Negotation

Table of Contents
Prologue 2
What is negotiation and what is the best strategy to follow 12

The third way: Principles based negotiation 46
Negotiation based on Principles: 5 Phases 87
Phase I: Separate the people from the problem 89
Phase II: Focus on interests behind the positions 126
Phase III: Create mutual benefit options 155
Phase IV: Establish objective criteria 174 P
Phase V: Develop our BATNA 185 A
Manage your information 226 G
Agreement 239 E
Negotiating process Phases 250
The role of time 262
Negotiating in group 273 1
Negotiating with other cultures 278
Phone talks 300
Six principles of influence 305
Bibliography 324
Do´s & Don’ts in successful negotiation processes

P
A
G
PROLOGUE E

For many years we have been facilitating workshops, panel
discussions and training sessions on negotiation. In our
experience, we have found that many people feel unsure
when posing as negotiators. They are afraid of entering
negotiations and fear that the opposite party might use some
"tricks" to gain some advantage.
Those fears are certainly very respectable. However we are

fairly sure that we can overcome them and that anyone can
learn how to negotiate efficiently, whether their partner - we
use the word “partner” instead of opponent - uses "tricks" or
not.
P
However, in order to be successful, we must not deceive
A
ourselves. While many of us attribute the “improvable” results
G
to the "tricks" of the negotiators we face, that inefficiency is
E
often due to our own lack of security because of poor
preparation or because of how we have dealt with our own
strengths and weaknesses. 3
One of the most valuable tips we can provide in this book is
that you thoroughly prepare yourself before sitting to
negotiate and that you have some very clear goals in mind. If
you collect and analyse all the relevant information and you
determine what conditions you can accept and which not,
then you are unlikely to be swayed by the possible tricks
used during the negotiation.
We don't want to hint at that negotiation techniques don't

exist. We just say that it is pretty risky to rely solely on said
techniques because they might work in some occasions
whereas they might fail in others. Moreover what may work
for a given individual in a specific moment might not work for
a different person in similar circumstances.

Also, the real key to negotiation is to choose the technique
which best applies to you and that best fits the particular
situation where you stand, and, of course, to apply it
effectively.
Have you ever thought about how much time you spend
negotiating every day? When we ask this to the participants
to our training activities, we get answers ranging from 60% to
90% (!) Of course, always depending on the level of
responsibility of our students.
But even so this remains a significant percentage.

Whereupon we are saying that negotiation is an absolutely
P
essential skill, not only professionally but also at a personal
A
level in everyday life.
G
E
Indeed, negotiation is inherent to human beings. In fact, we
unconsciously negotiate from the moment of our birth: a baby
has never been taught how to trade tears for food, and 4
nevertheless, that's what he does. In some way, we could
say that he is negotiating.
This negotiation for primary needs is soon followed by others

less influenced by the need for survival and so, likewise, not
long after we learn how to share toys, food, work for money,
etc. by what we might mean that forever, and naturally
throughout our whole lives, we are trading something.
In addition, negotiating is an activity that is very important

(more than we think). Put in another way, as long as we
negotiate "We are playing". In fact, if we look at the
etymology of the word "negotiate" we find that it is linked to
"the act of doing business", i.e. "neg-otium" or "denying

leisure". It is no longer a playful or trivial thing but we are still
playing.
And why do we negotiate? Basically because the opposite

side has something we need, otherwise we would not need
to negotiate. This is important to keep in mind: "I deal
because I need you" which brings us to fully assess what is
the right attitude when going to negotiations.
The most desirable goal is not to win at all costs - because

this could have an impact on the future - but to reach a
balanced agreement acceptable by both parties. Therefore, it
is best to equitably distribute the benefits and costs. For
P
example, if there is only one serving of food and there are
A
two people who want it, the best solution would be to divide it
G
between them, although splitting does not necessarily mean
E
going to a 50-50, namely half of the ration for each.
We will come back to this later when we talk of Cost (for us) 5
versus Value (for the counterpart). In the case of a dish it
may be that the full ration is not completely homogeneous for
example, or that simply 20% of the dish have a much higher
value to one party than to the other.
However, in some types of negotiation, for example, at work

or in situations of armed conflict; sometimes agreements can
not be based on the criteria of what is fair or not, but on the
relation of forces, or on the relative power of each of the
parties.
Von Clausewitz wrote it in his classic book "Vom Kriege"

which basically said that war - conflicts - is part of the
diplomatic relations. We negotiate, but with "other" means.

However, we should be fully aware that this can have certain
effects in the future. We can summarize it as follows: "I
currently hold a strong position, but will it always be so?”.
And no need to think of an armed conflict. Imagine that I am

negotiating with a supplier or subcontractor. It may happen
that at some point I am so sure of the strength of my position
that I decide to "choke" my provider. Now, what may happen
at any given time, usually towards the completion of the work
or within weeks ahead from the official opening by the
politician in charge?
At that time, the balance of power has shifted completely and

P
what I saved in the beginning can now result in a significant
A
lost.
G
E
Similarly, one of the problems that can arise during
negotiations is that as an afterthought, I might think I have
given too much away. In these cases the solution we reached 6
may not be stable, namely sustainable over time, and the
conflict may appear, and as in the previous example, usually
at the worst of times.
One of the explanations for such situations comes from the

fact that traditionally we thought of two ways to negotiate:
soft and hard. The soft negotiator wants to avoid personal
conflict and therefore makes many concessions to reach an
agreement. He seeks a friendly solution, but often ends up
being exploited and ends up feeling bitter. The tough
negotiator considers every situation as a struggle of wills, a
battle of egos, where the party taking the most extreme
attitude and resisting longer is doing better. He wants to win,
but often ends up causing an equally harsh response that
exhausts him and his resources, and seriously injures the

relationship with the opposite party. Other common
negotiating strategies sway between hard and soft, but each
of them involves an attempt to balance between getting what
you want and getting along with others. Apart from the moral
and psychological benefits associated with getting along with
others, it happens that from the beginning of times, in social
species such as humans, the "getting along" with others is
often a source of future benefits, thus, even from a purely
selfish point of view, maintaining good relations with others,
which does not mean sitting on our thumbs, is much more-
profitable.
So what stance adopt in a negotiation? In our view, there are

