroring the micro-behaviours of people on television (chat shows & interviews are ideal.)

2) Choose a safe situation to practise mirroring an element of someone else’s behaviour.

3) Increase the range of behaviours that you can mirror, and introduce deliberate rapport-building into situations where it will benefit you and others (nb. Use your common sense and choose low-risk situations to practice in.)

Source: http://www.saladltd.co.uk/

Many a myth has grown up around the brain's asymmetry. The left cerebral hemisphere is supposed to be the coldly logical, verbal and dominant half of the brain, while the right developed a reputation as the imaginative side, emotional, spatially aware but suppressed. Two personalities in one head, Yin and Yang, hero and villain.

To most neuroscientists, of course, these notions are seen as simplistic at best and nonsense at worst. There is little evidence that the hemispheres are that split. Recent research seems to show no real anatomical basis for left-brain/right-brain theories.

That does NOT however mean that there are not different personalities/mindsets. Some people are clearly more organized, logical and pragmatic, where others are more intuitive, emotional and creative.Rather than left-brain/right-brain, I prefer to call them linear and random thinkers.

The linear thinker process logically, going from step A to step B. They are great at maintaining order, at following directions, and implementing things. Their conscious mind does great work for them. They tend to learn in a progressive manner.

Random thinkers start thinking about something, but their mind often leaps from Step A to Step Q to wondering what they will have for dinner to Step C to thinking about what would happen in the MidEast. Their workhorse is their subconscious. They tend to learn by "Grokking" or seemingly grasping it all at once.

I like to use this test: Think back to your days in school. If an important assignment was given on the 1st of the month and due on the 30th, when did you start?

The linear thinker typically starts that day, and plans to devote x amount of time per day to working on the assignment, so that it will all be done on time or even in advance of the due date. Then they implement that plan.

The random thinker starts to write the assignment only at the last minute, perhaps a couple days or even the night before the assignmentc is due. It is not because they are lazy or procrastinators, though it may appear that way to others. The truth is that if they had tried to work on it steadily, they would have been unable to write anything worthwhile until the last anyway. Their mind works by taking in the assignment, mixing it with all the other stuff in their mind and that comes into their mind (reading,etc) the whole month, and it 'composts' in their subconscious. When the stress time happens, the subconscious kicks it up to the conscious and they put it on paper. The humorous part is they often turn it in and get an 'A' on the paper done seemingly at the last moment, while the linear thinker who plugged away steadily might get a 'B.'

Knowing what type of thinker your opponent is will give you an immediate advantage. If they are primarily linear thinkers, you want to appeal to them logically and in an orderly fashion. If they are random thinkers, they get bored with this approach, and prefer to break up facts and reasoning with chatting about unrelated things, and perhaps emotional appeals.

Whereas NLP is the study of how to manipulate the minds of others, Silva is about how to manipulate your own mind.

The Silva Method (formerly Silva Mind Control) is a self-help program which claims to teach one how to increase one's IQ, develop clairvoyance and use the mind to heal the body and find God, among other things. The program promises to teach you to "use the untapped power of your mind to accomplish whatever you desire."* The program is a hodgepodge put together by trial and error by José Silva (1914-1999), an electronic repairman who had a voracious appetite for literature in psychology, parapsychology and religion. He studied hypnosis, hoping to use it to increase the IQ of his children, but became interested in developing psychic abilities after he became convinced that one of his daughters was clairvoyant.

The essence of Silva Mind Control is the development of one's mind to allow it to focus more clearly, to gain control over negativity and harmful thoughts, and to achieve the goals you set.

Positive thinking, affirmations and centering are some concepts that fit into the Silva Method. Among some of its more promoted teachings are the mastery of meditation and visualization as tools for accelerating healing and solving problems.

While it has some extremely 'out there' New Age aspects (which I reject), the core principles of controlling one's own emotions and thought processes could be useful to negotiators. The ability to stay calm in the middle of intense stress and even attacks is an example.

Many practioners of Silva are also NLP practioners, and visa versa.

Mindmaps are great tools for negotiators. You can use it to prepare your negotiating plan, to take notes, to brainstorm, to recap, and to finalize.

This manual is created in VYM (View Your Mind) and the first image in the manual is a mind map of the manual.

From Wikipedia:

Mind maps have many applications in personal, family, educational, and business situations, including note-taking, brainstorming (wherein ideas are inserted into the map radially around the center node, without the implicit prioritization that comes from hierarchy or sequential arrangements, and wherein grouping and organizing is reserved for later stages), summarizing, revising and general clarifying of thoughts. For example, one could listen to a lecture and take down notes using mind maps for the most important points or keywords. One can also use mind maps as a mnemonic technique or to sort out a complicated idea. Mind maps are also promoted as a way to collaborate in colour pen creativity sessions.

Some of the literature around mind-mapping has made claims that one can find the perfect lover, combat bullying, persuade clients, develop intuitive powers, create global harmony, and tap the deeper levels of consciousness by using mind map techniques.

Software and technique research have concluded that managers and students find the techniques of mind mapping to be useful, being better able to retain information and ideas than by using traditional 'linear' note taking methods. [citation needed]

Mindmaps can be drawn by hand, either as 'rough notes', for example, during a lecture or meeting, or can be more sophisticated in quality. There are also a number of software packages available for producing mind maps (see below).

Mind map guidelines

These are the foundation structures of a Mind Map, although these are open to free interpretation by the individual:

1. Start in the centre with an image of the topic, using at least 3 colours.

2. Use images, symbols, codes and dimensions throughout your Mind Map.

3. Select key words and print using upper or lower case letters.

4. Each word/image must be alone and sitting on its own line.

5. The lines must be connected, starting from the central image. The central lines are thicker, organic and flowing, becoming thinner as they radiate out from the centre.

6. Make the lines the same length as the word/image.

7. Use colours – your own code – throughout the Mind Map.

8. Develop your own personal style of Mind Mapping.

9. Use emphasis and show associations in your Mind Map.

10. Keep the Mind Map clear by using radial hierarchy, numerical order or outlines to embrace your branches.

(See: BUZAN, Tony. The Mind Map Book. Chapter "Mind Mapping Guidelines").

For software, I like View Your Mind (Linux) http://sourceforge.net/projects/vym/ or FreeMind (All - written in Java) at http://freemind.sourceforge.net/

Sleight of Mouth Patterns are a tool of NLP which responds to people's belief statements to get them to concede or change their position. There are 14 Patterns:

Redefine

I. What other meaning could the equation have?

2. A # B, A = C, and that's D

Consequence

What will happen to them if they continue to think this way?

Intention

I. Why are they saying this?

2. What is the secondary gain?

3. What are they trying to get?

Chunk Down

I. What specifically?

2. What are examples of this?

3. What are parts of this?

Chunk Up

I. For what purpose?

2. What's important about this?

3. Exaggerate.

Counter Example

1. Invert the belief

2. Make into a universal statement or question.

3. Was there ever a time when A # B?

4. A causes B, not B causes not A.

Another Outcome

What is another outcome you could shift to?

Metaphor/Analogy

What story will relate to their belief?

Tell a metaphor or story about the solution.

Apply to Self

Don't think about it; just use the word back on itself.

Hierarchy of Criteria (Values)

1. What are higher criteria (values)? .

2. Apply current criterion (value) to current sentence.

Change Frame Size

1. Something (larger or smaller) they haven't noticed.

2. Different frame, same behavior

3. Chunk up to Universal Quantifier

Meta Frame

How is it possible they could believe that?

Model of the World

1. Switch Referential Index

2. Is this true in everyone's Model of the World?

Reality Strategy

1. How do they represent that belief?

2. How do they/you know if it's not true?

3. Apply current criterion (value) to current sentence.

To illustrate the Sleight of Mouth patterns, let us assume your client says, “The reorganization of this unit is irresponsible because it will lead to lay-offs.” This represents a legitimate viewpoint that can limit your client’s options. There are two parts to this response: A because B. In the following patterns, we can focus on either A or B or both. I will give only one example and many others are possible.

1. Intention: What could be the positive intention? E.g. safety

Response: I very much admire and support your desire for safety.

2. Redefine: Use words that are similar but may infer something different. e.g. replace “irresponsible” with “careless” and “lay-offs” with “unable to adjust”

Response: I agree we need to be careful how this is undertaken so that people can adjust to the new environment.

3. Consequences: Focus a consequence that leads to challenging the belief. E.g. irresponsible - take responsibility

Response: Recognizing our respective responsibilities is a key step in mitigating those possibilities.

4. Chunk down: Look at a specific element that challenges the belief.

Response: I am not sure how proposing an organization chart that clearly describes staff roles and responsibilities is irresponsible.

5. Chunk Up: Generalize in order to change the relationship defined by the belief.

Response: Any change can have unforeseen consequences.

6. Counter Example: Find an exception that challenges the generalization defined by the belief.

Response: It is hard for me to see business reorganization as irresponsible when the last reorganization saved the company from insolvency.

7. Analogy: Use an analogy or metaphor that challenges the generalization defined by the belief.

Response: Good gardeners are always finding ways to re-energize the soil so that plants have the nutrients and resources to grow strong and healthy.

8. Apply to Self: Use key aspects of the belief to challenge the belief.

Response: Couldn’t it also be irresponsible and lead to lay-offs if we do not do something different to resolve our current problems?

9. Another Outcome: Propose a different outcome that challenges the relevancy of the belief.

Response: Maybe the issue is not so much whether we reorganize, but whether we are doing the right things to maintain our jobs.

10. Hierarchy of Criteria: Re-assess the belief based on a more important criterion.

Response: Knowing how to act responsibly is more important than not taking any action.

11. Change Frame Size: Re-evaluate the implication of the belief in the context of a longer (or shorter) time frame, a larger number of people (or from an individual point of view) or a bigger or smaller perspective.

Response: Highly successful organizations have been restructuring to meet changing needs for centuries. Those that do not eventual disappear or get absorbed by other organizations.

12. Meta Frame: Challenge the basis for the belief. E.g. formulate a belief as to the origin of the belief.

Response: Is it possible that your belief about reorganization assumes that you know the ‘right’ way and those who do not share your view are negatively intended?

13. Model of the World: Look at the belief from a different perspective (model of the world).

Response: Are you aware that some people see a reorganization as an opportunity to learn new skills and assume more challenging duties?

14. Reality Strategy: Re-assess the belief based on the fact that beliefs are based on specific perceptions.

Response: What particular aspects of the reorganization do you feel fearful about it?

Most foks have one degree or other of insecurity when dealing with those we perceive to be in a higher social or economic standing than ourselves. The Formal takes advantage of this by assuming a superior attitude and resisting any familiarity.

Often quite distinguished looking, the Formal insists on proper English, position titles, and decorum. When introducing themselves, they may very well snub any attempt to get on a first name basis, introducing themselves as "Mr/Ms. So and So" or "Doctor So and So".

Assuming this persona can make you seem much stronger than you are, and some people will be so intimidated that you become unassailable. Usually the more separation in socio-economic status between the other party and their perception of yours, the more intimidated they become.

The main hazard in this is that you must be able to pull off all the language skills, manners and behaviors of the Formal. Otherwise, you'll be seen as a fraud at worst, and at best a pompous fool.

When dealing with a Formal, the best defense is to ignore the pretension and press ahead with your normal negotiating tactics. The more you take notice of the Formal's differences, the more power you give them.

The Knowledge persona cultivates the image that they are the ones 'in the know.' They might assume the air of a Professor or Sage. This persona is intimidating to any who have gone through the education system.

When showing up for a session, this persona often lugs in a huge stack of information in 3 ring binders or card files. In reality, they may have most of their information in digital form on a notebook, but the visual impact of all that paper is great. They often consult with these resources before making a reply.

Verbally, they like to use such phrases as "Obviously ..." and "Of course you know that..." which implies that if you disagree or don't know, then your own knowledge or understanding is lacking.

The bully of the bunch, the Aggressive is all 'full speed ahead.'

They typically are not interested in small talk, relationship building or tact. They put their position out forcefully, and respond sharply to any criticism or counter points.

These are the type of people who love a good fight, more on a physical level than an intellectual one.

They also tend to be ego-centric - relating their own experience or point of view.

The Reasonable Negotiator approaches everything with patience and quiet determination. If you bring up a point, they are likely to counter it with logic and thought, with the goal that you'll have to concede that theirs is the best choice.

They tend to have a likeable personality, and put on a persona of being very open to ideas. "Let's talk it through and see" is a typical response.

