If you were to think of relationship-based negotiation as a living organism, the first two steps of the GRASP method, Goals and Routes, would be the brain: the focus of your creative energy. The next two steps, Arguments and Substitutes, are the muscles: they strengthen and support you, preventing you from falling. The final step, Persuasion, is the heart of negotiation: the emotional core that connects you to the other party. Persuasion, in short, reaches out from your goals to theirs.
Persuasion, the art of winning someone over, is the easiest step in the GRASP method to define. Unfortunately, it's the hardest to master. First, it requires that you focus the conversation toward the interests of the other party, which goes against our natural tendency to perceive the world from our own viewpoint. Second, it obliges you to adopt a more positive way of speaking than comes naturally in a disagreement, when you are feeling self-protective, especially if the other party is glowering at you. Third, despite the generally held view that convincing someone means "talking him into it," good persuading balances speaking, questioning, and listening. Most fundamentally, persuasion entails creating an atmosphere that leads the other party to want to cooperate with you.
It's a big challenge to go from planning in isolation to interacting with other people. When there are two or more parties involved, it's no longer enough to justify why you deserve something. You need to show other parties what's in it for them. It's not even enough to demonstrate how they might benefit materially; you need to earn their trust that those benefits will actually materialize. And you have to create enough goodwill to make them agreeable to sharing the benefits with you. Ultimately, no matter how compelling you feel your position to be, it will gain you nothing unless you can persuade the other party.
A while back I conducted a negotiation workshop at one of the leading European business schools. The centerpiece of the event was a trio of extemporaneous role plays. While the first two concerned business and career issues, the third was a domestic negotiation between a wife who felt she was taking on too much of the burden of housework and a husband who wanted to maintain the status quo. Both parts were played by volunteers from the audience.
The negotiation started off badly and went downhill from there. The "husband" was sitting casually in a chair onstage when the "wife" walked in and challenged, "Do you think the division of housework between us is fair?"
His face recorded shocked surprise, quickly followed by defensiveness at the implied charge that he was unfair. Given the choice of either admitting that he was behaving selfishly or denying the idea altogether, the husband said what virtually anyone put into that corner would say: "Yeah. Pretty fair."
The wife rolled her eyes visibly enough to be seen from the back rows of the auditorium. "How can you call it fair?" she charged. "I have a job that's as demanding as yours. Yet when I come home, I am the one who cleans the house. I make dinner. I do the shopping. I help our daughter with her homework..." And on it went, a litany of "I, I, I," until at the end she said, "And I want to know what YOU intend to do about it."
The husband looked back at her with a mixture of defiance and feigned boredom. "Why are you asking me? I'm not the one with the problem," he replied, at which point the wife became so genuinely angry that I had to call an end to the role play. (Clearly this was hitting a nerve in the real life of the woman playing the wife, which is probably why she had eagerly volunteered for the role play.)
Once things calmed down enough to discuss what we had seen, a member of the audience asked the woman why she hadn't made any effort to show the husband how it would benefit him to free her from some of the domestic burden. Still seething, the role player glared back at the questioner, hands on hips. "I'm already doing all the housework," she snapped. "Do I have to think for him, too?"
The answer is no, she didn't have to think for him; but if her goal had been to persuade him to take ownership of the problem and work with her in finding a solution, she had to think about him, to show that she had his interests in mind as well as her own. And if she wanted his help in crafting a joint agreement that he would carry out willingly, she had to think with him. If the only result she was after was to get all of her resentment off her chest and to let the husband know that she thought he was a selfish jerk, her approach was fine. However, had she continued along the same me-oriented, blaming vein, it would never have led to agreement, much less to mutual gain or an enhanced relationship. When was the last time you were persuaded by someone attacking you?
Let's look at a more other-centered approach. First, the wife could have begun by asking the role-play husband if now was a good time to talk. This is not a question of power, but of sensibility. We must never assume that just because we're ready to make our case, others are ready to receive it. They may be in the middle of something they don't want to interrupt. If we force them to pay reluctant attention to our concern, they will be distracted or irritated, certainly not positively focused on resolving our issue. Or they may be the sort of people who need time to think about an issue before discussing it and will clam up if verbally ambushed. In either case, asking first sets a positive tone and, not insignificantly, starts the negotiation off with a yes.