P
three criteria that any negotiating method has to consider:
A
G
1. it should produce a wise and prudent agreement (if that
E
agreement is possible),
2. it should be efficient, and
3. it must also improve, or at least not damage, the
7
relationship between the parties.
The negotiation that best meets the three criteria is called

principled negotiation. This book reviews the fundamental
key points of this approach. It is a third way in negotiating, a
way which is neither hard nor soft, and, above all, meets the
three criteria.
This method is used to resolve issues, questions or problems

based on facts, instead of going through a bargaining
process. It suggests that whenever possible we must strive
to seek mutual benefits and that when interests collide then
the result should be based on certain standards or fair

criteria that are independent from the will or desires of either
parties.
It is also true that, on many occasions, the parties claim to

have a great interest in solving the issue at hand but,
instead, those processes seem to drag on endlessly. Viewed
from our perspective, we conclude that "something is wrong".
That "something" mysterious, in many cases, has to do with

the non-inclusion of parameters related to beliefs and values,
which are NOT negotiable.
Our personal experience is that if, on the other hand, we

P
integrate all of the above in the negotiation process, it is very
A
likely we reach success.
G
E
This book puts forward the keys that will allow you develop
your own "natural" negotiating style, leading the negotiation
process and differentiating between productive and 8
counterproductive tactics. We recommend you always
negotiate based on principles and therefore you avoid the
temptation to use "dirty tricks".
As an aside, we have seen fit to give you later some

guidelines on the dirty tricks most commonly used.
With no ambiguity whatsoever, in this book we work on the

premise that we operate within an established legal
framework, namely that there are no illegal interests. It may
be objected that some negotiations are assumed to be fixed,
but this does not concern us here.
Anyway, everything we share in this book, much to our

dismay, applies even in ethically biased negotiations.

Finally, we have included a section dedicated to exploring
how people from other countries and cultures negotiate. It is
true that this aspect has been partially covered in the book
"Homo Komunikator" but we thought it necessary to insist on
some peculiarities.
For that reason we have included some anecdotal elements

that we encourage to respect for us to delve into these
cultural aspects. There is also a well-known author whose
work may be of interest, we are thinking of Geert Hofstede,
to whom we will refer a little later in the book.
To end this introduction we want to emphasize one aspect

P
that is very important to us: negotiating is not a matter of
A
personality but is part of our nature.
G
E
Negotiation is a basic means of getting what you want and
also a process made of several stages (before, during and
after negotiation). 9
It is as important what you do "during" negotiations, as what
you do "before". Preparation is one of the key tools of all self-
respecting negotiator.
In fact, preparation is an intrinsic part of the negotiating

process. How many times have we gone to pick up a boss or
a partner at the airport and in the taxi on the road back to the
customer's facilities we have been discussing about how we
would approach the negotiation. What can we expect from
such a preparation? The typical "chat in the taxi" is a
guarantee of poor results.
Preparing your negotiations will help you plan in advance

your negotiation scenarios in case things don't go right and

will help you think of the preferred negotiation style of the
other person.
We suggest, dear reader, that you always reflect on the

process of negotiation that has just been carried out (whether
you have reached an agreement or not). This will make you
be fully aware of the aspects you have led properly and
eventually about those other things that you might have done
differently. Herein lies, as you can guess, the real learning.
And this is an exercise that distinguishes the good negotiator
from the other, who is not. In other words, good negotiators
do their homework.
P
It is remarkable that even if we spend from 50 to 90% of our
A
time negotiating, we do not improve the process. If we swam
G
50% of our time we might go to the Olympics. And why not
E
go to the negotiation Olympics? The answer in our opinion is
fairly simple: when we swim in an effort to improve our
swimming technique, we focus on the fundamentals. So 10
when you negotiate in the future, think about how you do it,
concentrating on the method, concentrating on the
fundamentals, and the process will improve. So in 20 years,
instead of having one year of experience repeated twenty
times in bargaining, you may boast twenty years of
experience in negotiating. And would you be prepared to go
to the Olympics negotiation.
We hope this book will supply the keys to go to these

Olympics.

F Remember: Quote:
“All the involved parties got something and

all of them paid a price”
Maurice Hayes (about the Stortmont treaty that put and

end to the Ulster conflict).
P
A
G
E
11

P
WHAT IS NEGOTIATION A
G
AND WHAT IS E
THE BEST STRATEGY
12
TO FOLLOW?

What negotiation means?
There are many definitions. We share with you the one that
seems more complete.
“Negotiating is a communicative interaction between two or

more persons seeking to reach an agreement, where some
interests are shared while others are merely different or even
opposed”.
The above definition emphasizes two main aspects: first,

every negotiation is carried out by human beings and thus,
communication is one of the elements upon which it rests.
P
This should already alert us. We all know that communication
A
is not always easy.
G
E
The second aspect in the definition emphasizes the need for
shared interests. This is critical because if there are no such
interests, negotiation has no reason to be. 13
Moreover, the mention of interest alerts us on the need to be
aware of what are our interests and also knowing that it
requires an exploration - through active listening - of the
interests of the opposite party.
The goal of negotiation is not always to agree. Because the

agreement is only a mean, and the end is to satisfy our own
interests. The purpose of negotiation is rather to explore
whether we can better meet our interests through an
agreement.

Negotiation Strategies
Strategy is the fulcrum to lean on during negotiation in order

to determine what decisions to make and what course to take
to achieve the objective of negotiating.
Any negotiator without a strategy or a broad framework for

improvisation takes the risk that the negotiations take an
unwanted course or are manipulated by the opposite party.
Obviously, the main strategy is to "win", but we should also

keep in mind what actually “wins” means and how we win. If
the negotiation harms the interests of the opposite party,
P
there are great chances that the agreement will not be
A
complied, and our benefits will be minimal, and in the end we
G
will be the actual losers.
E
Moreover, the fear of losing have made some of us lose
confidence and therefore not assume certain risks, which 14
actually leads us to negotiate at a disadvantage, losing
negotiating leverage.
It is worth bearing in mind that all negotiations involves

"giving away some" in the sense of an exchange to get a
higher profit.
Possible strategies
After analysing our situation, we can begin negotiating with a

specific strategy, but of course you may amend the strategy
depending on the process. This implies that every negotiator
must be open to changes in order to reach a satisfactory
agreement for both parties.