Think "Matlock" on TV and you'll see an example of this type.

Some people just seem to be bubbling over with fun, and even humor can be a tool negotiators use. This persona likes to tell you the latest joke they've heard, and likes to distract the discussion from serious points to something more 'interesting'.

The purpose of course is to defuse your opposition. You like these folks, they make you laugh - it is hard to think of them as the enemy or to try to take advantage of them.

Often the complete opposite of the Knowledge and the Aggressive, this person seems to be totally out of their league in the negotiation. They can't respond well to questions, and seem to be 'winging it' much of the time on little knowledge. They ask you for your opinion on things that you assume they should already know. They almost seem like they are throwing themselves on your mercy, or looking at you like a mentor.

There is a name for this in Japanese. "Amaeru" means to place yourself in another's care. If you get placed in a position of taking care of the them, it is hard to take advantage of them.

In a male dominated world -and some parts of the world are still very chauvinistic - women have often used this persona to great advantage to get what they want. If they had 'stuck up for themselves' and been aggressive, the men would have become defensive. Instead, they put on the 'little old me' and the poor man often doesn't have a chance.

Think of the TV character "Columbo" and you'll see the Bumbler in action. They may not adapt the pitiful Meek personality, but just like the Meek they seem not very well qualified for the task at hand.

Mistakes to the Bumbler are just a technique. People feel they must correct mistakes, and it can be useful for gaining information. Deliberate mistakes may make you feel you are gaining an advantage, though you'll find out later that advantage was just an illusion.

Power Negotiators Understand the Importance of Gathering Information

by Roger Dawson

Henry Kissinger was once asked if he already knew what the Soviets would propose at an upcoming summit meeting. He said, "Oh, absolutely-no question about it. It would be absolutely disastrous for us to go into a negotiation not knowing in advance what the other side was going to propose."

Can you imagine the cost of getting that kind of information? The budget of the C.I.A. is top secret, but experts think it is almost $4 billion a year, even now that the Cold War is over. So, governments think it's important enough to spend that kind of money. Doesn't it make sense that we at least spend a little time to find out more about the other side, before we go into negotiations? Why do countries send spies into other countries? Why do professional football teams study the replays of their opponents' games? Because knowledge is power and the more knowledge one side is able to accumulate about the other, the better chance that side has for victory.

If two countries go to war, the country that has the most intelligence about the other has the advantage. That was certainly true in the Persian Gulf War-the C.I.A. spies had photographed every building in Baghdad, and we were able to completely take out their communication systems in the first few bombing runs.

If two companies are planning to merge, the company that knows the most will usually end up with the better deal. If two salespeople are vying for an account, the salesperson who knows more about the company and its representatives stands a better chance of being selected for the account.

Despite the obviousness of the important role that information plays in a negotiation, few people spend much time analyzing the other side before starting a negotiation. Even people who wouldn't dream of skiing or scuba diving without taking lessons will jump into a negotiation that could cost them thousands of dollars without spending adequate time gathering the information they should have.

Rule 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 is: Don't be over confident. Admit that you don't know and admit that anything you do know may be wrong.

Rule Two: Don't be afraid to ask the question

I used to be afraid to ask questions for fear that the question would upset the other person. I was one of those people who say, "Would you mind if I asked you?" or "Would it embarrass you to tell me?" I don't do that any more. I ask them, "How much money did you make last year?" If they don't want to tell you, they won't. Even if they don't answer the question, you'll still be gathering information. Just before General Schwarzkopf sent our troops into Kuwait, Sam Donaldson asked him, "General, when are you going to start the land war?" Did he really think that the General was going to say, "Sam, I promised the President that I wouldn't tell any of the 500 reporters that keep asking me that question, but since you asked I'll tell you. At 2.00 AM on Tuesday we're going in"? Of course, Schwarzkopf wasn't going to answer that question, but a good reporter asks anyway. It might put pressure on the other person or annoy him so that he blurts out something he didn't intend to. Just judging the other person's reaction to the question might tell you a great deal.

If you want to learn about another person, nothing will work better than the direct question. In my own experience-now that I'm no longer afraid to ask-I've met only a few people who were seriously averse to answering even the most personal questions. For example, how many people get offended when you ask them, "Why were you in hospital?" Not very many.

It's a strange fact of human nature that we're 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. When I wanted to become a professional speaker, I called up a speaker I admired, Danny Cox, and asked him if I could buy him lunch. Over lunch, he willingly gave me a $5,000 seminar on how to be successful as a speaker. Whenever I see him today, I remind him of how easy it would have been for him to talk me out of the idea. Instead, though, he was very encouraging. It still astounds me how people who have spent a lifetime accumulating knowledge in a particular area are more than willing to share that information with me without any thought of compensation.

It seems even more incredible that these experts are very rarely asked to share their expertise. Most people find experts intimidating, so the deep knowledge that they have to offer is never fully used. What a senseless waste of a valuable resource-all because of an irrational fear.

Rule Three: Ask open-ended questions

Power Negotiators understand the importance of asking and of taking the time to do it properly. What's the best way to ask? Rudyard Kipling talked about his six honest serving men. He said,

I keep six honest serving-men.

(They taught me all I knew);

Their names are What and Why and When

and How and Where and Who.

Of Kipling's six honest serving men, I like Why the least. Why can easily be seen as accusatory. "Why did you do that?" implies criticism. "What did you do next?" doesn't imply any criticism. If you really need to know why, soften it by rephrasing the question using what instead: "You probably had a good reason for doing that. What was it?" Learn to use Kipling's six honest serving men to find out what you need to know.

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 Four: 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 is to get that vice-president down the hall to his company lunchroom 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 Five: 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 straightforward 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 is 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. Engineers, controllers, foremen, 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.

Power Negotiators always accept complete responsibility for what happens in the negotiations. Poor negotiators blame the other side for the way they conducted themselves. Many years ago, I was conducting a negotiating seminar in the San Fernando Valley, and comedian Slappy White was in the audience. During the break, I told him how much I admired comedians. "It must be fun to be successful like you," I told him, "but coming up through those comedy clubs with all their hostile audiences must be sheer hell."

"Roger," he told me, "I've never had a bad audience."

"Oh, come on, Slappy," I replied, "When you were starting out, you must have had some awful audiences."

"I've never had a bad audience," he repeated. "I've only had audiences that I didn't know enough about."

As a professional speaker, I accept that there is no such thing as a bad audience, there are only audiences about whom the speaker doesn't know enough. I've built my reputation on the planning and research that I do before I'll get up in front of an audience.

As a negotiator, I accept that there's no such thing as a bad negotiation. There are only negotiations in which we don't know enough about the other side. Information gathering is the most important thing we can do to assure that the negotiations go smoothly.

This article is excerpted in part from Roger Dawson's new book-Secrets of Power Negotiating, published by Career Press and on sale in bookstores everywhere for $24.99.

Part of your research will be trying to figure out what the other party has at stake. If you find out that this is a 'make or break' deal for them, one that they cannot pass up, you have gained an enormous amount of leverage.

This is because they don't have a good alternative to a negotiated agreement.

In negotiation theory, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement or BATNA is the course of action that will be taken by a party if the current negotiations fail and an agreement cannot be reached.

If the current negotiations are giving you less value than your BATNA, there is no point in proceeding. Prior to the start of negotiations, the parties should have ascertained their own individual BATNAs.

BATNA was developed by negotiation researchers Roger Fisher and Bill Ury of the Harvard Program on Negotiation (PON), in their series of books on Principled Negotiation that started with Getting to YES. Nobel Laureate John Forbes Nash has included such ideas in his early undergraduate research.

For example, if I have a written offer from a dealer to buy my car for $100 dollars, then my BATNA when dealing with other potential purchasers would be $100 since I can get $100 for my car even without reaching an agreement with such alternative purchaser.

A party should generally never accept a worse resolution than its BATNA. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that deals are accurately valued, taking into account all considerations (such as relationship value, time value of money, likelihood that the other party will live up to their side of the bargain, etc.) These other considerations are very difficult to value, since they are often based on uncertain considerations, rather than easily measurable and quantifiable factors.

Examples of other offers that might or might not be better than the BATNA in the example above might be:

An offer of $90 by a close relative (is the goodwill generated worth $10 or more?)

An offer of $125 in 45 days (what are the chances of this future commitment falling through, and would my prior BATNA ($100) still be available if it did?)

An offer from another dealer to offset $150 against the price of a new car (do I want to buy a new car right now, the offered car in particular? Also, is the probably minuscule reduction in monthly payments worth $100 to me today?)

BATNA is seen in negotiation fields as the single most important source of negotiation power. Negotiators don't use their BATNA merely as a safety net, but rather as a point of leverage in negotiations.

Consider the following business example: Company one can choose to buy from companies two, three and four - but companies two, three and four can only sell to company one. Company one can use their powerful BATNA position to leverage a better deal by playing companies two, three and four against each other. This is a common practice among purchasing and procurement managers in the business world.

Whilst your alternative options, and therefore your BATNA might be known to you, very often your BATNA may not be. So time and energy are demanded to figure out which options are really available to you and actionable. Even if your alternative options are known, they need to be real and actionable. A Project on Negotiation Executive Seminar experiment and other experiments have proven that most managers overestimate their BATNA whilst simultaneously investing too little time into researching their real options. This results in poor or faulty decision making from overconfidence and good choices being rejected.

The negotiation room

The room in which you negotiate is visible during the negotiation, so becomes particularly important -- so pick it carefully and go there beforehand to ensure it is effectively set up.

Also remember, by the way, the experience they gain when walking to the room. A stroll through a clean and efficient-looking office sets a different mood from walking through a noisy and dirty factory.

Light

Light has a clear effect on people. Daylight is best for keeping them awake and fresh. Windows on two sides of the room will dispel shadows, allowing you to use natural light only. In particularly sunny climes, too much sunlight can be a bad thing, and window blinds may be necessary.

Where light is electric, tungsten lighting gives a warmer glow than the cold of efficient fluorescent lights. Colored shading of lights also can be used to control the hue.

Light can be directed, for example with spotlights for direct lighting and uplighters and shades for indirect diffusion of light. Spots may be useful for working tables and diffuse light for the background.

Space

The raw space in which you hold the negotiation can act to relax or press in on the negotiators. Generally, more space is better, although too much space can be agoraphobic or otherwise uncomfortable. Remember that many negotiations have elements of confidentiality about them and the room should thus feel private.

When there are several people in the negotiation and when they are sitting around a table, remember that they need space to get up and not be squashed as they find their place.

Space alone does not completely set the feel of the place and a room that is small and with lower ceilings can be either cosy or claustrophobic, depending on other factors such as light and décor.

Communication space

Sometimes having a flipchart or whiteboard where ideas can be penned and impromptu presentations made can be useful. As appropriate, a computer, projector and screen may also be important tools to have at hand.

Sometimes even just empty space where people can stand, for example when having coffee is a useful addition -- it is in these moments when they are relaxing when many are most susceptible to suggestion.

Décor

The colors of the walls has an effect on proceedings. White is cold and hard. Blues and greens are cool and natural. Reds and yellows are warm. Paintings and photographs on the wall create a more homely, relaxed environment.

Floors have a subtle effect, particularly in the amount of 'bounce' they give. Softer, thicker carpets are more relaxing. Hard tile floors jar the body and create echo when people speak (as do hard walls and ceilings). Wood floors are a nice compromise, giving the relaxation effect of natural materials.

Climate

Also remember the climate of a room. If it is hot and humid, people will become uncomfortable. This is usually undesirable, but sometime can be useful, for example if you want to keep the negotiation short!

Control of climate, for example through a HVAC (Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning) system can be useful. Remember to check and set this in plenty of time beforehand. In more primitive rooms, opening the window may be your only alternative.

Layout

The layout of the room in which you are holding the negotiation will affect how the negotiation proceeds.

Tables

Tables are barriers between people (as are the arms of a chair) and hence act to separate. People often feel safer with a table in front of them as they 'hide behind' it. Tables also hide the legs, which can give significant body language signals (in particular showing tension) when the person is consciously controlling their arms and head.

Many rooms have tables in the centre, with chairs around it. Think about the shape of the table being used in such circumstances. Round tables are 'fair'. Long tables have a place for a 'chairperson'. Square tables have corners you can sit across.

An alternative for informal environment is small tables at the side of chairs. These give a place to put things without obstructing body language.