The wife might then have opened with something like, "I know I haven't been very fun to live with lately. I always seem to be too busy or tired to enjoy a glass of wine with you in the evenings and laugh about our day, like we used to. I feel like I have no time for us." She is helping him to see how what heretofore had been an issue that bothered only her also affects him. Once they agree that they have a mutual interest in solving the problem of the overworked wife, they can move to a nonblaming discussion of what actions they each might take to balance the housework.
The sample opening I suggested above is not intended to be manipulative or insincere. Rather, the point is for her to start out by focusing on where she and her husband's interests align rather than where they conflict. She would also be describing the issue impartially as opposed to casting blame. And she would be empathizing with his perspective. Are impartiality and empathy insincere?
The husband/wife example underscores the difference between arguments and persuasion. Arguments justify your position: "I do X amount of housework per week while you only do Y amount." Persuasion focuses on why the other party should take action: "I am too tired to do anything at night but sleep." To put it in the commercial context described at the beginning of Chapter Nine, arguments establish why the selling price of $200 for a hand-knit sweater is fair; persuasion centers on how you would benefit from owning it.
Most negotiators seem to be better at arguments than persuasion. They are happy to give a list of all the reasons why they feel they deserve something, but will put it in such a self-centered way that the other party can't understand what it has to do with him or her. "I'll need early payment on this because I have a lot of expenses coming up." Or "We need to move up the due dates on this project because I'm going to be taking a ski trip the week before the presentation." Neither one of these examples connects at all with the other party.
I believe that this failure to connect to others was behind Paris's loss to London in its bid for the 2012 Olympics. Going into the final round, Paris was the clear front-runner, holding a perfect score. Both France and the United Kingdom sent their highest officials to push for the deal. In the end, the London team proved more persuasive. Let's look at how the focus of the two pitches differed.
The culmination of Paris mayor Bertrand Delanoe's presentation was, "Paris needs the Games. Paris wants the Games. Paris loves the Games." President Jacques Chirac added, "The heart of Paris and the heart of France are beating in unison in the hope of becoming Olympic ground in 2012." Whom are these speeches about? Paris, and the French.
Representing London, Lord Sebastian Coe, the British Olympic gold medalist, told how he was inspired to become a runner because of seeing the Olympics on TV as a child. "Thirty-five years later, I stand before you still inspired by the Olympic movement," he said. "London's vision is to reach people, young people, all around the world and connect them with the power of the Games." Coe's speech was about the Olympic movement and its ability to inspire people around the world.
Another common mistake is to try to persuade another party based on reasons you assume matter to them purely because they matter to you: like the mobile phone salesman who tried to get me to upgrade to a more expensive handset because it could download games, videos, music, and little cartoon creatures. How much more time-efficient would his sale have been if he had started by asking me what I care about?
The failure to connect was brought home vividly in a presentation I observed in which a large and well-established but financially struggling Korean manufacturing company sought to persuade an American investment group to acquire a significant portion of its business. The Koreans spoke proudly of the company's market share, rapid expansion, production capacity, and massive network of satellite companies—all of which are signs of success in the Korean conglomerate-based business system. The Americans, however, were concerned with profitability and debt. What is the value of market share if you get it by dropping your prices so low that you lose money with every sale? they asked. What is the value of rapid expansion if you base it on crippling debt? The Koreans were totally unprepared for these questions, having assumed that the buyer's interests were the same as their own. Instead, the Korean company's persuasion points were seen by the American investors as liabilities. The talks never got beyond the first stage.
A more successful example comes from a participant in one of my training programs, José, who persuaded his neighbor, an elderly woman, to chop down a dying tree on her property. Before taking the course, José had raised the issue with the neighbor but had gotten nowhere because he had spoken only about his own concerns. As he recounted the story to the class, "I told her that I was worried that the tree was rotten and could fall on my garage in the next big wind," he recalled. "She refused to have it cut down. So I told her I would pay half the cost of cutting it down. She still wasn't interested. Heck, she even rejected my offer to pay for the whole thing! I give up. There are some people you just can't negotiate with!"