We believe that the final choice of the strategy we decide to
use is entirely our decision. Now it is vital to identify it, and to
know what the consequences are if we use one or another.
For example, if we use a "hard" strategy, this might involve
some damage to the relationship. If we are willing to, go
ahead, but do not complain if in the end the result is not what
you wanted.
The "Win - Win" strategy
This is a rational and emotionally positive strategy. Ultimately,

it is the most effective strategy on the long-term.
P
A
In our experience, and although it may seem surprising, it is
G
not often that the parties use this strategy since the
E
beginning. When you start negotiating, both parties are
normally quite wary of each other. Sometimes, the initial
strategy is a win - win, but our attitudes and behaviours do 15
not express it clearly, and then one of the parties gets
defensive or even adopts an aggressive attitude.
The strategy could be called "I win - you win" and consists
essentially of satisfying your own interests but also the
interests of the opposite party, or at least not harming them.
When we use this strategy the divergent points are resolved
more satisfactorily, as the solutions interest both parties.
The cooperative strategy tries to reach agreements by

creating an open climate of mutual trust, which probably will
blossom progressively throughout the negotiating process.
As a result of this newly created climate, the parties start
sharing ideas and information freely.

In real life, we encounter a stubborn reality. Often we begin
with a win-lose mindset, and only when we see that our
position is not leading us to a successful outcome then we
understand that we have to swap strategies. The corollary is
simple to understand; and we will have to "retrace our steps"
with its inherent cost, which means that we can never
achieve the desired theoretical optimal result.
Now this may not be a crippling obstacle; don´t be

maximalist. Any agreement to improve both my initial position
and my partner´s is valid. Maybe eventually he wins more
than me, but if I also win then it is acceptable.
P
One of the reasons why the "win - win" strategy is the most
A
advantageous one, is because the agreements we reach
G
have a high probability of being actually fulfilled, as there is
E
full agreement of the parties and both are predisposed to get
a new and profitable business.
16
We make a recommendation: allow the opposite party to
leave with the last profit. This will make them feel better and
will increase their self-esteem and will give us an advantage
in future negotiations.
It is true however that some authors recommend that the

opposite party is the one to yield in the final step. We believe
that except for reasons of personal ego this adds nothing to
the process and it may even be counterproductive. We
manifest ourselves against it, as it is very "win-lose" style.

The "Win - Lose" strategy
This is certainly another possible strategy but a myopic one,

ultimately. Why? Because it is once again unbalanced.
This is usually the most common strategy at the beginning of

any negotiation process.
Negotiation, in those cases, is understood as a competition,

where neither the interests of the opposite party nor his
feelings are taken into account.
The negotiator focuses on what he wants to gain and not

P
what he must yield. Actually, we might say that he is more
A
worried about not losing than in winning.
G
E
This "Win - Lose" strategy very often implies non-compliance
with the agreements, but as the victor relishes his victory, the
17
opposite party feels he has lost and is already plotting his re-
venge. Namely the possibility to betray the agreement or to
use the same strategy in the next negotiation.
In other words, this strategy focuses solely on the present

time, leaving aside all possible future shared benefits.
Of course, there's always the possibility that we may use that

strategy if we do not plan to negotiate again with that party in
the future.
Now thinking about the business world, do you really think
we can be sure of never meeting someone again at some
time in the future?
In some cases, some authors defend the validity of this

strategy. In plain language it is called "one-shot". There are

two factors to consider, the first has to do with something
totally personal, i.e our personal ethical values, and the
second has to do with sustainability, i.e. if we want to enjoy a
sustainable business in a given market, we can not rely on
“one-shots”. However, the final decision lies within the
reader.
The "Lose - Win" strategy
Also called second order strategy. It is a strategy for the

future, both rationally and emotionally positive.
P
In fact it is a long-term strategy where we lose at first with the
A
intention of getting higher benefits later. This one is widely
G
used in the business world, as an investment strategy for the
E
future. It is often useful when beginning collaborating with
another company, but it is also true that sometimes the other
company can take advantage of your naiveté and not engage 18
in any future relationship with you.
This strategy is similar to playing in a casino, there is no

predictable results, I place a bet and the bet can go right or
wrong. However, remember that if you play in a casino, the
casino never loses. Once again, the final decision of whether
to bet is in my hands. We can not blame anyone for having
decided to bet or not.

The "Lose - Lose" strategy
A strategy of emotional struggle. This strategy is never raised

at the beginning of a negotiation but it may happen in the
end.
It is about aiming at looking for a loss or yield lower than the

other party's.
This strategy is the consequence of the emotional

involvement of the parties; which prevents them from having
an objective vision for both the problem and the solutions.
P
If a party has been strongly affected by the other and there is
A
no hope of improving, the emotional reaction from his side
G
will be to harm the other the most he can.
E
It is a self-defeating strategy. Again, we can choose it but we
have to be aware of its implications. The tragic thing is that 19
even using this strategy we may feel that we have been
victorious. The typical merry phrase we have heard so often
from boxers: "Okay, look at my face, but you should see the
other´s". And we are so happy.
These strategies are adopted based on the perception of

power, which is either strong or weak, and is determined by
the analysis of the previous situation.

The case of the Union versus Employer.
Hierarchy of needs
A real example. The year was 1991. The situation was: in

that company (one of the largest in Spain), Management and
Unions had spent months locked in a "negotiation process"
which should lead to the new collective agreement,
particularly the salary raise for the following year. It was a
positional conflict situation, something quite common in
social and industrial conflicts.
Simplifying, management proposed a 1.5% raise when P

negotiation unions demanded 2.5%, and the situation looked A
somewhat stagnant. This difference in percentage may seem G
tiny, but remember we are talking of one of the largest E
companies in the country, with a very consistent payroll. That
is, a percentage point represents a significant amount of
millions. 20
In a meeting with unions in which one of the authors
participated by chance, they confessed that indeed, the raise
they were fighting for was merely an excuse to confront
management, and that the raise would not affect in any
degree their - or better put lack of - commitment with the
organization.
Ultimately, Management was offering money, when the group

of workers and employees was demanding "something else".
The ending result was to split the pie in two (they eventually
reached a 2% increase), in a typical game of haggling, which
is very different from a negotiation process.