Chairs

Chairs may be informal arm-chairs or formal 'table' chairs. Informal chairs relax you and let you sit back. For intimate discussions, a sofa removes barriers between you and the other person and allows touching (as appropriate). Formal chairs sit you more upright, are easier to move and are more likely to make you lean forward.

Have enough chairs for everyone to sit, but get rid of many extras (unless you want to create a particular effect).

Refreshment

Drinks and food may be at hand, to allow for breaks and keeping people comfortable. An alternative is to have food and/or drinks outside. This gives reason for getting out of the room. Food smells can be distracting and best kept out of the room.

Other furniture

Other furniture, such as cupboards and bookshelves can make the room seem more homely. They can also hold reference material, should that be needed.The positioning of the seats (or how you stand) during a negotiation will affect the proceedings as much as anything.

Opposite = confrontation

When you are seated opposite the other person, face-to-face, you are using a confrontational setting. This may be good for formal boss-subordinate situations or where you want to dominate the other person (particularly if you are higher or in a bigger, more comfortable chair).

Sitting across a desk provides the classic confrontational setting. It can be accentuated by having the desk at the back of the room, such that the person coming in must approach the 'throne' and has no choice of seating.

Angled = open conversation

The most common body position for conversation is with torsos angled, often at 90 degrees to one another. This avoids the face-to-face confrontational element whilst also allow looking at the other person's face.

Sitting across a corner of a table or with chairs angled provides for this friendly positioning.

Side-by-side = collaboration

An even more collaborative seating position is in a side-by-side arrangement. This is particularly useful if you want to work together on something in front of you.

This may be sitting at a table with paper or a computer. It may also be standing up at a whiteboard or flipchart. The key theme is to engage them in an activity that makes them feel at one with you.

Hunting for Deception in Mediation – Winning Cases by Understanding Body Language

--

by Jeffrey Krivis & Mariam Zadeh

June 2006

Deception. . . A Reality of Mediation

Although few will admit to it, there is no doubt that deception plays an active role in mediation between both sides and their communications with the mediator. This is because every negotiator wants to leave the negotiating table believing that he or she obtained the best possible result for his or her client. Most believe that to accomplish this goal, some form of deceit is required. Some may give deceit in this context a more politically correct name, such as “aggressive bargaining” or “zealous advocating”. We, on the other hand, will refrain from sugar-coating what transpires in mediation every day, and will call it as it is: deception. Yes, we said it. The “D” word. We’ve all used it as negotiators and we’re here to highlight ways of detecting it when it’s used against you. If you find our position cynical, our research has revealed the following facts: 1) 61.5% of subjects’ natural conversation involved some form of deception[1] ; 2) individuals reported that they averaged 16 white lies over a two-week period[2] ; 3) the typical person lies approximately 13 times per week[3] ; and 4) 28% of negotiators lied about a common interest issue during negotiations while 100% of negotiators either failed to reveal a problem or actively lied about same if they were not questioned directly on the issue. [4]

Deception in negotiation takes many forms which range the spectrum from bluffing, posturing, evading, concealing and misrepresenting, to outright lying. At every juncture, the deceiver must decide whether to create false information (lying or misrepresenting), deliver vague and ambiguous information that contains part truth and part deception (bluffing and posturing) or avoid providing relevant information (evading). [5] For purposes of this discussion, we will rely on a definition that views deception as “a deliberate act that is intended to foster in another person a belief or understanding which the deceiver considers false … Specifically, the deceiver transmits a false message (while hiding the true information) and also attempts to convince the receiver of his or her sincerity.” [6]

There are many reasons why people are motivated to deceive. The five primary motivations are: 1) to save face; 2) to guide social interaction; 3) to avoid tension or conflict; 4) to affect interpersonal relationships; and 5) to achieve interpersonal power. [7] A follow up study concluded that lies are motivated by a need to defend oneself socially or economically in a disadvantaged situation, supporting the notion that deceivers act with purpose and specific motivation. [8]Within the negotiation context, some practitioners would argue that deception and lies are commonplace because negotiations are based on information dependence. [9] In other words, negotiators have little choice but to rely on the data and claims that their counterparts provide in order to reach agreement. To do otherwise would require verification of each and every statement made and position proffered, which would be both highly time consuming and likely cost prohibitive. [10]

Now that we have established that deception takes place practically all around us --and most certainly across the negotiating table -- the question remains as to how best to deal with this predicament in your negotiations. You may be thinking to yourself that with all the trial and negotiation experience you have, it is pretty unlikely that an adversary could successfully pull a fast one on you. Although you may be the exception to the rule, there is substantial evidence that most people have poor ability to recognize deception. [11] The reason for this is that most of us harbor a belief that truthful statements are preferable to lies. [12] As a result of this bias, we will often unwittingly assume that the information we are being provided is accurate, relevant and truthful. [13] If, however, we learn to identify the verbal and non-verbal cues that often accompany deceptive messages, rather than merely relying on hunches or our experience as practitioners in the field, we can significantly improve our ability to detect deception. [14]

Introduction to Interpersonal Deception Theory

Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT), proposed by researchers Buller and Burgoon in the 1980s, deals with deception as it occurs in interpersonal situations. [16]Evidence suggests that during the course of a conversation, deceivers adjust to the reactions of others so that their communication style appears truthful. [17]Examining the interaction from this perspective, the deception volley goes something like this: Deceivers choose from an array of verbal and non-verbal behaviors designed in their mind to increase the chance of succeeding at the deception, in return, those on the receiving end react to the deceptive message, whether consciously or subconsciously, sending signals of suspicion. As deceivers perceive this suspicion, they in turn, refine their performances to suppress such cues, working on allaying suspicion and enhancing their credibility. [18]

Despite popular belief, deception is not easy and actually requires a great deal of emotional, cognitive and psychological effort believed by researchers to be triggered by feelings of guilt, discomfort or fear of detection that often accompanies the lie or deceit. [19]Consider the last time you told a fib (if you can’t think of one, check your pulse). Thinking back to that time, it’s likely that you became somewhat nervous, had to think hard before stating the lie, considered the consequences of being discovered, and tried at the same time to come across as sincere and believable to your counterpart. All of this requires considerable cognitive complexity. If you are someone who can repress signs of nervousness and stress and look natural under even the most difficult of circumstances, then you are more apt to be a successful liar. [20]Individuals who have larger behavioral repertoires, greater social skills and communicative competence will generally be more proficient, alert, confident, and expressive, and less fidgety, nervous and rigid, making them more skilled at deception than others. [21]

Since truth-telling is considered preferable to telling lies[22] , most people are not well-practiced liars and as such will need to work hard to control the undesirable feelings associated with deceiving another. In their strained attempt to look credible, they cannot help but reveal cues that reflect their deceptive behavior, commonly referred to in IDT literature as “leakage”. [23] The term leakage refers to the unintentional outward display of the psychological processes experienced by the deceiver while telling the lie. [24]

A key principle of IDT is that deceptive performances are comprised of both non-strategic (unintentional “leakage”) displays and strategic (deliberate) displays categorized into three management classes as follows: information, behavior, and image. [25]

Information management deals with regulating the amount of information conveyed by the deceiver. [26] Behavior management addresses the deceiver’s attempt to control his or her nonverbal behaviors to minimize suspicion. [27] Lastly, image management refers to the efforts of the deceiver to continually project a “positive face.” [28] Although it’s expected that deceivers will try not to let these strategies show, overdoing it by trying too hard will likely backfire, causing the deceiver to look overly restrained, uninvolved and unnatural. [29]

Reducing the Odds of Being Deceived

Consistent with the views of deception promulgated by IDT, outlined below you will find the various verbal and non-verbal cues categorized either as strategic or non-strategic, equipping you with a handy arsenal that should assist in ferreting out the deceivers from the truth-tellers at the negotiating table.

Non-Strategic Cues

Individuals engaged in deception can be expected to display the following involuntary leakage cues resulting from their agitation, emotions and cognitive effort:

1. Increased pupil dilation – deceivers’ pupils tend to widen as they would in dim lighting [30]

2. Blinking – deceivers tend to blink more frequently when compared to individuals telling the truth [31]

3. Eye shifting – deceivers will tend to look away, up, down, or to the side, rather than at the person they are speaking to [32]

4. Self-adaptors – deceivers tend to use their hands to fondle or manipulate objects or parts of their body [33]

5. Elevated speaking pitch – deceivers tend to speak at a higher pitch as compared to someone telling the truth [34]

6. Speech errors – deceivers tend to use nonfluencies such as “uh,” “ah,” “um,” or “mm.” [35]

7. Speech pauses – deceivers tend to allow greater periods of silence in between utterances while engaged in a conversation [36]

8. Negative statements – deceivers tend to use words like “no,” “not,” “can’t,” and “won’t” [37]

9. Leg gesturing and swiveling in chairs – deceivers tend to have more leg twitches, tapping feet, and will either swivel or rock when sitting [38]

10. Less hand and head gesturing – deceivers “speak” less with their hands and tend to keep their head still [39]

Strategic Cues

Deceivers can be expected to display the following behavioral, image and/or information management cues intended on improving their chances of deception success:

1. Intentional communication of vagueness [40]

2. Withdrawal from the conversation [41]

3. Attempts to maintain a positive image to avoid detection [42]

4. Speaking in a less immediate or more distancing manner [43]

5. Use of irrelevant information in their messages by making statements that are unrelated to the theme of the message [44]

6. Use more generalities and “allness” terms (e.g. “all,” “none,” “nobody,” “everyone,” “always,” “never”) [45]

7. Speaking for shorter lengths of time, allowing the deceiver to disclose less information [46]

8. Frequent use of modifiers (e.g., “some of the time” and “usually”) [47]

9. More group references and fewer self-references (e.g. “we” and “us” vs. “me” and “I”) [48]

10. Use longer response latencies allowing deceiver additional time to prepare successful deceptive answers. [49]

The Bottom Line

Deception is a reality at the negotiating table, whether we like it or not. It is unlikely that participants to a negotiation will ever come to the table willing to openly share the weaknesses of their position or candidly disclose their bottom line. Becoming familiar with the signs (strategic and non-strategic) that are displayed by deceivers will undoubtedly improve your ability to discern the truth, or lack thereof. These cues will provide you with a roadmap when faced with the situation where your adversary claims that they’ll leave the negotiation unless you pay more or take less, or conceals facts that help your case and hurt theirs, or misrepresents whether they have the authority to reach a deal.

A word of caution while deception hunting: If you approach your negotiations with a heightened sense of vigilance and motivation to detect the truth, your state of doubt and distrust is likely to be quickly identified by the sophisticated deceiver. Once he or she picks up on your suspicions, the deceiver will attempt to manage his or her behavior in order to reduce and mask the cues that might reveal the deception. [50] To remain ahead of the deceiver, continue your vigilance toward their deceptive tactics but conceal your suspicions as much as possible.

Deciphering deceit, much like the game of chess, is about assessing your opponent and the strategy they’re implementing to achieve their goals. With the tools we’ve outlined in this article, you’re sure to increase your chances of detecting deception … using the deceiver’s body language to stay one move ahead of your opponent at all times.

End Notes

1 Turner, R. E., Edgley, C. & Olmstead, G. (1975). Information control in conversations: Honesty is not always the best policy. Kansas Journal of Sociology, 11, 69 – 89.

2 Camden, C., M. T. Motley, & A. Wilson. (1984). White lies in interpersonal communication: A taxonomy and preliminary investigation of social motivations. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 309 – 325.

3 Hample, D. (1980). Purposes and effects of lying. The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 46, 33 – 47.

4 Houch, S. & Kunreuther, H. (2001). Deception in Negotiation. Wharton on Making Decisions, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

5 Burgoon, J. K., & Buller, D. B. (1994). Interpersonal deception: III. Effects of deceit on perceived communication and nonverbal behavior dynamics. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 155-184.

6 Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, p. 3). New York: Academic Press. Buller & Burgoon maintain a less restrictive definition of deception characterizing the act “as the intent to deceive a target by controlling information (e.g., transmitting verbal and nonverbal messages and/or manipulating situational cues) to alter the target’s beliefs or understandings in a way that the deceiver knows is false.” Burgoon, Supra note 6, at 192.

7 Turner, Supra note 1.

8 Hample, Supra note 3.

9 Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Negotiators Lie. Harvard Negotiation Journal, Dec. 2005, 3 – 5.

10Id.