I recommended that he give it another try. His neighbor was probably neither irrational nor pigheaded. José had simply failed to persuade her because he hadn't shown her what was in it for her. He had opened by focusing on his personal concerns over a potential (unproven) risk to his garage. When the neighbor showed no interest in that, he had made the false presumption that her reluctance was about cost. When his offers to foot the bill didn't move her, he wrote her off as irrational. But her refusal of his offers didn't mean she was irrational, only that he wasn't speaking to her goals. Instead of guessing what her concerns might be, I advised, he needed to ask her why she didn't want to remove the tree.
A couple of weeks later I got an excited call from José telling me that he had resolved the issue. He'd gone over to talk to the neighbor just to talk—not to talk her into something—and had learned that she'd lived in that house since she was a child. She recalled how she had grown up swinging from that tree, how her children had climbed it, and how her grandchildren were now talking about building a tree house. She saw no reason to cut down a perfectly healthy tree just because it was getting on in years!
"You're right," José said. "Perhaps I jumped to conclusions in assuming that the tree is unsafe. But if it is sick and in danger of falling, you sure wouldn't want your grandchildren playing on it." Only then did he have her positive interest in the issue. "I'll tell you what," he suggested. "Why don't I arrange for a tree specialist to come out and determine the health of the tree? If it's fine, I'll admit I was wrong and do penance for taking up your time by helping build that tree house. If they say it's dangerous, though, would you agree to have it removed?" She accepted gladly.
Here are some examples of how you can rephrase your words to speak to the interests of the other party. (Every statement in the left column is something I have actually heard.)
Table 11.1. Me-Centered Versus Other-Centered Speech
Me-Centered | Other-Centered |
|---|---|
I'd like to get through this meeting as quickly as possible. | I don't want to take up too much of your time, so I'll be as brief as possible. |
Because our recent renovation reduced the number of rooms from 400 to 350, we have to charge more for each unit. | In our recent renovation we expanded the size of our rooms by 15 percent. The increased square footage does mean a slightly higher price. |
You'll need to get me the material at least two weeks in advance. | Customizing everything to your specifications will take two weeks. Can we agree on a due date of the 15th for the material? |
There's no way I'll accept clause 13. You have to delete it. | My concern with clause 13 is X. Help me to understand why you've included it, then we can work together to craft some language that satisfies both of our concerns. |
A chief attribute of this house is that it's in one of the best school districts. | Do you have children? |
Finally, you must be negotiating with someone who actually has something to gain from coming to terms with you. There is no point trying to talk a sales clerk into refunding your purchase after the return deadline if that employee only risks getting in trouble for doing so. You can threaten staff all you want with the loss of your business; their interest is in keeping their jobs. Instead, you need to speak to a manager, as he or she will have a more personal stake in retaining you as a customer and promoting good public relations. Similarly, if the other party has no authority to agree to changes from a preestablished position (for example, a midlevel bureaucrat or almost anyone below the most senior management in hierarchical countries), any attempt to lure concessions out of them is wasted. Your goal instead should be to gain their goodwill and understanding, in the hope that they will pass on a message that will persuade the people who are empowered to make decisions.
There is no doubt that showing appreciation and respect for one another helps people work together or that creating a positive atmosphere leads to positive results. Here are some other ways to set a positive tone.
Say, "Yes, if..."
"Yes," even with a qualifying "if" attached, creates a more cooperative mood than "No" or "No, but..." Imagine you were planning to buy four tickets to a show and asked the clerk at the box office whether you could get a group discount. Which response from the ticket seller would make you feel more motivated to buy a fifth ticket?
"No discounts without a minimum purchase of five tickets."
or
"Yes, we have a group discount if you buy five or more tickets. Do you think you could find one other person who would like to join you?"
Both say the same thing, but one says it so much more positively.