Indeed, both sides came out unsatisfied with the final
agreement. The biggest loser in the process was
Management Board because they gave away money for
nothing.
Here, the model that may help us is the "old" Maslow model
about levels of human motivation.
Inspired by this model we see that the Board was trying

something very common in large organizations: to negotiate
on money (positions), in this case the lowest level of
Maslow's pyramid, when the group of employees wanted to
talk about interests (recognition) which is two levels higher in
P
the pyramid.
A
G
E
21

Summarising
Negotiating as adversaries
Pretty common between managers and unions. This kind of

negotiation may harm the basic relationship. It spins around
the “win / lose” or “lose / win” mindset.
Collaborative negotiation is a process where two parties work

together to find a solution. It is an opportunity to maximize a
relationship that may endure. The key is that both parties get
P
what they need without compromising the needs of the
A
opposite party. The emphasis is on solving the problem, not
G
on "defeating" the opposite party.
E
If your position is strong: We can adopt the "Win-Win"
strategy or the "Win-Lose". Adopting either strategy will 22
depend on the interests we have with the opposite party.
If your position is weak: You can pick any of the four

strategies, depending on the opposite party.
The most convenient way is to adopt the “win-win” strategy

because this way we connect with the opposite party and
may draw them to a “win-win” strategy.
Now it is important to emphasize that cooperation doesn't

mean “no-competition”. It does not remove our differences
with the opposite party although we can certainly deal with
them more constructively.

The road leading from confrontation to cooperation is
precisely negotiation. Your challenge is to transform a
confrontation into an exercise in joint problem solving. We
admit that the win-win strategy should be the prevailing
model, but you can pick any other. Just remember: you can
choose any strategy you want but you have to be aware of its
impact, for better or for worse.
F Remember: Quote:
P
"In nature there are neither rewards nor A
punishments; there are consequences". G
E
R. Ingersold
23

WHAT NEGOTIATING TACTIC ADOPT?
As already stated in the foreword of the book, any

negotiating method can be judged fairly through three
criteria:
1. It must be intelligent, understanding that it takes into

account - as far as possible - the interests of each party;
to save or solve conflicting interests reasonably. It takes
into account the general interests of the community.
2. It should be effective, understood as providing an
effective response to a situation.
3. It has to improve, or at least not harm, the relations P
between the parties. A
G
E
Note that the most common form of negotiation is based on a
succession of positions (haggling), however, this method
does not meet the three objectives of producing a smart, 24
efficient and friendly agreement.
Discussing situations lead to unwise agreements
Indeed, in the so-called positional bargaining, each party

takes a position, argues and makes concessions to try to
reach a compromise.
This type of action often leads to tensions and sometimes

destroys the relationship between the parties.
Besides, the more the people involved in a negotiation, the

more the disadvantage in a positional negotiation.
What happens in practice is something similar to this: when
negotiators discuss their respective positions, they tend to
fight because the respective egos of the negotiators will be
involved in the negotiation. The effect is that it shuts down
any creativity option.
A simple example to illustrate what we want to highlight: in

the negotiations between President Kennedy and the Soviet
Union on nuclear weapons the critical point spun around how
many inspections in situ should allow each State in its
territory. While the Soviet Union agreed to a total of three
annual inspections, the United States understood that a
minimum of ten annual inspections should be established.
P
Thus, the negotiations were broken, no one had investigated
A
or discussed what the term “inspection” meant (for example,
G
if it referred to a visit by a person during a single day or a
E
hundred people for a month). Why? Negotiators were
anchored in their positions and did not see beyond.
25
This follows a similar circumstance to what happens in
conflict management mechanism. Many conflicts are "formal"
conflicts, namely that they result from poor or inadequate
communication rather from than a clash of values and/or
interests. Hence the urgent need for researching interests
and positions.
Here a simple metaphor for positions. Think of an equalizer

where each cursor moves in a frequencies range column.
Each frequency range represents a position. To get a good
balance, we need our negotiation to "sound" good moving
the cursor up and down in every and each columns.

P
If we use this model we must take into account that not all A
positions boast the same weight. In real life, it is normal that G
the position "Price" has a high weight.
E
Consider for example a tender. Often the pure economic
criterion has a weight of 80% in the final decision, which is 26
certainly high, but there are still 20% based on other criteria.
A good negotiator will see in this scenario a glass half full (in
this case filled to 20%) when a "bad" negotiator will see a
glass half empty (in this case 80%).
To illustrate this idea even more, let´s think we have as a

client an architect of great fame, who wants some very
specific finishes, and where price is not that relevant. On the
other hand, when the architect wants to buy standard bricks
and mortar, price can represent up to 95 or 99% in our
equalizer.
Let´s remember a case in which we worked about ten years

ago.

The case of the concrete manufacturing
company. New interests in a mature market
The company, one of the world's largest concrete companies

realized that even though concrete was a "commodity", there
were customers willing to pay in exchange for other interests
(which eventually will actually translate into positions, it's
true, let us never forget), such as punctuality, cleanliness and
image of the delivery trucks, etc.
P
A
G
E
27
The company went even as far as to create a call centre with

a dozen full-time staff to respond to and anticipate the needs
expressed - or not - by its customers.
It may sound strange but that is real. If we investigate the

interests of our partners we can come to detect unsuspected
interests, and that will give us more "cursors" we can move in
our equalizer. In this case, cement customers expressed
"unexpected" interests, in this order:
 Punctuality
 Fast delivery
 Real-time tracking of trucks
 Cleaning trucks
 Neatness of operators
 Reply to requests 24/7
 Proposed new proactive commercial cement compounds
In short, the price factor would be the first column of our

equalizer, weighing say 95%.
This factor is the same for all the companies in that business.
We can only play with the remaining 5%, which may seem P
poor. However, if I can "sell" that 5% to my clients I will have A
a clear advantage over my competitors whom remain at a G
level of 0%. E
In short, they did not spend too much time talking about
price, they focused on other needs, some of them already
28
internalized by the client, and some that needed help to
discover and value, and that only represented 5% of the
value of a final proposal. But that 5% made the difference
with the competitors proposals.