11 Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Ebesu, A. S., & Rockwell, P. (1994). Interpersonal Deception: V. Accuracy in Deception Detection. Communication Monographs, 61, 303 – 325; Bauchner, J. E., Kaplan, E. A., & Miller, G. R. (1980). Detecting deception: The relationship of available information to judgmental accuracy in initial encounters. Human Communication Research, 6, 253 – 264; DePaulo, B. M., Stone, J. J., & Lassiter, G. D. (1985). Deceiving and detecting deceit. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.) The self and social life (pp. 323 – 370). New York: McGraw-Hill; Kalbfleisch, P. J. (1985). Accuracy in deception detection: A quantitative review. (Doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 46112B; Kraut, R. E. (1980). Humans as lie detectors: Some second thoughts. Journal of Communication, 30, 209 – 216; Miller, G. R., & Stiff, J. B. (1993). Deceptive Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; O’Sullivan, M., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1988). The effect of comparisons on detecting deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 158 – 169.

12 Bok, S. (1978). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Vintage.

13 Buller, D. B., Strzyzewski, K. D., & Hunsaker, F. G. (1991). Interpersonal Deception: II. The inferiority of conversational participants as deception detectors. Communication Monographs, 58, 25 – 40; McCornack, S. A., & Parks, M. R. (1990). What women know that men don’t: Sex differences in determining the truth behind deceptive messages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 107 – 118; Zuckerman, M., Spiegel, N. H., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1982). Nonverbal strategies for decoding deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6, 171 – 187.

14 DeTurck, M. A. (1991). Training observers to detect spontaneous deception: Effects of gender. Communication Quarterly, 38, 276 – 289; deTurck, M. A. Harszlak, J. J., Bodhorn, D. J., & Texter, L. A. (1990). The effects of training social perceivers to detect deception from behavioral cues. Communication Quarterly, 38, 1 – 11.

15 Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203 – 267.

16 Id.

17 Burgoon, J. K., & White, C. H. (2001). Adaptation and Communicative Design. Patters of interaction in truthful and deceptive conversations. Human Communication Research, 27, 9 – 37.

18 Burgoon, J. K. & Floyd, K. (2000). Testing for the motivation impairment effect during deceptive and truthful interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 64(3), 243 – 267.

19 Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 32, 88 – 105.

20 Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K. P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 239 – 263.

21 Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., White, C. H., Afifi, W., Buslig, A. L. S. (1999). The role of conversational involvement in deceptive interpersonal interactions. The Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc., 25(6), 669 – 686.

22 Bok, Supra note 13.

23 Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 32, 88 – 105.

24 Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp 1 – 59). New York: Academic Press.

25 Burboon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Guerrero, L. K., Afifi, W. A. & Feldman, C. M. (1996). Interpersonal Deception: XII. Information management dimensions underlying deceptive and truthful messages. Communication Monographs, 63, 50 – 69.

26 Buller, Supra note 16.

27 Id.

28 Id.

29 Buller, D. B., Burgoon, J. K., White, C. H., & Ebesu, A. S. (1994). Interpersonal Deception: VII. Behavioral profiles of falsification, equivocation and concealment. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13(4), 366 – 395.

30 O’Hair, H.D., Cody, M.J., McLaughlin, M.L. (1981). Prepared lies, spontaneous lies, Machiavellianism, and nonverbal communication. Human Communication Research, 7, 325 – 339.

31 Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., O’Sullivan, M., & Scherer, K. R. (1980). Relative importance of face, body, and speech in judgments of personality and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 270 – 277; Riggio, R. E., & Friedman, H. S. (1983). Individual differences and cues to deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 899 – 915.

32 Hocking, J. E., Bauchner, J. E., Kaminski, E. P. & Miller, G. R. (1979). Detecting deceptive communication from verbal, visual and paralinguistic cues. Human Communication Research, 6, 33 – 46.

33 Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1972). Hand movements. Journal of Communication, 22, 353 – 374; McClintock, C. C., & Hunt, R. G. (1975). Nonverbal indicators of affect and deception in an interview setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 54 – 67.

34 Ekman, Supra note 32; Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Scherer, K. (1976). Body movements and voice pitch in deceptive interaction. Semiotica, 16, 23 – 27; Streeter, L. A., Krauss, R. M., Geller, V., Olson, C., & Apple, W. (1977). Pitch changes during attempted deception. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 35, 345 – 350.

35 Cody, M. J., Marston, P. J., & Foster, M. (1984). Deception: Paralinguistic and verbal leakage. In R. N. Bostrom and B. H. Westley (Eds.), Communication yearbook 8 (pp. 464 – 490). Beverly Hills: Sage; deTurck, M. A., & Miller, G. R. (1985). Deception and arousal: Isolating the behavioral correlates of deception. Human Communication Research, 12, 181 – 201.

36 Cody, Supra note 36.

37 Mehrabian, A. (1967). Orientation behaviors and nonverbal attitude communication. Journal of Communication, 17, 324 – 332; Wiener, M. & Mehrabian, A. (1968) Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

38 Buller, D. B., & Aune, R. K. (1987). Nonverbal cues to deception among intimates, friends and strangers. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 11, 269 – 290.

39 Ekman, Supra note 34; Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. (1974). Detecting deception from the body or face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 288 – 298.

40 Buller, Supra note 16; Burgoon, Supra note 6; Burgoon, Supra note 26.

41 Buller, Supra note 16; Burgoon, Supra note 6; Burgoon, Supra note 26.

42 Buller, Supra note 16; Burgoon, Supra note 6; Burgoon, Supra note 26.

43 Kuiken, D. (1981). Nonimmediate language style and inconsistency between private and expressed evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 183 – 196; Mehrabian, Supra note 38; Wagner, H., & Pease, K. (1976). The verbal communication of inconsistency between attitudes held and attitudes expressed. Journal of Personality, 44, 1 – 16; Wiener, Supra note 38.

44 Knapp, M. L., Hart, R. P., & Dennis, H. S. (1974). An exploration of deception as a communication construct. Human Communication Research, 5, 270 – 285.

45 Id.

46 Id; Kraut, R. E. (1978). Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 380 – 191.

47 DePaulo, Supra note 12.

48 Knapp, Supra note 45.

49 Rockwell, P., & Buller, D. B. (1997). The voice of deceit: Refining and expanding vocal cues to deception. Communication Research Reports, 14(4), 451 – 459.

50 Buller, Supra note 16; Buller, D. B., Strzyzewski, K. D., & Comstock, J. (1991) Interpersonal deception: I. Deceivers’ reactions to receivers’ suspicions and probing. Communication Monographs, 58, 1 – 24.

to top of page

--

Biography

--

Jeffrey Krivis began his mediation practice in 1989, when

lawyer-mediators in Southern California were rare, and litigators had to look outside the state for experienced practitioners. Now, more than 16 years later and having resolved thousands of disputes -- including mass tort, employment, entertainment, business, complex insurance, catastrophic injury and class action matters -- Krivis is recognized not only as a pioneer in the field, but also as one of the most respected neutrals in the state.

An adjunct professor at the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University School of Law since 1994, Krivis teaches

negotiation and mediation skills to lawyers and judges. His experiences as both a working mediator and academic prompted him to write "Improvisational Negotiation: A Mediator's Stories of Conflict About Love, Money and Anger - and the Strategies that Resolved Them" (Wiley/Jossey-Bass 2006).

Krivis is a past president of both the International Academy of

Mediators and the Southern California Mediation Association. The Los Angeles Daily Journal legal newspaper named him one of the "top 20 neutrals in the state," and he continues to appear since its inception on the "Super Lawyer" list published by Los Angeles magazine and Law & Politics Media. He is featured in the recent edition of "Best Lawyers in America." Krivis received the highest rating (AV) from Martindale-Hubbell.

Mariam Zadeh spent two years training and co-mediating with Jeffrey Krivis before joining First Mediation Corporation as a full-time mediator in 2005. Prior thereto, she served as a trial lawyer in New York, New Jersey and California handling a variety of litigated disputes for both the plaintiff and defense bar in the areas of personal injury, medical malpractice, professional liability, and mass toxic torts. She has successfully mediated a wide variety of cases including, commercial, premises liability, product liability, employment, real estate, ERISA, and other tort actions along with matters pending on appeal. In May 2006, Ms. Zadeh is expected to receive an LL.M. in ADR from the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University.

Setting the Climate for a Non-Confrontational Negotiation

Roger Dawson

What you say in the first few moments of a negotiation often sets the climate of the negotiation. The other person quickly gets a feel for whether you are working for a win-win solution, or whether you're a tough negotiator who's out for everything they can get.

That's one problem that I have with the way that attorneys negotiate-they're very confrontational negotiators. You get that white envelope in the mail with black, raised lettering in the top left hand corner and you think, "Oh, no! What is it this time?" You open the letter and what's the first communication from them? It's a threat. What they're going to do to you, if you don't give them what they want.

I remember conducting a seminar for 50 attorneys who litigated medical malpractice lawsuits, or as they prefer to call them, physician liability lawsuits. I've never met an attorney who was eager to go to a negotiating seminar, although that's what they do for a living, and these people were no exception to the rule. However, the organization that was giving the attorneys their business told them that they were expected to attend my seminar if they wanted to get any more cases from the organization. So the attorneys weren't too happy about having to spend Saturday with me in the first place, but once we got started, they became involved and were having a good time. I got them absorbed in a workshop involving a surgeon being sued over an unfortunate incident involving a nun and walked around the room to see how they were doing. I couldn't believe how confrontational they were being. Most of them started with a vicious threat and then became more abusive from that point on. I had to stop the exercise and tell them that if they wanted to settle the case without expensive litigation (and I doubted their motives on that score) that they should never be confrontational in the early stages of the negotiation.

So, be careful what you say at the beginning. If the other person takes a position with which you totally disagree, don't argue. Arguing always intensifies the other person's desire to prove himself or herself right. You're much better off to agree with the other person initially and then turn it around using the Feel, Felt, Found formula. Respond with, "I understand exactly how you feel about that. Many other people have felt exactly the same way as you do right now. (Now you have diffused that competitive spirit. You're not arguing with them, you're agreeing with them.) But you know what we have always found? When we take a closer look at it, we have always found that . ."

Let's look at some examples:

* You're selling something, and the other person says, "Your price is way too high." If you argue with him, he has a personal stake in proving you wrong and himself right. Instead, you say, "I understand exactly how you feel about that. Many other people have felt exactly the same way as you do when they first hear the price. When they take a closer look at what we offer, however, they have always found that we offer the best value in the marketplace."

* You're applying for a job, and the human resources director says, "I don't think you have enough experience in this field." If you respond with "I've handled much tougher jobs that this in the past," it may come across as, "I'm right and you're wrong." It's just going to force her to defend the position she's taken. Instead, say, "I understand exactly how you feel about that. Many other people would feel exactly the same way as you do right now. However, there are some remarkable similarities between the work I've been doing and what you're looking for that are not immediately apparent. Let me tell you what they are."

* If you're a salesperson and the buyer says, "I hear that you people have problems in your shipping department," arguing with him will make him doubt your objectivity. Instead, say, "I understand how you could have heard that because I've heard it too. I think that rumor may have started a few years ago when we relocated our warehouse; but now major companies such as General Motors and General Electric trust us with their just-in-time inventories, and we never have a problem."

* If the other person says, "I don't believe in buying from off-shore suppliers. I think we should keep the jobs in this country," the more you argue the more you'll force him into defending his position. Instead, say, "I understand exactly how you feel about that, because these days many other people feel exactly the same way as you do. But do you know what we have found? Since we have been having the initial assembly done in Thailand, we have actually been able to increase our American work force by more than 42 percent and this is why . . ."

* So instead of arguing up front, which creates confrontational negotiation, get in the habit of agreeing and then turning it around.

At my seminars, I sometimes ask a person in the front row to stand. As I hold my two hands out, with my palms facing toward the person I've asked to stand, I ask him to place his hands against mine. Having done that and without saying another word, I gently start to push against him. Automatically, without any instruction, he always begins to push back. People shove when you shove them. Similarly, when you argue with someone, it automatically makes him or her want to argue back.

The other great thing about Feel, Felt, Found is that it gives you time to think. Sometimes something will come up in a negotiation that you weren't expecting. You haven't heard anything like this before. It shocks you. You don't know what to say; but if you have Feel, Felt, Found in the back of your mind, you can say, "I understand exactly how you feel about that. Many other people have felt exactly the same way. However, I have always found . . ." By the time you get there, you'll have thought of something to say. Similarly, you sometimes catch other people at a bad moment. You may be a salesperson who is calling to get an appointment and the person says to you, "I don't have any more time to waste talking to some lying scum-sucking salesperson." You calmly say, "I understand exactly how you feel about that. Many other people have felt exactly the same way. However . . ." By the time you get there you will have recovered your composure and will know exactly what to say.