Have you ever noticed how much people enjoy telling you what you can't have? Unfortunately, their momentary pleasure is gained by souring your mood. "If we don't get your agreement by this Friday, we can no longer guarantee these terms" is just a negative and, frankly, irritating way of saying, "We can guarantee these terms for you until Friday."
I once had a client walk out of a sales negotiation when the buyer said, "If you can't increase our allotment this year, we'll have to cut you from our brochure." Later I replayed the incident and asked the client if he thought the buyer's position was unreasonable. He replied that in principle, he understood that retailers needed to secure sufficient stock before launching promotions. "I just didn't like the way he threatened me," he said. "Why couldn't he just have said something like, 'We're working hard to keep you in our brochure?'" It was a fair question.
In negotiating disputes, clients will typically issue instructions along the lines of, "Tell those bums that there's no way they're getting a quarter of the demands on this list!" Assuming that the goal of the negotiation is to get a resolution, not a walkout, I will rephrase the message to something like, "Obviously we want to reach an agreement that's fair to both sides, so let's go through this list and see what's possible." A dispute will still involve plenty of disagreement, but a constructive approach is more likely to nudge the parties toward solutions.
In a lengthy negotiation, you will create forward momentum if you periodically remind the other side of the agreements you have reached and the progress that you have made together so far. Here are a few examples of how to show progress in a positive way:
"We've agreed on the scope of the report, the structure, and the time line. All that's left is to divide the responsibilities."
"We've crossed the most important hurdle. We're all in agreement that we want to reach a negotiated settlement. Now we've just got to hammer out the details."
"Great! We've now settled five out of the twelve issues we had on the agenda. Almost halfway there!"
Another important tip for building a sense of momentum in a lengthy or difficult negotiation is to start out by reaching a few small agreements early on rather than going straight to the most contentious issues, which are sure to bog everything down. If your negotiation does get bogged down, you might try the following method for keeping things positive, told to me by a senior diplomat: "In a difficult, drawn-out negotiation, where there may be no tangible outcome for weeks, I'll display any sign of movement publicly, both to show progress and to prevent backtracking. For example, if one country's delegate says, 'We're not 100 percent insisting on this, but we would strongly prefer...' I will immediately highlight their willingness to consider other options and thank them for their flexibility. It gives them face rather than making them feel they've given in."
As every Monday-morning quarterback knows, it's easy—and fun—to criticize. However, within a negotiation, criticism just obstructs the search for a solution. Not only do you need to avoid criticizing, but sometimes you have to nudge the other party in a more productive direction. Rephrasing their language from negative to affirmative can help.
Imagine the other party says, "I won't agree to this." The reactive reply would be to stay on the negative by asking, "What don't you like about it?" However, that question is sure to set off a litany of criticisms and may even harden their opposition as they take full advantage of the invitation to tear apart your proposal. Instead, you can turn their thoughts in a more productive direction by asking, "What would you agree to?" In many cases, they will actually come up with something that is not too far from what you had proposed.
Another effective language change was mentioned earlier: moving from "either/or" to "both/and." We have a natural tendency to narrow arguments down to an all-or-nothing choice: either we do it your way or mine. Take, for example, this negotiation between division heads over which new computer system to purchase. An either/or question would be, "Shall we adopt the full-service system that the IT division is advocating or go for the less expensive system that Purchasing has proposed?" By putting the issue in either/or terms, the stage has been set for battle. Even if agreement can be reached, the end result will be one winner (either IT or Purchasing) and two losers (the second loser being the company, which will end up with a system that doesn't address all of its interests).
Now let's turn this into a both/and proposition. "IT has emphasized the importance of after-sales service. While Purchasing shares that interest, they are primarily concerned with budgetary constraints. So let's set our goal at finding a solution that maximizes both service and affordability." Switching from either/or to both/and encourages the parties not merely to be more positive but also to deal with the whole range of issues, rather than focusing only on their pet concerns.