Discussing positions is ineffective
Normally in a positional bargaining process each party starts

from an extreme position; stubbornly sticking to it, and,
ultimately, deceiving and confusing the opposite party about
their true interests, so the only way for maintaining ongoing
negotiation involves making small concessions to the
opposite party. In the end, both parties tend to meet in the
“middle”.
This description of the process involves a large number of

individual decisions about what each negotiator decides to
offer; what to reject and what to yield. The process is
P
therefore difficult and often long (when every decision is
A
something that, in all likelihood, will generate pressures for
G
future assignments, it is clear that a negotiator is not prone to
E
reaching a quick agreement).
In fact, positional negotiating is simply haggling. Haggling is 29

a one-dimensional negotiation (usually about the price) on
positions. I.e. we only move a cursor up and down the
equalizer.
Discussing positions jeopardizes the relations between the

parties.
Positional bargaining often ends in a competition of wills.

Anger and resentment become a common sequel of this type
of negotiation and are negative for any existing or future
relationship.
In case of multi-party negotiations, as mentioned, these risks

obviously multiply. And there are many negotiations involving
more than two people. In these cases, the method of

positional bargaining leads to the formation of coalitions
between parties, whose shared interests are more symbolic
than real; what is even worse, when after much effort we
have reached an agreement in principle on a position, it is
much harder to get it altered.
P
A
G
E
30

The case of the Republic of Transnistria. Values
versus interests
This is a case we know as the result of a work of Nikola S., a

partner based in Spain, a Moldovan, social researcher
himself.
P
A
G
E
31

In the case of the independence of Moldavia we see
elements of interest. Let's see: "Independence of Moldova:
yes or no", this is actually positions. The independence per
se can be seen as a position rather than as an interest.
Try to swap the question from "Why independence from

Moldova" to “what for?” And then we can investigate interests
rather than positions.
And we must not negotiate over positions, we must

investigate interests. And those interests have to be
verbalized on terms that deal with elements of human
motivation: power, influence, belonging, etc.
P
A
In short, Moldova became independent from Romania after a
G
negotiating process where were invoked negotiable values
E
linked to its history. After independence from Moldova,
Transnistria started another negotiation process always
32
putting forward cultural values, etc. when in reality, as time
has proven, Transnistria was only pursuing economical
interests.
And finally also Gagauzia - southern Moldova - became

independent, although it is in legal limbo as we speak.
Thus we see that a process of this type requires a thorough

analysis on interests. If we stay on the surface we will not
understand what are the interests of the opposite party and
therefore we cannot negotiate, or in this case at least
understand what is happening in the region of Moldavia.
Actually, when a party demands, in this case, independence,

we must work on investigating what the real interests are.
This part is complex, because for many cultural, intellectual,

or merely tactical reasons, the opposite party does not want
to work on interests, as they would probably lose their
strength.
They will use some "dirty" trick and appeal to emotional

arguments to counter any attempt from their partner to
establish a situation of objective analysis of interests.
If my interlocutor is, in this case, a weak government after

the fall of the Wall, it does not know or can not conduct
negotiations, and will eventually lose; in this case territories.
After the independence of Moldova, Transnistria and

P
Gagauzia, the challenge is therefore to investigate whether
A
independence is an "interest" or a "position."
G
E
Remember this anecdote related to values: In 1982, in an
interview with Algerian President Chadli Bendjedid, King
Hassan II would have said, "Let me the seal and the flag, 33
everything else is negotiable".
It is clear that the economic value of a seal and a flag are

almost nil; however sometimes they might be priceless. The
good negotiator must be able to "calculate" and to put a price
even on a seal and a flag. Something in Moldova was not
done.
And finally, what is the current status of this picturesque
"negotiating process" in Moldova?
Well today Transnistria - capital Trasnipol - is something like

the Turtle Island pirates with Cyrillic alphabet but landlocked.
As for Gagauzia, its total area is 1,832 km 2 (twice the city of
Madrid) and basically produces nothing of interest.

In his most recent trip, our friend Nikola has interviewed local
officials in Gagauzia and they do not discard shortly a
partition into two "states": Gagauzia North and South (!)
Which as shown in the map are physically separated.
In fact, the "negotiations" are currently under way. We'll see

how that process ends.
P
A
G
E
34

Positional negotiation entrails risks
Some people, aware of the difficulties that can arise with

competitive negotiators, prefer to play a role of "soft
negotiator". Something like "Soft on the problem and soft on
the people".
It is true that when one adopts this tactic in a negotiation, the

results may not be as tragicomic as the story about a couple
where the wife sells her hair to buy a beautiful watch chain
for his husband, whom sells his watch to buy some beautiful
combs for his wife.
P
In other words, any negotiations that relies primarily on
A
relationship have the risk of resulting in an unsound
G
agreement.
E
Being a "soft" negotiator is not the appropriate response.
35
When it comes to avoiding criticism, a party may be tempted
to change its attitude and, instead of seeing the other as an
opponent tries to see him as a friend (but beware, do not
sympathize, you must just empathize).
Adopting the opposite role (the "tough" negotiator) does not

seem to be a good tactic. Trying to be "hard on the problem
and tough with the people" has very high relational costs,
with a high probability that it will affect the outcome of the
current negotiations, or at least our initial willingness before
future negotiations.
This type of negotiation is often seen in situations of personal

and emotionally charged situations. Here we walk a slippery
slope. It may be a "negotiation" between husband and wife

for example, where the emotional component, which could
be defined as interest but is actually likely to affect values, is
predominant. In this case, remember that it is NOT possible
to negotiate on values, mental models or prejudices, as they
nest in the "Old Brain".
If so, there would be an unrealistic dichotomy between purely

animal actions versus fully rational actions, but that's not the
case, it would be like a computer trying to negotiate with a
reptile.
Actually, what can not be debated or negotiated is the

hierarchy of values. A simple and classic example is
P
President Nixon, losing the “negotiation” with the cameras
A
-and the American people by the way -. Indeed, sincerity was
G
a deeper value than honesty when spying in the Watergate
E
affair. Nixon did not understand correctly the American
people hierarchy of values. Something similar happened with
Clinton in the Lewinsky affair. Again the values hierarchy of 36
the president was different from his people's.
Many of the misunderstandings that arise in these situations

often come from ignorance of this reality. We think that we
are negotiating something (i.e. where to go for lunch, or to
the movies, or to buy this or that...) when we are actually
touching emotional factors that affect our values and their
hierarchy.
This means that even something trivial like going to the

movies with friends or not, actually is connected with deeper
aspects of the relationship. If it were truly a rational problem,
there wouldn´t be much discussion or negotiation.

