Know Your Challenges.  

Part of your preparation is to take stock of your strengths and figure out ways to make them visible. But just as critical is focusing on areas of vulnerability, since these are likely to come up as moves. For example, when Charlotte (chapter 2) puts herself forward for the vice president role, she can be pretty sure that the CEO will raise her inexperience as an issue. It may come out as a move: “You don't have the experience to do this job.” Or he may ask why he should put her in the role when he can hire somebody more experienced from the outside. Since Charlotte can be sure these questions and challenges will come up, she needs to be prepared to deal with them.

Know What You Know about the Person You Are Dealing With.  

As we know, one of the characteristics that distinguish n-negotiations from N-negotiations is that you're likely to have some relationship with the other person in the former. You know this person's style and how she responds to different kinds of requests. You know what might make her defensive and push her to employ a strategic move that might put you on the defensive. It's something of a problem that despite Charlotte's doing the VP job in addition to her own, the CEO does not like criticism. To surface the suggestion that he's been overlooking her—indeed, is taking advantage of her—might be met with push-back.

Rosalie knows the associate director and how he deals with her in performance reviews. She wants the session to focus on what she's accomplished and not on her problems—which has been her experience in the past. She also knows that she can expect him to downplay her accomplishments in getting the grant and in the acceptance of her paper. She has a pretty good idea about the kinds of strategic moves he'll make, so she can come prepared to deal with them.

Know the Other Person's “Good Reasons” for Saying No.  

As part of the preparation to be mindful of the other person that we discussed in chapter 3, we cited how important it is to discern their good reasons for saying no to you. If you understand these reasons, you can expect them to come up as strategic moves in the negotiation. Cheryl was pretty clear about the reasons the CFO could use to say no to her. He would be afraid the proposal would not work and would likely demean her idea. Because he is relatively new to his position, he might appeal for sympathy and ask her to postpone her plan. He might worry that she lacked the expertise to pull off the role in such a complicated manner. Since Cheryl had prepared for these reasons, she was ready with ideas to meet them. By going through the process of delineating them, she was also preparing herself for his push-back. Likewise, Rosalie has a good sense of why the associate director would say no. Simply raising the issue that the entire junior research staff were not being sponsored to attend important conferences is an effort on her part to change the status quo, so she can expect such a move to meet resistance. And given her experience with the associate director, she should be pretty sure about the forms the resistance might take.

Preparing for the possibility of the difficult question or strategic moves is important for building your confidence going into the negotiation. Having a map of what to expect takes some of the uncertainty out of a negotiation that means a lot to you. Even if the moves never happen, at least in preparing for them, you're likely to provide a reservoir of strength going into the negotiation—which gives you a way to plan for your responses with what we call turns.¹⁶

Interruption.  

When you interrupt a move, the mere fact of doing so breaks the action of a move. People often misunderstand this definition and assume it means to cut off somebody who is talking. Instead, this kind of interruption means creating a break in the action, which does three things. First, it introduces a pause, which gives you a chance to collect your thoughts so that you don't make an unproductive countermove without thinking. Second, even the shortest break can reset the conversation; you never return to exactly the same place afterward. Third, research suggests that many negotiations actually benefit from some form of interruption. When negotiators who were concerned for both themselves and the other took a break, even as short as three minutes, they engaged in more cooperative negotiations—and also reached more agreements—afterward.¹⁸

Interruptions can take many forms. They can be a pause. You can sit silent for a minute or less. You can stand up, get a cup of coffee, or take a restroom break. A break of any length changes the dynamic. When Cheryl introduced her plan to negotiate a different work schedule, she knew the chief financial officer (CFO) would reject the idea out of hand. So she let him vent, then sat silent. Research has shown that most people are uncomfortable with silence and often feel the need to cover up awkward silences.¹⁹ This was true for Cheryl's CFO, who felt the need to fill in the empty space. Realizing that his strategic move did not have its intended effect (she had predicted and planned for it), he asked her how she planned to handle the complications a different office arrangement would entail. She was prepared for that.