Finally, instead of asking whether other parties have a problem with an idea that has been raised or a solution that has been suggested (which invites people to think about problems), ask whether they feel the proposal would help achieve their goals. If they reply along the lines of "Not really," don't take it as a complete rejection. Instead, ask them what they would add or subtract to the proposal to make it more effective. The effect in most cases will be to move naysayers from blanket condemnation, which shuts down discussion, to expressing agreement with at least some aspect of the proposal, which you can then build on.
Sometimes you will meet a negotiator who hasn't yet learned the power of positive language. Sadly, there are people who try to get their way through shouting, cursing, or intentionally insulting you. If the other party becomes verbally abusive, you will need to stop their intimidating tactics in order to return the negotiation to a productive path.
Although standing up to abuse can be especially difficult for appeasers, withdrawers, and splitters (see descriptions in Chapter Four), the failure to do so will make you a target for further victimization. Bears thrive on rattling people. For forcers, the danger is that you will get sucked into a reactive cycle, losing sight of your negotiation goals. Therefore, if you do encounter a bully, instead of lashing back, getting visibly upset, or suffering in quiet misery, try one of the methods for nipping the behavior in the bud. All are effective. Choose the one that works best with your personality:
Laugh it off.Rather than escalate threats by getting angry, try breaking the tension by treating threats as nothing more than a good try. "Come on, Sam," I heard one lawyer chuckle good-naturedly to a colleague who had just smacked him with a take-it-or-leave-it demand. "How many clients would I have if I accepted deals like that?" Moments later they were back on friendly terms.
Wait for the tirade to pass.If you don't react to an emotional outburst, eventually the yeller will realize that he or she is the only person in the room out of control and will usually wind down sheepishly. Don't cower; just wait calmly, maintaining eye contact if possible. Once the other party has quieted, you can return to the discussion from the point it left off before the eruption.
Take time out.When emotions start to boil over, ask the other party if this is a good time for a break. Be careful, however, that this doesn't come across as condescending. "Should we take a break?" will always be more effective than "Do you need a break?"
Ask the other party to stop.If someone uses offensive language (racist or sexist slurs, shouting, excessive swearing), you need to recognize it and stop it. It's imperative that you don't get emotional yourself when doing this, however, or things may go from bad to worse. Tell the offender in a calm voice that such language is both unnecessary and unproductive, remind all parties of the purpose of the talks, then ask whether everyone will agree to keep the discussion courteous. People will feel bound more to keep an agreement they have made of their own accord than to obey your commands. Moreover, you will have just turned an attack into an agreement!
In Chapter Nine, I brought up the importance of asking questions as a means of challenging arguments. Asking and listening are also critical persuasion skills. All people like to be asked their opinions, and they love being listened to. When they feel you are truly listening to them, they become more receptive to your opinions in turn. Moreover, in the process of talking, they give you a rare firsthand glimpse into how they see the world.
No matter how much planning you do, when it comes to identifying the other side's goals, you necessarily will rely on assumptions. They may be educated guesses, but they are still guesses. Only by getting people to talk do you have a source of information right from the horse's mouth. If by listening to the other party you learn that you were largely right about their concerns, then you can proceed with greater confidence. If you learn that you made some false guesses, you now have the information you need to correct your approach and possibly come up with some new routes. In either case, the more you know about your counterpart's goals and attitudes, the more persuasive you can be.
Many people confuse persuasion with a sales pitch. In fact, lengthy monologues on why the target party should do what you want are most effective at creating resistance. "Winning someone over" is rarely accomplished by beating them over the head. You win someone over by respecting them enough to listen to them, by genuinely trying to understand them, by showing how what you are offering fulfills their expressed desires, and by alleviating their concerns. If you find yourself talking on and on while the listener hasn't said a word, chances are they've turned off. It's time for you to stop the onslaught and ask them about their priorities, concerns, and opinions.
It's impossible to overemphasize the importance of getting the other party to open up. Admittedly, it can be difficult listening to some people talk, especially if they speak at a much slower pace than you or tend to veer from the point. Still, you must resist the temptation to hurry them along. People who speak in a roundabout way most likely think in a roundabout way, and attempting to control the flow of their thoughts will only confuse them or shut them off. Just be patient; they will get there. (Take notes if it will help you keep things straight.) If they seem to drone on or flood you with details, don't cut them off or let your mind wander. Listen hard, because they're giving you a gold mine of information. Even if they're complaining, they are telling you what is important to them. As they talk, they may give you something you can grab on to to use as an opening to an agreement. But you will only catch it if you are listening.