Key points to remember:

Don't argue with people in the early stages of the negotiation because it creates confrontation.

Use the Feel, Felt, Found formula to turn the hostility around.

Having Feel, Felt, Found in the back of your mind gives you time to think when the other side throws some unexpected hostility your way.

Roger Dawson is a professional speaker the author of two of best selling books on negotiating: Secrets of Power Negotiating and Secrets of Power Negotiating for Salespeople, both published by Career Press. He was inducted into the Speaker Hall of Fame in 1991. You can contact him at rogdawson@aol.com. His website address is: http://rdawson.com.

Research shows that negotiators with more attractive BATNA’s capture a greater share of the negotiation zone.

Therefore, maneuvering “away from the table” can also strongly affect negotiated outcomes, even more than the strategies employed “at the table.” Searching for a better price or an alternative supplier are examples of developing alternatives away from the negotiation table.

Basic Principles Make You a Smarter Negotiator

Roger Dawson

The way that you conduct yourself in a negotiation can dramatically the outcome. I've been teaching negotiating to business leaders throughout North America since 1982 and I've distilled this down to five essential principles. These principles are always at work for you and will help you smoothly get what you want:

Get the Other Side to Commit First

Power Negotiators know that you're usually better off if you can get the other side to commit to a position first. Several reasons are obvious:

* Their first offer may be much better than you expected.

* It gives you information about them before you have to tell them anything.

* It enables you to bracket their proposal. If they state a price first, you can bracket them, so if you end up splitting the difference, you'll get what you want. If they can get you to commit first, they can then bracket your proposal. Then if you end up splitting the difference, they get what they wanted.

The less you know about the other side or the proposition that you're negotiating, the more important the principle of not going first becomes. If the Beatles' manager Brian Epstein had understood this principle he could have made the Fab Four millions more on their first movie. United Artists wanted to cash in on the popularity of the singing group but was reluctant to go out on a limb because United Artists didn't know how long the Beatles would stay popular. They could have been a fleeting success that fizzled out long before their movie hit the screens. So they planned it as an inexpensively made exploitation movie and budgeted only $300,000 to make it. This was clearly not enough to pay the Beatles a high salary. So United Artists planned to offer the Beatles as much as 25 percent of the profits. The Beatles were such a worldwide sensation in 1963 that the producer was very reluctant to ask them to name their price first, but he had the courage to stay with the rule. He offered Epstein $25,000 up front and asked him what percentage of the profits he thought would be fair.

Brian Epstein didn't know the movie business and should have been smart enough to play Reluctant Buyer and use Good Guy/Bad Guy. He should have said, "I don't think they'd be interested in taking the time to make a movie, but if you'll give me your very best offer, I'll take it to them and see what I can do for you with them." Instead, his ego wouldn't let him play dumb, so he assertively stated that they would have to get 7.5 percent of the profits or they wouldn't do it. This slight tactical error cost the group millions when the director Richard Lester, to every one's surprise, created a brilliantly humorous portrait of a day in the group's life that became a worldwide success.

If both sides have learned that they shouldn't go first, you can't sit there forever with both sides refusing to put a number on the table, but as a rule you should always find out what the other side wants to do first.

Act Dumb, Not Smart

To Power Negotiators, smart is dumb and dumb is smart. When you are negotiating, you're better off acting as if you know less than everybody else does, not more. The dumber you act, the better off you are unless your apparent I.Q. sinks to a point where you lack any credibility.

There is a good reason for this. With a few rare exceptions, human beings tend to help people that they see as less intelligent or informed, rather than taking advantage of them. Of course there are a few ruthless people out there who will try to take advantage of weak people, but most people want to compete with people they see as brighter and help people they see as less bright. So, the reason for acting dumb is that it diffuses the competitive spirit of the other side. How can you fight with someone who is asking you to help them negotiate with you? How can you carry on any type of competitive banter with a person who says, "I don't know, what do you think?" Most people, when faced with this situation, feel sorry for the other person and go out of their way to help him or her.

Do you remember the TV show Columbo? Peter Falk played a detective who walked around in an old raincoat and a mental fog, chewing on an old cigar butt. He constantly wore an expression that suggested he had just misplaced something and couldn't remember what it was, let alone where he had left it. In fact, his success was directly attributable to how smart he was-by acting dumb. His demeanor was so disarming that the murderers came close to wanting him to solve his cases because he appeared to be so helpless.

The negotiators who let their egos take control of them and come across as a sharp, sophisticated negotiator commit to several things that work against them in a negotiation. These include being the following:

A fast decision-maker who doesn't need time to think things over.

* Someone who would not have to check with anyone else before going ahead.

* Someone who doesn't have to consult with experts before committing.

* Someone who would never stoop to pleading for a concession.

* Someone who would never be overridden by a supervisor.

* Someone who doesn't have to keep extensive notes about the progress of the negotiation and refer to them frequently.

The Power Negotiator who understands the importance of acting dumb retains these options:

Requesting time to think it over so that he or she can thoroughly think through the dangers of accepting or the opportunities that making additional demands might bring.

* Deferring a decision while he or she checks with a committee or board of directors.

* Asking for time to let legal or technical experts review the proposal.

* Pleading for additional concessions.

* Using Good Guy/Bad Guy to put pressure on the other side without confrontation.

* Taking time to think under the guise of reviewing notes about the negotiation.

I act dumb by asking for the definitions of words. If the other side says to me, "Roger, there are some ambiguities in this contract," I respond with, "Ambiguities . . .ambiguities . . . hmmm, you know I've heard that word before, but I'm not quite sure what it means. Would you mind explaining it to me?" Or I might say, "Do you mind going over those figures one more time? I know you've done it a couple of times already, but for some reason, I'm not getting it. Do you mind?" This makes them think: What a klutz I've got on my hands this time. In this way, I lay to rest the competitive spirit that could have made a compromise very difficult for me to accomplish. Now the other side stops fighting me and starts trying to help me.

Be careful that you're not acting dumb in your area of expertise. If you're a heart surgeon, don't say, "I'm not sure if you need a triple by-pass or if a double by-pass will do." If you're an architect, don't say, "I don't know if this building will stand up or not."

Win-win negotiating depends on the willingness of each side to be truly empathetic to the other side's position. That's not going to happen if both sides continue to compete with each other. Power Negotiators know that acting dumb diffuses that competitive spirit and opens the door to win-win solutions.

Think in Real Money Terms but Talk Funny Money

There are all kinds of ways of describing the price of something. If you went to the Boeing Aircraft Company and asked them what it costs to fly a 747 coast to coast, they wouldn't tell you "Fifty-two thousand dollars." They would tell you eleven cents per passenger mile.

Sales-people call that breaking it down to the ridiculous. Haven't we all had a real estate salesperson say to us at one time or another, "Do you realize you're talking 35¢ a day here? You're not going to let 35¢ a day stand between you and your dream home are you?" It probably didn't occur to you that 35¢ a day over the 30-year life of a real estate mortgage is more than $7,000. Power Negotiators think in real money terms.

When that supplier tells you about a 5¢ increase on an item, it may not seem important enough to spend much time on. Until you start thinking of how many of those items you buy during a year. Then you find that there's enough money sitting on the table to make it well worth your while to do some Power Negotiating.

I once dated a woman who had very expensive taste. One day she took me to a linen store in Newport Beach because she wanted us to buy a new set of sheets. They were beautiful sheets, but when I found out that they were $1,400, I was astonished and told the sales clerk that it was the kind of opulence that caused the peasants to storm the palace gates.

She calmly looked at me and said, "Sir, I don't think you understand. A fine set of sheets like this will last you at least 5 years, so you're really talking about only $280 a year." Then she whipped out a pocket calculator and frantically started punching in numbers. "That's only $5.38 a week. That's not much for what is probably the finest set of sheets in the world."

I said, "That's ridiculous."

Without cracking a smile, she said, "I'm not through. With a fine set of sheets like this, you obviously would never sleep alone, so we're really talking only 38 cents per day, per person." Now that's really breaking it down to the ridiculous.

Here are some other examples of funny money:

* Interest rates expressed as a percentage rather than a dollar amount.

* The amount of the monthly payments being emphasized rather than the true cost of the item.

* Cost per brick, tile, or square foot rather than the total cost of materials.

* An hourly increase in pay per person rather than the annual cost of the increase to the company.

* Insurance premiums as a monthly amount rather than an annual cost.

* The price of land expressed as the monthly payment.

Businesses know that if you're not having to pull real money out of your purse or pocket, you're inclined to spend more. It's why casinos the world over have you convert your real money to gaming chips. It's why restaurants are happy to let you use a credit card although they have to pay a percentage to the credit card company. When I worked for a department store chain, we were constantly pushing our clerks to sign up customers for one of our credit cards because we knew that credit card customers will spend more and they will also buy better quality merchandise than a cash customer. Our motivation wasn't entirely financial in pushing credit cards. We also knew that because credit card customers would buy better quality merchandise, it would satisfy them more, and they would be more pleased with their purchases.

So, when you're negotiating break the investment down to the ridiculous because it does sound like less money, but learn to think in real money terms. Don't let people use the Funny Money Gambit on you.

Concentrate on the Issues

Power Negotiators know that they should always concentrate on the issues and not be distracted by the actions of the other negotiators. Have you ever watched tennis on television and seen a highly emotional star like John McEnroe jumping up and down at the other end of the court. You wonder to yourself, "How on Earth can anybody play tennis against somebody like that? It's such a game of concentration, it doesn't seem fair."

The answer is that good tennis players understand that only one thing affects the outcome of the game of tennis. That's the movement of the ball across the net. What the other player is doing doesn't affect the outcome of the game at all, as long as you know what the ball is doing. So in that way, tennis players learn to concentrate on the ball, not on the other person.

When you're negotiating, the ball is the movement of the goal concessions across the negotiating table. It's the only thing that affects the outcome of the game; but it's so easy to be thrown off by what the other people are doing, isn't it?

I remember once wanting to buy a large real estate project in Signal Hill, California that comprised eighteen four-unit buildings. I knew that I had to get the price far below the $1.8 million that the sellers were asking for the property, which was owned free and clear by a large group of real estate investors. A real estate agent had brought it to my attention, so I felt obligated to let him present the first offer, reserving the right to go back and negotiate directly with the sellers if he wasn't able to get my $1.2 million offer accepted.

The last thing in the world the agent wanted to do was present an offer at $1.2 million-$600,000 below the asking price-but finally I convinced him to try it and off he went to present the offer. By doing that, he made a tactical error. He shouldn't have gone to them; he should have had them come to him. You always have more control when you're negotiating in your power base than if you go to their power base.

He came back a few hours later, and I asked him, "How did it go?"

"It was awful, just awful. I'm so embarrassed." He told me. "I got into this large conference room, and all of the principals had come in for the reading of the offer. They brought with them their attorney, their CPA, and their real estate broker. I was planning to do the silent close on them." (Which is to read the offer and then be quiet. The next person who talks loses in the negotiations.) "The problem was, there wasn't any silence. I got down to the $1.2 million and they said, 'Wait a minute. You're coming in $600,000 low? We're insulted." Then they all got up and stormed out of the room.

I said, "Nothing else happened?"

He said, "Well, a couple of the principals stopped in the doorway on their way out, and they said: 'We're not gonna come down to a penny less than $1.5 million.' It was just awful. Please don't ever ask me to present an offer that low again."

I said, "Wait a minute. You mean to tell me that, in five minutes, you got them to come down $300,000, and you feel bad about the way the negotiations went?"

See how easy it is to be thrown off by what the other people are doing, rather than concentrating on the issues in a negotiation. It's inconceivable that a full-time professional negotiator, say an international negotiator, would walk out of negotiations because he doesn't think the other people are fair. He may walk out, but it's a specific negotiating tactic, not because he's upset.

Can you imagine a top arms negotiator showing up in the White House, and the President saying, "What are you doing here? I thought you were in Geneva negotiating with the Russians."

"Well, yes, I was, Mr. President, but those guys are so unfair. You can't trust them and they never keep their commitments. I got so upset, I just walked out." Power Negotiators don't do that. They concentrate on the issues, not on the personalities. You should always be thinking, "Where are we now, compared to where we were an hour ago or yesterday or last week?"