Interruptions can also last longer. Taken by surprise at the reaction to an idea or even shocked by a threat or insult, rescheduling a meeting might be the best course. Charlene Barshefsky, from the chapter's opening, used an interruption beautifully—pausing thirty to forty seconds to defuse the take-it-or-leave-it threat. Then she indicated that she was going to take a break to think through the offer. You cannot always be totally prepared for a strategic move that undercuts your plan and potentially puts you on the defensive. In those circumstances, interruption is an important move on your part. When you are in a defensive mode, you defend. Interruption makes that much less likely.

Naming.  

To name a move makes it clear that you recognize the purpose behind what's being said. Naming can take many forms, but its major purpose is to show clearly that you recognize the tactic. You can name by using humor or irony. Our favorite example comes from professor and editor Silvia Gherardi. After returning from a conference, one of her senior male colleagues went to open the door for her, then paused. “Do you want me to open the door for you,” he asked, “or will you react as if I'd grabbed your arse?” Gherardi observes that she was put in a position of being perceived as either a hysterical feminist or a sweet and docile lady who knew her place in academia, as well as society. “I decided on sarcasm and told him emphatically that I formally authorized him to open that door and all the other doors and obstacles that might stand in my way.”²⁰

You can name a move by revealing its ineffectiveness or showing that it has unintended consequences. When you name in this kind of way, you need to be careful that you do not blame the other person. Indeed, you try to supply a reasonable motive to his move. When the associate director tells Rosalie that she is not ready to attend the international conferences, she could say, “The way I see people getting ready is by actually preparing and going to the con­ferences.” By naming the move in that way, she tries to open up the possibility that he will rethink and give her the opportunity. Charlene Barshefsky named the move by insinuating that the Chinese negotiator could not have been serious about the threat because the outcome was not what he would want. In naming it, she provided a good intention for him.

Another way to name a turn is to highlight a move's inappropriateness in a way that reinterprets the intention behind the move in a positive way. The Introduction told the story of Alicia, who wants to negotiate with the vice chairman of her company for a position as regional vice president of sales. During the negotiation, the vice chairman is likely to question her ability to do the job because of her family responsibilities. As Jim Sebenius suggests in his discussion of difficult questions, you can respond to what is an inappropriate question—or, in our context, a strategic move—by addressing the concern without explicitly mentioning its inappropriateness.²¹ Alicia might say, “Although how I handle my family is a private matter, I think your comment implies that you are concerned about my ability to devote the time to the new role. I can assure you that I have always managed the commitments in my jobs and would continue to do so in this one.” Statements like, “As you and I both know…,” or “If this were true, I would be uncomfortable,” allow you to name the move and set it up for a turn.

Questioning.  

When you question a move, you are in essence throwing it back to the mover. As with naming, you recognize the move as a possible tactic. But in questioning the move, you take a more inquiring stance. The most benign reason for questioning a move is simply to gather more information. When the CFO raises multiple objections to Cheryl's plan as something that will not work (in chapter 3), indicating that she has not thought through what she's proposing, Cheryl can use inquiry to solicit more information about his objections. She can ask, “What really concerns you? Which of the issues is most critical?” Her questions allow her to discover that he was really concerned that she would tire of an arrangement. By questioning the strategic move, she learns more about what is critically important to him.

You can use a questioning turn as a means to pressure the other person to justify a demeaning assertion he may have made. Rosalie opens the negotiation by asking the associate director whether he's read the summary she prepared about what she has accomplished this year. In a move that challenges her accomplishments, he says that he only got a chance to skim it, but it looks like an average year. Of course, Rosalie is set back on her heels because this opening was her attempt to make her value visible. In a questioning turn, she could ask him to justify his assertion: “How would you define an excellent year?” What she might learn from that question was that he hadn't thought about his response to such a question and had only a vague answer—which would make Rosalie feel that she was back in the negotiation.

