|Back to Index Page:|
|How to Succeed When Working With Tactical Negotiators
The top priority that people have in negotiating sessions I teach, is dealing with tactical, positional negotiators. Students will make comments like, "I hate to negotiate because it forces me to deal with Ďthose peopleí who use underhanded tactics to try to trip you up or deceive you. It is adversarial, and I am there trying to get an agreement or solve a problem. All they want to do is trick me so they can win."
The difficulty in dealing with these situations is that positions (what we want and for how much) come to the forefront, and interests (why we want something) become secondary. When positions become most important, emotional issues rise as well. As strong emotions take over we begin to work on each other, not the problem. Each side gets locked into a position, they get further entrenched, and the negotiators go into an "all for me" bidding war.
There are some things that can be done prior to, and at the beginning of negotiations that can help mitigate the use of tactics:
When the other side begins to use tricks, psychological ploys, tactics, or becomes manipulative, what can you do?
It is important to understand that effective tactical negotiators have been down this path many times. They are very good at concealing their real strategy. In fact, everything may seem to be going great and all of a sudden the process changes. This is where the ability to control emotions and to focus on the process becomes critical.
Negotiators faced with these situations are required to carry on two negotiations: the issue or issues being negotiated, and the negotiation process. Negotiating how the process is taking place is one way to deal with tactics.
An insurance executive and his local company representative are meeting with an important agency about the need to restrict writing a particular type of coverage. While necessary, the executive realizes that this is going to put the agency in a difficult position because the insurance company has been one of the last of a number of carriers to put similar restrictions in place. The agency hoped that the insurance company would keep writing the coverage.
The head of the agency has a very dominant, driver personality. His conference room reflects this with a long rectangular table and a larger chair at the head. He does not like to be told what to do. He knows why the insurance company representatives are meeting with him.
The agency requires visitors to go to this conference room, rather than letting them into the general office. The company representatives are ushered into the conference room for a 9.30 appointment. At 9.45 they are still waiting. At 9.50, the agency head arrives to begin the meeting. No apologies are offered.
The visiting executive says, "It is too bad that we are getting started so late. I only have an hour to work on this with you this morning, as we have other appointments. Now only 40 minutes are left. I hope that we can come to an agreement in the remaining time."
The tactic was recognized, it was not addressed in a personal attack (although emotions on the company side were very high as the executive also has a dominant personality), and the rules for how long they can stay are in place.
How do negotiators handle specific situations? For example, abruptly walking out of the session, not showing up on time, making you sit in an uncomfortable chair, or asking for a "few more concessions" after an agreement has been reached?
Tactics and tricks can be grouped into categories:
1. Psychological games and personal attacks: attacking your integrity, personal put-downs, uncomfortable surroundings, and threats ("Iíll pull my accounts if you donít do this!") are examples.
2. Misrepresentation of information, or outright lying.
3. Positional power: using tactics to get you to negotiate against yourself, make unneeded concessions, or even make concessions after the negotiation has concluded.
1. Psychological games and personal attacks:
No one wants to be around anyone who is attacking them or making them uncomfortable. In fact, it may make a negotiator give in, just to get out of there. Confident, skilled negotiators do not allow this to occur.
If a room is uncomfortable, ask for a change. Either another chair, or switch rooms. If they refuse, tell them that the conditions are not satisfactory (not a personal attack, "You made me sit with the sun in my eyes!") and we will need to meet at a different time or place to be able to have any chance at success.
If it is a personal attack, for example "Are you qualified to be here?", or "You do not look well. Are you feeling OK?" recognize the attack. Bringing it up ("You know my qualifications, so can we proceed?", or "Iíve never felt better, but thanks for your concern"} is the way to alert the other party you know the game. Most of the time, it stops this from further recurrence.
Using threats is a commonly used tactic to get concessions. Statements like, "Iíll move all my business" are common to try to use perceived power to get what they want.
A supplier and customer are trying to negotiate an arrangement for business growth. If the customer provides the supplier with 10% sales growth in the next year, the supplier will provide a 2% commission over-ride as an incentive. The bargaining begins without the customer really considering the value of the relationship. As the bargaining continues, tension escalates with the customer finally exclaiming, "I want 4% and if I donít get it, Iíll move my business to someone who will!" The negotiator for the supplier replies, "While we value the relationship with you, we do not value it enough to be unprofitable. Your request would make that occur. We hope you see the value for both of us in our proposal." The supplier then provided the facts because they were prepared.
Many negotiators, when attacked or put in uncomfortable situations tend to overlook them and try to push on. This is the result the tactical negotiator wants.
2. Misrepresentation of facts:
This can be very difficult to handle, as our emotional reaction would be to call them a liar. Remember, you cannot fix the person, only the situation. People issues have to be separate.
If you cannot trust the other party, you can still negotiate with them. Have your facts and verify everything. If you cannot verify something, ask to caucus, or reconvene until you can to ensure that the facts are accurate.
If presented with conflicting information, present your facts as being in conflict with theirs, and ask for verification. Whenever possible, use third party sources as backup as those sources are unbiased towards this negotiation.
If the other party has represented themselves as the decision-maker and after an agreement has been reached tells you they "have to get it approved", let them know that the agreement is now non-binding. Either side can now make changes as needed. If the other negotiator does not have the authority to agree to the deal, there is no deal. Put this in writing, immediately.
3. Positional Power:
These tactics are used by negotiators who are attempting to position the other party into negotiating with themselves. They put the other party into a position where they are the ones making concessions, many times unnecessarily. This is very common when negotiators begin negotiating to save the relationship instead of trying the reach an agreement.
Examples of tactics used:
These are just a few of the tactics used by negotiators. When faced with tricks and tactics, it is important to remember some key points:
1. If you prepare and plan your negotiations, you will be better equipped to deal with tactics. You will always know where you are going, where you are in the process, and will know what you can do if negotiations are unsuccessful.
2. The goal of the negotiator is to reach, efficiently, an agreement that is fair to both sides. We want to leave the relationship intact.
3. Remember you can only fix and control the situation, not the other person. Our focus has to be on the problem and the process.
4. A negotiator may not only have to negotiate the issue, but also the ground rules of the negotiation process.
5. Recognize when a tactic is being used. Address the tactic with the other party. Do not personalize it ("You are lying to me!").
6. Always have enough confidence to halt proceedings if they are not going well. This can be via a caucus, or even rescheduling for another day or venue.
7. Always know what you will do if an agreement cannot be reached. Having that knowledge can and will prevent you from proceeding in a negotiation where tactics are clouding the issue. Know where you are in relation to what you will do if negotiations are unsuccessful, throughout the negotiation process. Do not let the use of tactics cause an agreement to be worse that what could have been done on your own.
Most of us have to negotiate on a regular basis for goods and services we need in our lives. Few enjoy the process, and many do not because they are not equipped to handle the use of tactics in the negotiation process. Understanding tactics and how to handle them, coupled with more detailed and focused planning of negotiations will provide negotiators with better outcomes for both sides. This gives the negotiator the confidence to do what is necessary to change the process so it will work, rather than focusing on the behavior of the other side. Last, when tactical negotiators learn how their tactics can be neutralized, they stop using them and begin to get better results.
Back to Index Page:
|Copyright © 2004, David Wachtel|
|Copyright © 2004, The Negotiator Magazine|