Secretary of State Warren Christopher said, "It's okay to get upset when you're negotiating, as long as you're in control, and you're doing it as a specific negotiating tactic." It's when you're upset and out of control that you always lose.

That's why salespeople will have this happen to them. They lose an account. They take it into their sales manager, and they say, "Well, we lost this one. Don't waste any time trying to save it. I did everything I could. If anybody could have saved it, I would have saved it."

So, the sales manager says, "Well, just as a public relations gesture, let me give the other side a call anyway." The sales manager can hold it together, not necessarily because he's any brighter or sharper than the salesperson, but because he hasn't become emotionally involved with the people the way the salesperson has. Don't do that. Learn to concentrate on the issues.

Always Congratulate The Other Side

When you're through negotiating, you should always congratulate the other side. However poorly you think the other person may have done in the negotiations, congratulate them. Say, "Wow-did you do a fantastic job negotiating that. I realize that I didn't get as good a deal as I could have done, but frankly, it was worth it because I learned so much about negotiating. You were brilliant." You want the other person to feel that he or she won in the negotiations.

One of my clients is a large magazine publishing company that has me teach Power Negotiating to its sales force. When I was telling the salespeople how they should never gloat in a negotiation, the founder of the company jumped to his feet and said, "I want to tell you a story about that." Very agitated, he went on to tell the group, "My first magazine was about sailing, and I sold it to a huge New York magazine publisher. I flew up there to sign the final contract, and the moment I signed it and thanked them, they said to me, 'If you'd have been a better negotiator, we would have paid you a lot more.' That was 25 years ago and it still burns me up when I think about it today. I told them that if they had been better negotiators, I would have taken less." Let me ask you something. If that magazine publisher wanted to buy another one of his magazines, would he start by raising the price on them? Of course he would. However harmless it may seem, be sensitive to how you're reacting to the deal. Never gloat and always congratulate.

When I published my first book on negotiating a newspaper reviewed it and took exception to my saying that you should always congratulate, saying that it was manipulative to congratulate the other side when you didn't really think that they had won. I disagree. I look upon it as the ultimate in courtesy for the conqueror to congratulate the vanquished. When the British army and navy went down the Atlantic to recapture the Falkland Islands from the Argentineans, it was quite a rout. Within a few days, the Argentine navy lost most of its ships and the victory for the English was absolute. The evening after the Argentinean admiral surrendered, the English admiral invited him on board to dine with his officers and congratulated him on a splendid campaign.

Power Negotiators always want the other parties thinking that they won in the negotiations. It starts by asking for more than you expect to get. It continues through all of the other Gambits that are designed to service the perception that they're winning. It ends with congratulating the other side.

If you let these five principles guide your conduct when you're negotiating, they will serve you well and help you become a Power Negotiator.

This article is excerpted in part from Roger Dawson's new book-Secrets of Power Negotiating, published by Career Press and on sale in bookstores everywhere for $24.99.

5 Tips For Successful Negotiation

By: John Morris

It does not matter whether it is a pro or a con. The people will always have something to negotiate for. Negotiation will always come out whenever there is something to bargain for, whether you want to achieve something in your present career, when you want to deal with other people, or simply win out a good buy in a garage sale.

Whatever the purpose is, an individual will always try to negotiate into something favorable, otherwise, he will never succeed in this lifetime.

Most people say that negotiation is an art. It tends to bring out the individuals remarkable way of winning things on his side. It can be the most amazing thing you can do with your charm and your wits, thats why other people say it can just be all fun.

Of course, negotiation is not a game that people can play anytime. When you negotiate, you should mean business all the time.

When two or more people, with dissimilar wants and objectives, would like to agree on something that will render resolution to a particular subject, negotiating is the best solution. Since it involves two- way communication procedure, every negotiation is distinct from one another, and affected by each individuals mind- set, abilities, and technique.

The problem with most people is that they view negotiation as something that is horrible. Thats because it usually means disputes or tension.

In essence, negotiations do not call for unpleasant moods. Learning the right way of negotiating will absolutely lead to a successful finale. To know more about it, here are five tips for successful negotiation -

1. Time it right

The art of negotiating depends on right timing. It is imperative that you learn to manage the negotiation set up. Always remember that negotiations should never come off where they are not wanted. You should always consider the pros and cons of the possible results before deciding on the issue. Create a list of the most important variables that you have to deliberate such as bonuses, price, delivery times, credit terms, guarantees, training, discounts, or rebate.

By contemplating on these things, you will be able to organize and plan the negotiation.

2. Manage yourself

Before you enter into a negotiation, it is best that you evaluate yourself first. Can you manage your feelings? Keep in mind that when your emotions get in the way, you tend to weaken your ability to direct your negotiating actions in productive modes.

3. Know what you are getting into

Who are you dealing with? What are his traits, attitude, or beliefs? Is he the type that can give you a winwin situation?

It is very important that you know where you are getting at before you head for the battle.

4. Be attentive. Learn to listen well!

One of the reasons why negotiations become negative is that most people do not practice attentive listening. People are so busy stating their desires that they forget to hear out the other side.

Keep in mind that negotiating is an inter- personal procedure; hence, the communication will never work on a one- way traffic. It has two be two- way.

Experts say that in order to have a successful negotiation, people should learn to apply the so- called 7030 ruling. This means that people should render 70% of their time in listening and only 30% for talking. In this way, you will be able to understand the other side of the story, giving more rooms for considerations and proper analysis.

5. Be ready to walk away

Never be pressured to win over a negotiation. Keep in mind that it is not always a winwin situation for you. In fact, one of the greatest mistakes people commit thats why they fail to get what they want is that they are too determined to acquire their goals. It is like they have created a now or never scene.

Experts recommend that it is still best to always have a choice. Do not assume that when you negotiate, it should always be a point of no return. Be open for alternatives. If you think you can never have it your way, so be it. There is always a next time, and next times are always better.

So the next time you plan to negotiate on something, keep these things in mind. In one way or another, you will be able to foresee a positive result if you really know how to play your cards well. It should never be a gamble. Remember, successful negotiations should always be patterned with logical thinking.

Article Source: http://www.articlerich.com

For more great negotiation related articles and resources check out negotiationadvisor.info

The Death Of A Sale - "Can I Help You?"

By: Kenny Cannon

www.KennyCannon.com

The INTRO is the most important part of YOUR sales presentation. I say "your" because the company’s bottom line will not be influenced much by the introduction, but YOUR paycheck will.

Lets first go into exactly what an introduction is. The introduction is how you greet a customer when he or she walks into your store or place of business. Many may think that this can't be as important as the close or product presentation, but the fact of the matter is, you will not get to the product presentation or close if you do not introduce yourself correctly.

Lets take a look something really quick. Lets place ourselves in the parking lot of a local car dealership. What do you see? What I see is a bunch of salespeople standing outside waiting for you to get out of the car. These people, and their families depend on YOU to purchase a car from them. Without YOU, they have nothing.

So what happens? You get out of the car; a salesperson walks up to you and says, "Can I help you?" If the salesperson is extremely well trained by his manager, you might hear "Hi, my name is Steve...Can I help you find something?"

This may not seem all that bad, but here's how the story finishes about 95% of the time. The customer responds, "I'm just looking around, but I'll let you know if I need something." The customer walks into the dealership and looks at a few cars. An hour later, he or she is sitting down with someone else purchasing a car.

The other 5% of the time, the customer will respond "Yeah you can help me. I spoke to another salesperson last week and I came back to purchase the car." Or they will say "Yeah you can help me. I got into an accident 2 days ago and my car got totaled. I got the check from my insurance company with me and I need a new car."

Don't pay attention to the 5% because a 3 year old can sell this group of customer.

OK! So what is the proper way to introduce yourself? Let's get into it. I can tell you that if you practice and master this introduction, you will never hear the words "I'm just looking" again in your sales career. This introduction works no matter what product you sell. Using the same example of the customer parking in the lot at a car dealership...Here goes:

Sales - Welcome to (dealership), my name is Kenny, and your name is?

Customer - My name is Jon and this is my wife Jenn.

Sales - (Directed at Jon) Nice to meet you guys, Have you bee looking for a car long?

Customer - Not really, we're just looking around to get some prices.

Sales - Sounds good...Who is the car going to be for (wife, husband, daughter, son)

Customer - It's going to be for both of us.

Sales - Ok, how many people do you normally put in the car?

Customer - (Wife) Well, I usually take the kids to school in the morning. We have 3 kids.

Sales - Ok, Let me point you in the right direction of a car that would be good for your situation and we'll see what we can do for you. (Walk them to the car and begin product presentation).

As you can see, the introduction above is not confrontational and will never lead to NO! The key to the introduction is to continue to ask probing questions to find out what product would benefit them the most. You always want to stay away from Yes or No questions.

Just to prove that this introduction works for EVERY product or service that you may sell, lets take a look at another example.

EXAMPLE 1 - 99% of salespeople use this.

Sales - Can I help you find something?

Customer - I’m just looking for a new bowling ball, I'll let you know if I need something. Thanks!

EXAMPLE 2 - 1% (including the people I work with) use this and make more money than the other 9% combined!

Kenny - Hi, welcome to (bowling ball store), my name is Kenny, and your name is?

Customer - Hi, how are you? My name is Pete.

Kenny - Good Good, Are you looking for a ball for yourself or for someone else?

Customer - No, it will be for me...I'm just looking for an extra.

Kenny - Sounds like a plan...What type of ball are you using now?

Customer - It's a 10-pound ball with 3 holes. (I know nothing about bowling)

Kenny - Lets take a walk over here and I'll point you in the direction of our 10 pounders with 3 holes.

Still want more? Here is a great way to see the difference between the introductions that 99% of salespeople use and the introduction I laid out for you. Walk into a bar and find a good-looking girl or guy. Walk up to them and say "Hi! Do you like me?" Most likely, they will answer "No" or "I don't even know you." Now walk up to that same girl and say "Hi! My name is (name) and you are?" Try it a few times and you will see the difference.

Use this introduction, and I promise you your sales will at least double. Even if you have no idea about your product, have no idea how to close, and are scared of objection handling, your sales will AT LEAST double!

Article Source: http://www.articlerich.com

This article was written by Kenny Cannon, a professional sales trainer and freelance cpywriter from New York. Kenny has 7 years experience and is known throughout the auto sales industry as one of the best sales trainers. Kenny has worked with companies such as Hyundai, Nissan, Ford, Geico, Lend America and Subway Resturants to name a few. To find out more, please visit www.kennycannon.com .

Present Your Product Like A Pro - A Salespersons Guide To Presentations

By: Kenny Cannon

www.KennyCannon.com

I walked into a computer store the other day to buy a new laptop. The salesperson told me all about the computer and what was inside. He told me that it had "1 gig of RAM, a 100 gig hard drive, a 256MB video card, and an integrated sound card." He gave me a price of $800, which was a really good price for the computer, but I decided to pass it up. Why? Because the salesperson did not deserve the sale.

I left the store and went home. About 3 hours later, I went back to the store and spoke to another salesperson and here's how it went. Let's see if you can tell the difference:

Sales - "On this computer, you can run pretty much any program you want. You can design web pages, watch movies, play games, and even edit photos. This is because it has 1 gigabyte of RAM, which is the memory in the computer. You can even upgrade to more RAM later if you want. All you have to do is bring the computer back here and we can do it for you, but you'll be ok with what you have for now."

Me - Ok, that sounds really good.

Sales - "And you also never have to worry storing files. On this computer, you have a 100-gigabyte hard drive, which is pretty much the top of the line for today’s laptops. You can store music, movies, photos, and web pages on here and you should never have a problem. There is also extra hard drives you can buy for a small investment that can double your space. For now though, the 100 gigabyte drive will be fine for you."

Me - Yeah, that sounds like it should be good for now.

Sales - "This computer also comes with an integrated sound card so you can listen to music in digital quality. On right here on the side is a DVD drive which means you can play any DVD you want and view it and hear it in digital quality."

Me - Ok.

Sales - "You also have a 256 megabyte video card which is the top of the line for this model. This means you or your kids can play any game you want on here and never have a problem. You can also upgrade the video card by bringing it back to the store, but for now, the 256 megabyte card should be good for you."

Me - Ok.

The salesperson decided that it was time to ask for some money, and I bought the laptop. But why did I buy it from him and not the other guy? Well, the second salesperson sold me on the BENEFITS of the product while the first salesperson tried to sell me on the FEATURES.