This example brings out another feature of interest: when
both parties can at any given time not be on the same "brain
level". What for someone is a purely technical subject can be
for the opposite party a very emotional issue.
In the latter case, negotiation is unsuccessful and even may

well escalate into a conflict and then we have to implement
the techniques of positive conflict management.
Now let's see these two approaches in a single type of

negotiation: soft and hard.
P
Soft
A
G
 The negotiator looks friendly
E
 The goal is to reach an agreement
 We concede in order to strengthen the relation 37
 We are soft on both the person and the problem
 We trust the others
 We swiftly change our position
 We make offers
 We express what is the maximum concession acceptable
 We accept personal losses in order to reach an
agreement
 We insist on the agreement
 We avoid conflicts
 We yield before pressures
Hard
 We see the other negotiator as an adversary

 The goal is to win
 We demand concessions as a condition for a good
relation
 We are hard on the person and on the problem
 We distrust the other part
 We entrench in our position
 We threaten P
A
 We generate confusion about the acceptable concessions
G
 We demand unilateral benefits as price to pay for the E
agreement
 We seek the unique solution 38
 We insist on the last position
 It is a battle of egos
 We use pressure

F Remember: What is a Pyrrhic victory.
Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, was a brilliant

strategist who put in jeopardy the rising
power of Rome, but his victories were terribly
expensive.
"Another victory like this one and I lose my

army" is the phrase coined by the Romans.
Hence the term "Pyrrhic victory" which
means triumphs that do not compensate for
the price you pay and which, far from giving
hopes, complicate the future of the winners. P
A
G
The prisoner's dilemma. E
A couple of thieves are finally busted after a long

investigating process. They are led to the police station and
39
placed in different rooms for interrogation. The police asks for
the loot, not located yet.
The situation presented to the first thief is:
F If he confesses and his colleague does not, he will be

freed but his colleague will fall for 2 years of
imprisonment;
F If both confess they will fall for one year each;
F If neither confesses, both will do time but on lesser
charges;
F If he doesn't confess but his colleague does, he gets 2
years
The second thief is offered the same "deal".
If we were one of the thieves, what should we do given that

our colleague will be offered the same "deal" and what
decisions should we adopt without knowing the choice of the
other person?
It is clear what the ideal situation is (nobody confesses), but

can we trust our partner?
This dilemma is known as the prisoner's dilemma, formulated

in the 50s by Albert Tucker, one of the pioneers in game
theory. Such a dilemma has given rise to a multitude of
P
studies in disciplines such as economics, sociology, biology,
A
etc.
G
E
The paradox is that the most common outcome in such
situations is that the two accomplices confess (each for fear
of that the other does), when it is obvious that the best option 40
for both would be not to confess.
This phenomenon was studied in depth by John Nash "Nobel

Prize in Economics" where he opposed the model proposed
by Adam Smith, who claimed that the pursuit of personal
interests entailed a positive outcome for everybody.
John Nash proved that the pursuit of a maximum personal

benefit actually leads to a loss or to a profit not optimized
(namely that both sides gain something but less than they
could have won). Back to the paradox of the prisoners, we
see that the key concept lies in the exchange and sharing of
information. If such exchange does not exist - namely
communication - we end up choosing the worst option for
both parties, not only for me.

Let´s point out our personal conclusion: many times, even
from a selfish point of view, it is best to cooperate.
It is at this point where we remember that negotiation is

mostly communication.
A simple example to illustrates this: there is a type of auction

called "blind auction" where there is no communication. Each
auction hunter writes the price on a paper delivered to the
auctioneer. He simply reads all the offers and then select the
highest bid. We understand that this system does not favour
anyone, unless if the auctioneer has included a clause,
(minimum price). It may happen that an auction hunter bid
P
exceeds the actual value of the auction (in this case, the
A
auction hunter makes a bad deal). On the other hand, it may
G
as well happen that the bid is well below the value of the
E
auction; in this case the auctioneer is the loser.
Both situations are unsatisfactory; what happens is simply 41

that there is no possible communication, ergo there can be
no real negotiation.
Returning to the prisoner's dilemma it is clear that the key

lies in the impossibility of communication.
We who want to be good negotiators always will open lines of

communication between the parties. Otherwise, we will not
get a truly satisfactory agreement.

F Remember: Win – win.
The rules of the game are changing. The

expansion of information technology makes
the hitherto informational asymmetry
disappear and cause a change in attitude
among people seeking to reach an
agreement.
The new culture aimed at establishing

business alliances and seeking partners to
tackle projects requires cooperation, rather
than a confrontation approach. P
A
So, a friendly atmosphere, an attitude of G
compromise and flexibility and a vocation to E
find solutions are essential in this "new"
stage.
42

F Remember: Cooperation and pleasure.
Researchers at Emory University have used MRI to see

which brain areas are activated during certain mental tasks.
A group of volunteers was asked to play a computerized

version of the prisoner's dilemma. When the volunteers
decided to confess, the patterns of brain activation were
specific to gaming activity, decision making, etc. Nothing new
there.
On the other hand, when a volunteer decided to cooperate

we saw that in his brain appeared activated four new and P
well-known areas: those involved in the rewarding
A
mechanism, a kind of "pleasure trap" of evolution to ensure
G
that our behaviour is biologically sensible (eating with
E
appetite, drinking when thirsty, having sex, etc.)
The study shows that social cooperation is inherently 43

pleasing to the human brain, even when there are
reasonable pressures against it.
This is vital for a negotiator; to understand that humans

inherently prefer cooperating instead of fighting. This may
seem paradoxical in view of the innumerable open conflicts
all over the world.
The analysis of causes to armed conflict is far away from the

subject of this book, but we will stick to the positive side, and
it is that humans are "wired" to seek and negotiate
agreements that satisfy both parties.