Successful communication requires flexibility. We all have preferences as to how we like to interact with others, to receive and process information, and to make decisions. Those preferences can vary dramatically from person to person. However, variances don't need to be a bar to effective communication. My husband and I have radically different communication and decision-making styles. I am direct and outspoken, while Joe is indirect and restrained. I tend to make quick decisions, while he likes to mull things over. I hate putting things off; he hates to be rushed. Yet we have remained happily married for over thirty years and through untold negotiations. How? By adapting to each other's style.
I have learned, for example, that I will only create resistance by pushing Joe to make decisions at my pace. So I build in more time. He has learned that I don't always pick up his subtle signals. So when something is important, he will speak to me more directly than he is naturally inclined to do. Neither of us is being phony. We are merely recognizing that there is more than one way to say something and that while my way of expressing things may be the most natural for me, it is not the most comfortable for Joe, and vice versa. Our goal is to express ourselves in the way the other can best hear it.
Adaptation begins with self-awareness. There are many good books, tests, and internet sites on personality types, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and DISC Assessment. These and other individual measurement tools can give you important insight into your behavioral, communication, and decision-making styles. By showing you how you are distinct, they also indirectly raise your awareness of how others are different from you. Every negotiator would benefit from taking a personality self-analysis at some point.
However, self-awareness alone will not make you persuasive. To win someone over, you need to be other-aware, so that you can adapt to their style. Although unfortunately you can't make your counterpart take a personality test before you negotiate, uncovering another person's preferences is surprisingly easy. People are constantly giving signs to indicate how they want to be treated. Once you spot these signs, all you need to do is to adjust your style to match their preference.
In negotiation, the five most important communication categories to watch for are
Fact-oriented versus people-oriented: Do they get straight to business, stay on the issues, and speak in unadorned language ("The outputs need to be clearer")—or do they start out with friendly small talk and pepper their conversation with personal asides, humor, or polite, positive phrases ("Please," "Thank you," "This is a good proposal, but do you think we could be a bit clearer on the outputs?")? When they describe issues, do they stick to the relevant facts—or do they put them in a larger context (tell a story)?
Direct versus indirect: Do they openly, assertively, and unambiguously express their thoughts and opinions ("There's no way we can have that ready by that date")—or are they more quiet, cautious, and circuitous ("Okay. We can certainly aim for that date. It should be possible. There may be some difficulties, but we will do our best.")?
Big-picture–oriented versus detail-oriented: Do they prefer bullet points and brief data, with a focus on action and consequences—or do they like as much background and procedural information as possible, with a focus on understanding causation?
Fast-paced versus slow-paced: Do they talk rapidly, interrupt, and make and push for quick decisions—or do they take their time, pause before speaking, show a good deal of patience, but clam up when rushed?
Achievement-driven versus risk-averse: Do they get excited by opportunities and potential success—or do they respond cautiously and show concern over what could go wrong?
Don't worry if you can't identify your counterparts' preferences in every one of these categories. As soon as you have identified even one or two preferences, you will greatly increase your persuasiveness if you model the same style in communicating with them. The following chart offers tips on how to work with different types of communicators.
Table 11.2. Key Communication Categories
If they are... | Fact-oriented | People-oriented |
|---|---|---|
You should... | ,
|
|
If they are... | Direct | Indirect |
You should... |
|
|
If they are... | Big picture–oriented | Detail-oriented |
You should... |
|
|
If they are... | Fast-paced | Slow-paced |
You should... |
|
|
If they are... | Achievement-driven | Risk-averse |
You should... |
|
|
The Empire Hotel's rate negotiation with Company B was now in its final stage. The bear had retreated, handing over the role of negotiator to the local procurement agent. All of that was good news for the hotel management, which had worked hard to develop a more friendly relationship with the procurement head and her staff, an effort that had proved so successful that Company B's procurement team had ranked the hotel as their favorite in the five-star category.