Selling benefits is the key to a successful product presentation. It does not matter what you sell. There is a feature and a benefit to EVERY product and service in the world. It does not matter what it is. Right now I am drinking a cup of 7-11 coffee. There is something on top of the cup with a hole in it. To 99.9% of the people out there, this is a lid. To a highly trained, successful salesperson this is a device that not only keeps the coffee from spilling, but also helps to keep it hot and fresh for a long period of time. See the difference?

Don't get me wrong here. You must presents features AND benefits, but you must stress the benefits and only touch on the features. For example, if a customer walks into your car dealership and you say, "With this car, if you get into an accident, you'll never get hurt" and stop there, you probably won't be so successful. What you should say is "With this car, if you get into an accident, the chances of you getting hurt are very slim" (benefit) "because it comes standard with dual airbags." (feature) "And because it has dual airbags, you most likely will get an insurance discount of about 10% per year" (benefit).

This may sound complicated and it may sound like you need to know a lot about your product, but you don't, and it's not. The best way to get started using this sales technique is to simply keep asking yourself one question while doing your presentation. That question is "What does this mean for the customer." If you answer that question, you will have no choice but to present a benefit related to the feature you are presenting.

If you are still unsure about this, or you feel uncomfortable presenting features, a great way to get started is to present a feature and immediately say "And what this means to you is" (benefit).

Here's how it goes:

Kenny - With this cordless telephone, you get caller ID already installed (feature). What this means to you is that you can see who's calling before you answer (benefit). You won't have to worry about those telemarketers at dinnertime anymore (benefit).

Good luck with your sales career and please feel free read through the rest of the sales material on this blog. If you feel the need to ask a question, please log on to the website located at the bottom of this article and click CONTACT.

Article Source: http://www.articlerich.com

This article was written by Kenny Cannon, a professional sales trainer and freelance cpywriter from New York. Kenny has 7 years experience and is known throughout the auto sales industry as one of the best sales trainers. Kenny has worked with companies such as Hyundai, Nissan, Ford, Geico, Lend America and Subway Resturants to name a few. To find out more, please visit www.kennycannon.com .

Higher Ground Negotiations: Don't Compromise Your Position with a Compromise

By: Charlie Lang

Copyright 2006 Progress-U Ltd.

I still remember sitting in the car with our French representative on the way to our customer's factory north of Paris some five years ago. At that time I was Director International Sales for a German technology company. The conversation went this way.

"Alain, what do you think? How much of a discount will Monsieur Ribault expect? You know, we offered the instrument including all accessories, installation and commissioning for 350,000 USD."

"The last time, we sold the same machine for 280,000 USD was four years ago. Also, I know, you added some features to the machine that improved its performance. However, knowing M. Ribault, it will be tough to achieve a higher price than last time."

"The price for the previous machine was already at the bottom. Our cost increased, not decreased, with higher wages, higher material cost and improved design. So we need a higher price this time."

"Well, we can try to get him on 300,000 USD. Would that still be acceptable?" I inquired.

"Actually not, but o.k. At the same time we need this order now, so if he can decide immediately, we are willing to compromise to 300k."

I knew that M. Ribault was a tough negotiator but I also knew that his company, a multi-national automotive corporation, was very satisfied with the machine they bought four years earlier.

When we met M. Ribault, he opened the conversation by saying that his top management's requirement was to reduce the cost for any supplier by 3.5% per year on the average. This policy was introduced the year before.

M. Ribault was not a man of many words and he frankly stated: "We need your price to go down by 7% at least, i.e. the maximum we can pay for this machine is 260,000 USD. If you can't follow our policy and efforts to reduce our cost, I'm afraid that we will need to look for alternative suppliers."

Wow, there I sat, expecting to get a better price and now I had an important customer seriously saying that if we didn't lower our price to 260,000 USD, we would be out of the game.

At first, I tried to explain why in this case it was impossible for us to lower the price and that we actually needed 7% more, not less. I realized quickly that this attempt would lead nowhere.

So what to do? Negotiate and pressure him so long until we reached a somewhat still tolerable compromise? Perhaps to reach at least the same price as last time? Give up? Give in? It seemed like one of us had to lose and that one would most likely be us, no matter if we compromised or not.

When I thought more about it, I realized that M. Ribault's company would also lose. I knew that our instrument was by far the best the solution they could get for this application, so if we gave up, they would lose by choosing another supplier. If we gave in, they would lose because with such a bad margin on our side, service would be reduced to an absolutely necessary minimum in order to recover at least some of the lost margin.

Was it a lose-lose situation that couldn't be overcome?

Suddenly, I realized that any common ground would not be attractive enough. We had to do something outside the box to turn this negotiation into a win-win situation for both parties.

Traditional negotiation practice teaches you to optimize your position when trying to establish a common ground. Common ground negotiations are straight forward and usually the fastest way to achieve an agreement. In most cases, they require compromises from one or both parties. Common ground negotiations are the appropriate procedure if the compromises are still attractive for both parties. Unfortunately this is often not the case.

So what do we normally do?

We either compromise our desired position through a sub-optimal compromise or we pressure the other party into an undesirable compromise, or both. In the worst-case scenario, we exit and let the negotiation fail.

Some might think, well, no problem if the other party compromises their position as long as we get what we want. A win-lose situation is a win for us and therefore is o.k.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this concept.

I strongly believe that if one party loses, both parties lose. Any win-lose situation eventually ends up as a lose-lose situation and is therefore not desirable.

So what else to do?

The answer is "Higher Ground Negotiation" which means to leave the common ground and to look for a higher ground that is attractive to both negotiation parties. To do this successfully, we need to have a few pre-conditions in place:

1. True trust between both parties

I elaborated on the issue of trust and it's three key elements in our July edition of this E-Zine. Kindly refer to this section.

2. The willingness of both parties to create win-win situations

Of course, many hardcore negotiators still believe that a win-lose outcome is desirable. You may attempt to change your negotiation partners' beliefs on this by coaching them through the potential consequences of win-lose situations. However, if this turns out not to be fruitful, you will need to decide on whether or not you want to continue doing business with people who want you to lose every time you deal with them.

3. A thorough understanding of what is important to the other party

If you have built some trust with your negotiation partners, they will help you understand what is truly important to them...and that may go way beyond the price of your product or service. You need to gain a thorough understanding of the other party to find a higher ground that is attractive to both them and you.

Once you have these three pre-conditions in place, you can start exploring an attractive higher ground. You will have to think outside the box and be creative. A solution might not be evident right away, so you might need to do some meaningful brainstorming.

In the case of our French customer, we discovered that there was an upcoming need for certain other products this company would typically source from our competitors. For a long time, my colleagues had tried to sell these kinds of products, but without success. I knew that we had rather big margins on them and could compensate for the loss of margin caused by selling the other instrument at 260,000 USD.

So everybody won. M. Ribault got his cost reduction, we got the order not only for this instrument but also for the other products and therefore could still get a good overall margin...and my colleagues were happy to finally get a chance to have their equipment employed at this important company.

Conclusion: "Winning" in negotiations means creating win-win situations. If one party loses, ultimately both parties lose. If the traditional approach of finding a common ground doesn't lead to any attractive outcome for either party, you may need to look for a higher ground. Higher Ground Negotiations require trust, the desire for win-win situations on both sides, and a thorough understanding of what is important to the other party. With creative out-of-the-box thinking, an attractive higher ground can be found which results in true win-win situations making it unnecessary for you to compromise your position with a compromise.

Article Source: http://www.articlerich.com

Charlie Lang's mission is to change the image of sales through the completely buyer-oriented Stop Selling! approach. He is a passionate and professional executive Coach, Trainer, Public Speaker and Author of over 100 articles related to leadership, coaching, change management and innovative sales. For more info visit www.progressu.com .

Unethical Negotiating Gambits and How to Protect Yourself Against Them

by Roger Dawson

Let me teach you the unethical gambits that people can use to get you to sweeten the deal. Unless you're so familiar with them that you spot them right away, you'll find that you will make unnecessary concessions just to get the other side to agree with your proposal. Many a salesperson has had to endure an embarrassing interview with a sales manager who can't understand why he made a concession. The salesperson tries to maintain that the only way to get the order was to make the concession. The truth was that the buyer out maneuvered the salesperson with one of these unethical gambits.

There's no point in getting upset with the person who uses these unethical Gambits. Power Negotiators remember to concentrate on the issues and think of negotiating as a game. Unless the individual is Mother Theresa, he or she is simply doing what he or she is on this planet for, which is to get the best possible deal from you. You must be skilled enough to instantly recognize these unethical gambits and smoothly counter them.

The Decoy

The other side can use the Decoy Gambit to take your attention away from what is the real issue in the negotiation.

Several years ago, an association hired me to do a seminar at John Portman's Peachtree Hotel in Atlanta. That's a Westin Hotel and a fabulous place. It's 73 stories high, one of the tallest hotels in the country and possibly the world. It's like a round tall tower with only 15 or so pie-shaped rooms on each floor.

As I walked into the hotel I was wondering what I could do to provide an illustration to the people who would be in the seminar the following day, to show how effective Power Negotiating can be. A room had been pre-arranged for me by the organization that had hired me, and I decided to see what I could do about negotiating down the price of the room. Rooms at the Peachtree then typically cost $135. They had given me a very good corporate rate of $75. Nevertheless, I determined to see what I could do and within 10 minutes got them to reduce the price of the room to $37.50.

I used the Decoy Gambit on them. They told me that they only had a twin-size room for me. If they had said they only had a full-size room, I would have asked for a twin bed, you understand. It didn't matter what it was, but I said "The association that hired me booked this room a month ahead of time. I am not going to accept a twin-size room." The desk clerk brought out the manager. He explained that they have 1,074 rooms in the hotel. Guests already occupied 1,064 of them, so they only had 10 available, and I would have to settle for a twin-size room.

So, I used the Trading Off Gambit. I said, "Well, I might be willing to settle for a twin-size room, but if I do that for you, what will you do for me?" I thought possibly they might offer a free breakfast, or something like that. However, to my amazement he said, "We might be able to adjust the price of the room a little bit. How would half price be for you?"

I said, "That would be just fine." Then, as they gave me the key to the room, the manager said, "Let me check just a moment. We may be able to do something more for you." They made a telephone call and found out that they did have a queen-size room available. Maintenance had just finished redecorating it, and they weren't sure whether they had released it yet. So, I ended up getting a $135 queen-size room for only $37.50.

The Decoy I used was that they only had twin-size rooms available, not king-sized. That wasn't the real issue at all, of course; what I wanted to accomplish was a reduced room rate. The size of the bed took their attention away from the real issue.

Watch out for people who lure you away from the real issue with the Decoy Gambit. Let's say that you sell custom made tools and dies, and your customer is insisting on accelerated shipment. Stay focused and isolate the objection. "Is that the only thing that's bothering you?" Then go to Higher Authority and Good Guy/Bad Guy: "Let's get something in writing, and I'll take it to my people and see what I can do for you with them." Then turn the tables: "We may be able to accelerate the shipment, but it's going to increase the non-recurring engineering charges."

The Red Herring

The Red Herring Gambit is a further twist on the Decoy Gambit. With the Decoy, the other person raises a phony issue to get concessions on a real issue. With the Red Herring, the other person makes a phony demand that he will subsequently withdraw, but only in exchange for a concession from you. If the Red Herring distracts you, it will deceive you into thinking that it's of major concern to the other side when it may not be.

The classic example of the use of a red herring came during the Korean War armistice talks. Very early in the talks the parties concerned agreed that each side would be represented at the table by officials of three neutral countries, along with their own national negotiators. The South Korean side selected Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland as their three neutral negotiators. The North Koreans chose Poland and Czechoslovakia, but couldn't seem to choose a third. They suggested that the talks start, and they would identify a third country later.

What they were really doing was leaving an opening for the Red Herring Gambit. When the time came and they had set the stage, they announced their selection for the third country: The Soviet Union. The international outcry was unanimous: "The Soviet Union? Now wait a minute. The Soviet Union isn't a neutral country."

The North Koreans responded by saying that the Soviets were not directly involved in the conflict, and there was no reason for them to be considered biased.

They waged the battle of the Red (pardon the pun) Herring for quite a while, until the situation became absurd. The North Koreans continued to insist that they couldn't understand what the objection was to using the Soviet Union as a neutral third party, until the objections of the South Koreans seemed as ludicrous as the demands of the North Koreans. The negotiations had stalemated.

Just as it seemed that the pointless arguing would continue forever, the North Koreans announced that they would abandon their insistence on having the Soviets at the negotiating table, but they expected a reciprocal concession.