Questioning turns can help other parties see beyond their own perspectives and actions. This turn, which basically asks the other party what she would do in your situation, is often a subtle way to call a bluff. For example, in Charlotte's situation (chapter 2), the CEO tries to diminish her accomplishments—in bringing in a new client, he said, she just closed a deal already in the pipeline—as a way to get her to back off her proposal to be appointed to the vice president's role. When she asks him what he would do if he were in her situation, she effectively silences him because he knows he would do precisely what Charlotte is doing. Similarly, when Rosalie gets rattled as the associate director diminishes her accomplishments, he tells her not to overreact. She too asks him how he would respond if the tables were turned. These kinds of turns can give the other person pause and change the direction of the conversation.

Correcting.  

A correcting turn substitutes a different version or motivation to the one the move has implied. These turns suggest different ways of seeing things. Moves often imply criticism or some ways you or your ideas are lacking, and dispute the merits of your positions or options. They make you wonder whether the way the other party sees the situation is actually reasonable. Maybe your proposal is not so good after all. With the budget so tight, maybe you are being greedy. Correcting turns bring these distorted impressions back into focus. You can correct an impression by providing a positive version of the situation. When the CEO tells Charlotte that she only closed a deal that was already in the pipeline, she can correct that move: “Let me tell you what I did to get the client and how I was able to close the deal, which was not at all a sure thing.” When the associate director suggests that the success Rosalie has had in getting her work published is not a major accomplishment, she could correct the move by providing data on acceptance rates for the journal.

You can correct a move by providing a different, more legitimate motive to your actions than has been implied by the strategic move. When Marisa entered into negotiations with the regional managing partner in chapter 1, she had a long list of both financial and organizational issues to be resolved. After all, taking the position in the Southeast was going to be a major disruption for her. Even though Alice, the regional managing partner, very much wanted her to take the role, she was not happy with some of the demands Marisa was making. “You are focused only on yourself, not accounting for the firm's situation. If I give you what you're asking, it will create a real problem for me going forward.” Alice's move was intended in part to lower Marisa's aspirations. Marisa provided context for her ask: her concerns about leaving her community of support, the compensation she would need to move to a high-priced area, the resources she would need to build up the declining business. By elaborating on her motivation through her correcting turn, she provided more information to the partner.

Finally, you can use correcting turns to counter stereotype moves. We often make assumptions based on people's gender, race, background, or function. When these assumptions enter the negotiation as a strategic move, they can put the person in a very difficult situation—because to correct it can make salient a certain bias behind the move. In Tempered Radicals, Debra Meyerson uses the example of a female executive responding to her colleagues' plan for an evening meeting.²² In making a correcting turn, the execu­tive would point out that she has other responsibilities that cannot easily change without notice. By doing this, she subtly questions her colleagues' assumption that people should be available for work 24/7.

Correcting turns can be tricky to implement because they can often come across as a defensive countermove. Meyerson suggests that people may perceive correcting turns as confrontational when they're used to counter stereotypes, as in the example. When we discuss moves and turns, people often mention correcting turns. It is almost the most accessible comeback to a move. When someone says, “Don't get upset,” our immediate comeback is to reply we are not upset. While that is a correcting turn in some ways—because it corrects a perception—it does not function as a turn because it doesn't change or reframe the dynamic.

Diverting.  

A diverting turn shifts the focus to the problem itself; therefore, it is a way to depersonalize a move. In that regard, it echoes a well-known dictum from Getting to Yes: focus on the problem, not the people.²³ One diverting turn is simply to substitute a better idea. If you've prepared by thinking through multiple options, you can divert a turn by introducing one that has not yet been discussed. When Alexandra (chapter 5) prepared for her meeting with her boss to discuss the ask that she take on a temporary role and give up the leadership role in her current project, she both flattered her—“You are so good at picking up new roles and doing them”—and appealed for sympathy. She diverted the move by proposing some other workable solutions.