We can put it another way: I may conclude a negotiation not
as fruitful as initially imagined or dreamed, but this can lay
the foundation for a profitable future sustained over time.
If you think about it, it is simply a manifestation of intelligence

in the sense of the ability to conceptualize and project. It is
quite logical to assume that if we live in harmony, we simply
live better, which may seem an absolute truism, but is not.
It may be objected that this applies to most animal species,

which by definition only move instinctively. But in reality, this
reinforces our message, and that Mother Nature is very wise,
and she is "aware" that achieving mutually satisfactory
P
solutions is a good guarantee of survival and development
A
for a species. Another thing is that Mother Nature may
G
"decide" that a circumstantial confrontation and struggle may
E
be valid in this or that situation. In fact, during mating season,
we don´t see much of a negotiating process, but there the
44
goal is different, it is to transmit genes of the fittest to survive
under the criteria that apply to that specific species.
Now it is interesting to observe that physical evolution is

usually slower than cultural evolution, and most animal
species are at a disadvantage compared to the human
species, which has taken the lead through cultural evolution
instead of through physical evolution.
For example while the deer are fighting each other during
mating season, humans invented shotguns and increasingly
lethal hunting techniques.
Deer should had better worked on developing reasoned and

negotiated processes to choose the most "intelligent" leader,

namely the one able to develop strategies against human
deer hunters. But obviously they didn´t.
To overcome this issue, in the case of humans, a good

negotiator has a competitive sexual advantage, and he
conveys to his partner, not through brilliant plumage and
large horns, a feeling that he is best suited to raise offspring
thanks to its demonstration of mastery of social and
management skills, in this case, negotiating, which is,
remember, the sum of several soft skills.
True it is that this ability is not biologically transferable; but

the cultural aspects are predominant in the success of the
P
human species.
A
G
E
45

P
THE THIRD WAY: A
G
PRINCIPLES BASED E
NEGOTIATION
46

The negotiating process works on two levels. In one of them,
negotiation has to do with the background of the problem
whereas the other focuses - usually implicitly - on the
process.
This second aspect of negotiation - i.e. negotiating about

negotiating - usually goes unnoticed because it occurs
without any apparent conscious decision. However,
consciously or unconsciously, each part is negotiating some
rules every time they make any move.
Now we can ask the key question: what strategy should we

adopt - namely hard or soft - when negotiating? The answer
P
is no to both. There is a third way that has been developed
A
by the Harvard Negotiation Project (chaired by Roger Fisher,
G
directed by Jeffrey Rubin, assisted by a large group of
E
collaborators) that has come to be called principled
negotiation, because it is based on rules and objective
criteria. 47
The results of this approach have already been amply
accredited.
In fact, rather than sticking to a strict method, this negotiating

strategy involves an organized way of thinking that can be
summarized in four basic propositions:
1. People: separate the problem from the people.

2. Interests: focus on the real issues, not on the positions
that are exposed.
3. Alternatives/Options: generate a wide range of
possibilities before deciding.

4. Criteria: Insist that the result is to be based on some
objective rule.
The first part addresses the fact that we people are not
machines; on the contrary, we are strong emotional beings
who very often have radically different perceptions of reality.
Because of this, often emotions are mixed with the objective
facts of the situation, thereby assuming positions only
worsens the problem, since the "egos" of negotiators are
easily affected. Hence, this first proposition: separate the
people from the problem.
Here we must deepen a wee bit as the sentence "separate P

the problem from people" sounds very nice but it affects A
emotions and it is not easy to deal with them. G
E
The second aspect tends to focus on what is truly important
that, in all likelihood, is not adequately reflected in the
advertised positions: that is, the interests of each party
48
towards the subject of negotiation. Very often, the
announcement of a position obscures more than clarifies the
interests. Therefore, the second rule is to focus on the
interests of the parties.
However, a vital first step is to know what are our own

interests.
The third proposition is difficult to properly address; the

problem of achieving optimal solutions while being under the
pressure of an ongoing negotiation. The effort to decide on
the presence of the opposite party often limits or narrows our
views, while the existence of the stakes too often inhibits our
creativity. It can therefore be decided (by the conscious

creation of a procedural rule) to establish a special period to
jointly study the whole range of possible solutions that reveal
shared interests between the parties. Hence the third key
aspect: before attempting to reach an agreement, invent
options for mutual benefit.
When the respective interests are in direct opposition, a party

may obtain a favourable result maintaining a stubborn
attitude. This method tends to reward intransigence and
produce arbitrary results. However, you can counter this
tactic by insisting on the fact that something is inconvenient,
and should instead be founded or based on some objective
criteria or rules.
P
A
This means that the effort should be directed to find a rule
G
that is reasonable and that satisfies, in the best way possible,
E
the interests of each party (referrals can also be made, for
example, the market value of an expert opinion, etc.).
49
Following this pattern, neither party has to yield to the other.
Hence the fourth and last of the propositions insist on the use
of rules or objective criteria.
Obviously, if our interlocutor does not play along with these

rules, we must be prepared. There are several possibilities
why he does not want to play with objective criteria:
 He has cards up the sleeve, i.e. potential foul play. Here

we will use the management techniques for foul play.
 He does not believe in the need for using objective
criteria. We'll have to sell the idea.
 He believes that using objective criteria will limit his
flexibility and creativity when negotiating. We will be
respectful but apply point two.
 He does not share the notion of objectivity on this or that
criterion. This may simply be because he does not
understand the criteria or because he deals with
unfamiliar topics, because his level of knowledge is
insufficient respect to those criteria.
In the latter case, if we have clearly identified it, it is

important that the opposite party "does not lose face" and
avoids exposing his limitations in public.
The four propositions are relevant. All this time span can be
divided into three parts: analysis, planning and discussion.
P
During the analysis phase we diagnose the situation A
(gathering information and organizing it). It is necessary to G
consider the personal problems of the people; to clearly E
identify their personal interests and those of the opposite
50
party; it is desirable to develop alternatives and, finally, it will
be useful to identify some rule or criterion we may use.
During the planning phase the same elements reappear:

Among our interests, which are the most important? What
are the possible results to be achieved? At this point, the
negotiator will create the need for new foundations and/or
arguments in his strategy.
Also during the discussion phase, when both parties are in

continuous communication those same elements reappear.
Therefore, there can be diagnosed differences in position or
communication difficulties. Each party should be able to
understand the interests of the opposite party. Both parties
can jointly generate options that are mutually satisfactory or
tend toward an agreement based on objective standards.