Both sides had agreed earlier that during the negotiations, neither side would rebuild their airstrips. The North Koreans realized later that this left them at a severe disadvantage because we could fly planes off aircraft carriers, but they needed their runways. So the North Koreans decided that it was time to use the Red Herring Gambit and suggested the Soviet Union as the third neutral country. Now it was time to name the price: They would concede and choose a different country to represent them, but only if the South Koreans would waive the restriction on rebuilding the airfields.

The North Koreans never seriously thought that we would agree to letting the Soviet Union be part of the negotiations. However they were able to magically create a bargaining issue out of thin air and then trade it off later for an issue about which they really cared.

When the other person is creating a red herring issue that she will try to trade off later, keep your eye on the real negotiating issues and don't let her link it to a concession you're reluctant to make.

Cherry Picking

Cherry Picking is a gambit that a buyer can use against a seller with devastating effect, unless the seller is a Power Negotiator and knows his or her options. If you're thinking of acquiring a new piece of equipment for your company, you can use Cherry Picking to your advantage. Shop around and accumulate information before you make a decision. Call up companies and have all their sales people come in and make a presentation to you. You'll find that one has a good point in a particular area, perhaps a fast shipment. Another has a low price and a third has a good guarantee. So, from all these interviews, you piece together the ideal piece of equipment.

Then you go back to the one you like best and say, "I'd like to buy your equipment except that I want to get the longer guarantee. Or I want to get the faster shipping." In this way, you create the type of deal and the kind of contract that you want.

So, buyers should push for itemized contracts whereas sellers should avoid it. Because Cherry Picking is to me an unethical gambit, the perpetrator is less likely to do it to someone he knows and trusts than he is to a comparative stranger. So, sellers can forestall this tactic by building a personal relationship with the buyer.

Another way to handle people who might want to Cherry Pick you is to forestall the Gambit. Let's say that you're a contractor who is trying to sell a remodeling job to a homeowner, and you know she's going to talk to all the other contractors in town-how do you forestall it?

The answer is to know more about your competition than they'll ever learn. So the homeowner says, "I want to check with some other people before I make my final decision."

You respond, "I absolutely agree with you." Always agree up front, right? Salespeople should always agree with any objection however ridiculous it is and then work to turn it around. "I absolutely agree with you. You should check with other companies before you make a decision. But look, let me save you some time. Have you talked to Ted Smith over at ABC Construction? He uses XYZ cabinets that have this feature, this feature, and this feature; but they don't have this. Then if you talk to the national department store company down at the mall, the sales person who'll come out will be Fred Harrison, and he'll tell you about model number such and such . . ."

By the time you've gone through letting her know how much you know about the competition, she's going to think, "Why on Earth do I need to waste my time talking to all these other people, when this person knows more than I'll ever learn."

To defend yourself against Cherry Picking always consider the alternatives of the other side before making a concession. The fewer alternatives the other side has, the more power you have. If you as a seller refuse to budge on your price, then you force the buyer to pay more from another supplier or use multiple suppliers. In the case of the home remodeling job, this would mean that the homeowner would have to bypass you as the general contractor and contract with each sub-contractor separately. This may require more knowledge or expertise than the other side possesses or may create extra work and pressure that it is not worth the savings.

The Deliberate Mistake

The Deliberate Mistake is a very unethical tactic, and as with any con job, it requires a victim who also lacks ethics. The seller baits the hook when she prepares a proposal and deliberately leaves out or under-prices one of the elements. For example, the car salesperson who runs an adding machine tape on the cost of the car but includes only the price of a tape player, when the car also has a CD player. If the buyer takes the bait, he starts thinking that he now has an opportunity to put one over on the car salesperson. He becomes eager to close the deal before the salesperson spots the mistake. This eagerness makes the buyer a sloppy negotiator, and he may end up paying more for the car than if he had pointed out the mistake. Apart from that, the salesperson still has the option of "discovering" the mistake before the buyer consummates the sale and, with an accusing look, shames the buyer into paying the extra amount.

The counter-gambit may sound high minded, but it's obvious. Never try to get away with anything. If your greed doesn't cost you at that moment, it will certainly catch up with you later down life's road. Instead, point out the mistake and say, "I assume that you're not charging me for the CD player because you're trying to get me to make a decision now?"

The Erroneous Conclusion

A variation of the Deliberate Mistake is the Erroneous Conclusion close. Using this method, the salesperson asks a question of the buyer, but deliberately draws an erroneous conclusion. When the buyer corrects the salesperson, she finds that she has made a commitment to buy. For example, the car salesperson says, "If you did decide today, you wouldn't need to take delivery today would you?" The buyer responds, "Well, of course we'd want to take it today."

The real estate sales person says, "You wouldn't want the sellers to include the refrigerator would you?" The buyers hadn't been thinking of doing that, but the refrigerator looks better than theirs does so they reply, "Do you think they would include it?" The salesperson responds with, "Let's include it in our offer and see what happens."

The boat salesperson says, "You wouldn't expect us to include a CB would you?" The buyer sees an opportunity to get something for nothing and responds, "I sure would."

The Default

The Default Gambit is one that involves a unilateral assumption that obviously works to the advantage of the side proposing it, such as the company that sends a payment check to a vendor after having deducted two and a half percent. Attached is a note that says, "All of our other vendors discount for payment within 15 days, so we assume you will too." Or the salesperson who writes a potential buyer, "Because I haven't heard from you on your choice of options, I will ship the deluxe model unless I hear from you within ten days."

The Default Gambit preys on busy or lazy people; it assumes that rather than take action the other side will take the easy way out and let you get away with it. Once you have failed to respond, the law of precedent comes into play. When you finally do object the perpetrator is able to say, "But you've never had a problem with it in the past."

As with all unethical gambits, call the other side on it and gently explain that you expect to see a higher level of ethics from them in the future.

Escalation

I once knew a man who became very wealthy after he sold his real estate franchise to a large corporation. He had been one of the original purchasers of a territory when real estate franchising was new, and the founder of the company was running around the country trying to sign up anyone who believed in his concept. Many years later a huge New York corporation had bought the master franchise and was starting to buy back the territorial franchises. After attending one of my Secrets of Power Negotiating seminars, he asked me to join him for a drink and asked me, "Roger, have you ever heard voices speak to you when you're negotiating?" Not wanting to admit it if I had, I asked him what he was talking about. He told me that after he had agreed to sell his territorial franchise to the new corporate owners for what he first thought was a huge amount of money, he started to have second thoughts. Because his was the first franchise the corporation was buying back they flew him to New York for a signing ceremony to be followed by a press conference at which they would announce the corporation's plans to buy back all the franchises. "The night before the ceremony I had trouble sleeping," he told me. "I lay on my bed wondering whether I was doing the right thing. Suddenly I heard a voice talking to me."

"What was it saying," I asked him, half expecting a humorous punch line.

"It said, 'Joey, you're not getting enough money.' So the next morning I went down and asked for another half million dollars and got it."

What Joey was describing was a classic case of escalation-raising demands after both sides have reached agreement. Of course it's outrageous and unethical, but just as Joey thought he heard voices telling him to do it rather than accept responsibility for his actions, the perpetrators often don't see any harm in cutting the best deal by any means possible. So, why is anyone ever allowed to get away with such outrageous behavior? All too often, the other side swallows its pride and concedes just as easily as that corporation conceded the extra half million. In that case, the corporation paid rather than faces the humiliation of having to call off the press conference. In other cases, the other side has simply become too emotionally involved in the purchase to back out.

The history of big business is full of stories of people who extorted a little more out of a deal simply because they had enough leverage to do so. Frankly, I have mixed emotions about how to respond. My heart tells me that if people do that, you should call their bluff and walk away from the deal on principle. However, I also believe in keeping emotions out of a negotiation. If that New York corporation was able to pay the extra half million and still have it be a good deal (and it was still a very good deal) then they were right to swallow their pride and pay the money.

There are some responses to escalation other than swallowing your pride or walking away. You might try these:

* Protecting yourself with Higher Authority. Tell them that their suggestion does not offend you, but that your board of directors will never renegotiate a deal once it has been made and they will force you to walk away. Then Position for Easy Acceptance by telling them that although you cannot budge on the price, you might be able to offer them something of value in another area.

* Escalating your demands in return. Tell them that you are glad that they want to reopen the negotiations because your side has been having second thoughts also. Of course, you would never renege on a deal, but since they have chosen to negate the original proposal, your price has now gone up also.

It is better to avoid Escalation than to have to deal with it. Avoid it by using these techniques:

* Tying up all the details up front. Don't leave anything to "we can work that out later." Unresolved issues invite Escalation.

* Building personal relationships with the other parties that makes it harder for them to be ruthless.

* Getting large deposits so that it's harder for them to back out.

* Building win-win negotiations so that they don't want to back out.

Planted Information

Returning from a speaking engagement, I was discussing that day's Presidential press conference with my seatmate. "I don't believe he's telling us the truth," he told me. "I met a man who knew someone who works at the White House, and he told me that the President did know all about it all along. He's covering something up." What amazed me about this was that I found myself believing what this man was telling me, rather than believing what I had earlier heard the President of the United States say at the press conference. Why? Because we always tend to believe information that we have obtained surreptitiously.

Planted information can be an astoundingly powerful influencer.

A salesman is making an impressive presentation to a board of directors. Flip charts and audio visual aids surround him. He is fervently making a plea that they go with his company because it offers the best value in the marketplace. He believes that no competitor can undercut his prices and feels confident that he can close the sale at his asking price of $820,000-until he sees one of the directors pass a note to another director who nods and lays the note on the table in front of him. Curiosity gets the better of the salesman. He has to see what's on that note. He finishes his presentation, then approaches the table, and dramatically leans toward them. "Gentlemen, do you have any questions?" Out of the corner of his eye, he can now see the note. Even reading upside down, he can see that it says, "Universal's price is $762,000. Let's go with them."

The chairman of the board says, "I do have one question. Your price seems high. We're obligated to go with the lowest price that meets our specifications. Is $820,000 the best you can do?" Within minutes, the salesman has lowered his price by $58,000.

Was the note real or was it Planted Information? Although it was just an unsubstantiated note scrawled on a piece of paper, the salesperson believed it because he obtained the information surreptitiously. Even if they had planted it, could the salesperson cry foul later? No, because they didn't tell him that the competition's bid was $762,000. He obtained the information surreptitiously, and he must accept responsibility for his assumptions.

Simply knowing about planted information will help you to diffuse this unethical tactic. Any time that you are negotiating only based on information that the other side has chosen to tell you, you are extremely vulnerable to manipulation. When the other side may have planted the information for you to discover, you should be even more vigilant.

The best advice I can give you about unethical negotiating tactics is the same advice as I would give you if planned to walk down an alley in a third world country:

Learn the swindles and the tactics that unscrupulous people use.

* Be alert to them and when you see the first evidence of a scam being pulled, don't hang around out of curiosity or a desire to outsmart the perpetrator-just run away from it as fast as you can.

* Never let your greed get the better of you. All con artists need a co-conspirator to pull off a con game. If the tactic doesn't sound right to you, pull away as quickly as you can.

Roger Dawson is a professional speaker and the author of two best selling books on negotiating: Secrets of Power Negotiating and Secrets of Power Negotiating for Salespeople, both published by Career Press. He was inducted into the Speaker Hall of Fame in 1991. You can contact him at rogdawson@aol.com. His website address is: http://rdawson.com.

• Auction: Set sellers or buyers against one another.
• Bad publicity: Indicate bad publicity of not agreeing.
• Better offer: indicate a better offer from the competition.
• Vise: Just say 'You'll have to do better than that...'
• Biased choice: Offering choices that already include your biases.
• Big fish: Show you're the big fish and they could get eaten.
• Bluff: Assert things that are not true.
• Breaking it off: Walking away from the negotiation.
• Brooklyn optician: price or negotiate each item.
• Call girl: Ask to be paid up front.
• Cards on the table: State your case clearly and completely.
• Change the negotiator: New person can reset the rules.
• Changing standards: Change the benchmarks of good and bad.
• Check the facts: Bring up new information you have found.
• Control the agenda: And hence what is discussed.
• Credentials: Show how clever you are.
• Deadlines: Push them up against the wall of time.
• Delays: Buying time and building tension.
• Divide and conquer: Get them arguing with one another.
• Doomsday: paint an overly black picture.
• Double agent: Get one of their people on your side.
• Dry well: Show you've nothing left to exchange.