Focusing on the Future.  

Another way to turn a move is to shift the focus to the future. You may acknowledge the past and admit a mistake or a problem, but then move past it to the current problem. Recall that Mia, earlier in this chapter, got a push-back when she requested more resources to deal with the backlog of audits. Her boss challenged her as to why she kept coming back for more resources. To use a diverting turn, Mia could acknowledge that she had failed to forecast the need for auditors accurately or that business grew more rapidly than expected. By owning the problem, she can then divert the move to talk about the current problem. “I underestimated our needs, and I apologize for that. But in the current environment, we run risks if we don't devote more resources to building up our auditing capacity.” She can then put forth her proposals for how to deploy the needed resource.

Finally, you can divert a move that is personal and shift it to the problem by reminding a person of your contributions. When the CFO challenged whether Cheryl would be able to keep up the pace of multiple offices (a veiled allusion to her age), she suggested that they focus on ways they could ensure that the new plan would work. In Rosalie's review with the associate director, things got quite personal. He denigrated her contributions, suggested that she took things too personally, and said she was not at all ready to present her work to international audiences. When he said she wasn't ready, she could have diverted the move by saying, “I'd like to get better. How can you help me?” In shifting to the problem, Rosalie is trying to ally herself with him and encourage him to help her develop so that he will support her desire to attend the conferences.

Recognize Turning Possibilities.  

You will have noticed that protagonists appear several times in our discussion. They could name a move, question it, correct it, or turn it. The reason we show possibilities for the same situation is that there are always turning possibilities. When somebody mentions a move in a case discussion in our seminars on moves and turns—perhaps, “You are not ready for this position”—we always ask for three different turns to reinforce the message that there are many ways to turn a move.

Incorporate Your Own Style.  

This second observation has to do with style and comfort with different types of turns. We may have individual style differences that may make us more comfortable using some turns over others. In addition, hierarchy may matter: those lower on the totem pole may be more comfortable using questions and corrections and eschew naming, which may seem too bold a turn.

It's important to keep cultural norms in mind as well. We have sometimes observed that women in Asian countries were uncomfortable with naming and correcting moves, preferring to divert instead. Women who attend our trainings in Africa have said that they would not name a move and would not feel comfortable using a perspective-changing question such as, “What would you do if you were in my situation?” Their feelings might be cultural in part, but it's also possible that the leaders with whom they work could be insulted with that type of question. As white European men working with black African women, these leaders might not be able to even conceive of the women's experiences. Therefore, asking them what they would do in that situation would just cause a disconnect for them.

The reason we emphasize choice is to encourage people to understand the dynamic of moves and turns, but not rigidly focus on any one choice. Find a turn that you are comfortable using and that fits the situation.

Hear How You Say What You Say.  

As with all other strategies in negotiation, how you say something is as important as what you say. Moves and turns can function as breaks in the action and serve as an important transition in the process. So you always want to turn a move in a way that can bring the negotiation forward and not mire it in a back and forth of moves and countermoves. Some have suggested that a naming turn is high risk because of this.²⁴ Again, naming does not have to be an attack accusing the other of bad tactics. It can be done humorously, collaboratively (in the sense of “We both understand”), and in the service of learning (in the sense that somebody sees something they had not seen before).

Prepare for Surprises.  

Finally, people inevitably mention that they always think about these turns right after they leave the room. Of course, no one can ever fully anticipate what moves or difficult questions might be asked; however, we've suggested many ways to prepare. That preparation will always account for what you know about the other person, your situation, and the context within which you operate. Because Rosalie was fully aware of what the associate director might say to her, she was prepared; yet she was still surprised. She expected, given what she knew about him, that he was unlikely to have read her research summary or the actual papers. But what she was not fully prepared for was his denigration of the work. When you are blindsided, you can always interrupt by introducing a pause or a longer break. But do not let a move keep you in a defensive position. That is when you will defend, and moves and countermoves will not get you very far.