Nevertheless, the Empire's sales director couldn't assume that the procurement head would simply acquiesce to the new rates. Preparing for this final round with the new negotiator, she asked herself, "What's in this negotiation for her?" The sales director understood that Company B's procurement head was under tremendous pressure to prove herself as a negotiator by getting some sort of discount. However, since the company had already failed to get a major price cut, the new negotiator's ambitions would almost certainly be more humble than her predecessor's. The hotel's biggest advantage would be that while the new negotiator had to consider price, her personal interests as procurement head were more about quality and relationship.
In preparing for the meeting, the sales director planned her opening words carefully. She would start by congratulating the procurement head on her new assignment and stress how much she and the Empire management looked forward to working together with her. She would emphasize that although there were a few matters to be ironed out, she foresaw a quick and successful outcome. Once the friendly tone had been set, the negotiation gotten under way, and the sales director had explained the reasons for the rate increase, she asked Company B's negotiator what her concerns were. The procurement head replied frankly that she understood and even accepted the hotel's reasons for raising the rates, but she had to get some sort of discount or she would be viewed as having failed in her first assignment. The sales director empathized, saying that she was under the same sort of pressure herself. "So what can we offer you that would give you the discount you need, while still allowing me to get the rate my general manager has set for the next contract?" she mused.
Putting their heads together, they came up with a win-win solution. The sales director proposed the idea (developed earlier with her general manager) of offering Company B a special discounted rate in the low season. Because the hotel catered primarily to business customers, it had two high seasons (mid-January to May and mid-September to November) and a five-month low season, when corporate business dropped off by as much as half. If the hotel offered Company B a dual rate—the regular 32 percent increase in the high season but a smaller increase, say 20 percent, in the low seasons—the procurement head could claim that she had won a reduction of the average yearly rate increase to 27 percent (a 15 percent discount from the original 32 percent across-the-board increase). The sales director justified the lower off-season rate as an incentive to attract business during periods of low occupancy. The procurement head was persuaded but asked for a few days to discuss the revised offer with her management and to go over with them the arguments the hotel had compiled to explain the rate increase. Two days later she called to say that they would sign the contract.
So which party won? Both did. The procurement head got her psychological victory, while the hotel kept its biggest customer and got the full 32 percent increase in the period that principally affected its bottom line. Moreover, both parties emerged with an even stronger and more supportive business relationship, which would bring them mutual financial benefits during the life of the contract, starting with increased hotel bookings for rooms and conferences by Company B.
Yet, perhaps the happiest party was the formerly downtrodden sales director, who had once seen no winning choice between giving in to a bully or having her hotel dropped by its major customer once again. "We did it!" she cheered, her voice a mixture of pride and relief. "After this, no more feeding bears!"
Remember, negotiation is an attempt to resolve conflict, to reach a mutual agreement now, and to work together tomorrow. It isn't a war. You will always benefit by showing respect to the other side. Even when you disagree, you can be empathetic. Even when you're drawing a line, you can be polite. And it never hurts to express regret when you have to walk away.
You will stand a far higher chance of reaching a favorable resolution if you always give others the benefit of the "3 A's" described in Chapter Three:
Admiration—showing respect for who they are
Affiliation—approaching them as partners, colleagues, or friends
Acknowledgment—appreciating the value of their thoughts, feelings, or actions
In the timeless words of Abraham Lincoln,
When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind, unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and a true maxim, that a "drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall." So with men. If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend....
On the contrary, assume to dictate to his judgment, or to command his action, or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart; and though your cause be naked truth itself, ...you shall no more be able to pierce him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a rye straw.[26]
Read Lincoln's words closely. He did not advocate posing as a friend. He said, "convince him that you are his sincere friend." While positive, respectful, and empathetic communication is a central part of persuasion, it must be matched by positive, trustworthy, and relationship-oriented behavior. Being pleasant is critical, but a relationship depends on more than nice words. Words have to be sincere. Promises have to be fulfilled. And the outcome has to be just.