When this method is used consciously and correctly, the
typical result is usually a good agreement that meets the
needed requirements: smart, efficient and friendly.
Of course, one question arises; if we want to take a

positional bargaining: what technique do we use then?
The only solution is to change the game and negotiate on

principles.
P
A
G
E
51

NEGOTIATION BASED ON PRINCIPLES
 The goal is a smart and effective result reached amicably

 Separate the people from the problem
 Be soft on people and hard on the problem
 Concentrate on interests and not on positions. Research
interests
 Generate options for mutual gain
 Develop multiple options so we may choose
 Insist on using objective criteria P
A
 Try to reach a result based on independent criteria
G
E
Therefore, compared to the option of putting forward the
negotiation process as a battle of opponents, which can have
negative effects on the basic relationships we suggest that in 52
your negotiations you adopt a collaborative mindset, which
contemplates negotiation as a process where the parties
work together to find a solution and have an opportunity to
maximize a relationship that will likely continue in the future.
The key to negotiation is that both parties get what they need
without compromising the needs of the opposite party.
Therefore, in this approach, the emphasis is on solving the
problem, not on "defeating" the opposite party.

F Remember: Negotiation styles.
The good negotiator never focuses on the process as if it

were a battle. Success is not based on the "elimination" of
the opposite party.
If we think about it, remember that we can "win battles" but

we may end up "losing the war".
The tough negotiators need to feel superior to others

regardless of the consequences. They are rigid, inflexible
and lack vision, which makes very difficult to reach any kind
of agreement. Certain "dirty tricks" are very much in line with P
this type of negotiator (long waits, uncomfortable chairs, very
A
low first bids ...). In short, "winning the battle" but losing sight
G
of the ultimate goal which is to "win the war".
E
Just remember the most classic and studied example, the
First World War victory. Most historians, somewhat 53
provocative, agree on that the Second World War was not
really started in 1939 with the invasion of Poland; it actually
began on November 11, 1918, the day the armistice between
Germany and its leonine winners, a perfect example of win-
lose, was signed.
On the other hand, a “good” negotiation is conducted with an

open attitude with a focus on win/win (I win and the other
side, too). With this attitude, we strive to make the opposite
party comfortable and we focus on negotiating interests
instead of positions.

F Remember:
Consider that with the conclusion of the

negotiation, the process can lead to
behaviours that in the long run might prove
harmful. What may happen if a company
assesses and pays their negotiators based
on the volume of the agreements they sign?
However, most companies use this approach

with its perverse effects.
P
A
G
E
54

NEGOTIATION PROCESS
P
A
G
E
55

Steps for Negotiation Preparation
Preparation is the most neglected phase of any negotiation,

so it is then the area we need to thoroughly work on.
Many people fall into the same trap: we do not spend enough
time preparing so we tend to rush. Paradoxically, this course
of action usually takes more time than if we would have
prepared our project. The result of this? Compromising our
results (and therefore the success).
The steps for making a good preparation include:

P
1. Decide on the expected results (minimum and optimum)
A
2. Collect data and develop a logical argument G
3. Pick a strategy E
4. Define the roles within the negotiating team

5. Develop an agenda
56
F Remember: Quote:
"Do your calculations for battle, because he

who makes them the more complete will
eventually win"
Sun Tzu (“The Art of War “)

Decide on the results: General Guidelines
F Always have a destination in mind. Results are somewhat

different from goals: goals are like targets to shoot at, and
can be both long term and short term.
F Try to achieve a result. This means that you must actively

pursue something, rather than just sit down.
F The wished outcome must be stated in positive terms. Do

not say something like "I do not want to create problems
by doing this", but rather say something like, "I would like
to see the changes in a way that makes sense."
P
F Combine the interests of both parties. Whenever A
possible, try to set the result considering the needs of the G
opposite party. Change your perspective and try to see E
the situation from their point of view.
F Consider your goals both in short and long term as you

57
need to see the forest beyond the trees. Take a broader
perspective.
F Know the rules. This means that you can not make some
concessions because of your company guidelines or for
legal reasons.
F Know what is negotiable. There are multiple options avail-

able for each transaction. A common example in IT com-
panies is to provide a person to work for the other com-
pany during the time of implementation of the solution.

F Personalize. People do things, and negotiations are about
people. No company ever made gifts. It is always a per-
son that achieves an objective.
F Keep your perspective. Know that you are not the one
who takes the final decision in some cases. In more than
one of your negotiations, there may be other people in the
process that have their own views.
P
A
G
E
58

F Remember: What is the goal?
It seems a simple question, but the fact is

that different people may have different
views on the purpose of negotiating. For
many people, the purpose of negotiations,
first, is to obtain the signature of a contract
between the parties.
Others, however, think that the goal of

negotiation is not to sign a contract, but the
creation of a relationship between the
parties. P
A
While it is most true that the contents are G
important, the essence of the deal is the E
relationship itself.
This difference in the approach may explain

59
why some negotiators tend to spend more
time and effort in the preliminaries, while
others often want to rush the first phase.
It is, therefore, vital to determine how the

opposite party sees the purpose of
negotiating.

F Remember: Aspiration level.
There is a direct relation between our

aspirations and our results.
The higher you aim, the most you get.

Always think BIG when negotiating.
P
A
G
E
60

Prioritize the results
 Before starting a negotiation list all your expected results,

put them in order of priority and identify those that you
cannot negotiate.
 Identify the issues that are open to a compromise -and for

what reasons- and those that aren't.
 Express each expected result in one unique phrase.
 Prioritize your results.

P
A
This will allow you to be aware of what objectives you have G
to achieve in the first place and which you cannot yield. If you E
look for an unrealistic result, you will not get satisfactory
results.
61
Divide your priorities into three groups:
 Those that are your ideal

 Those that represent a realistic goal
 Those that are the minimum you have to get

Here's a sample table to negotiate with a supplier or a
customer or any other party:
Interests Value for the

Cost to me Weight Ratio:
(Mine and Other's) Other
Full list V C (CV) * C * V
Security 6 9 -162
Price 4 2 16
Confidence 8 6 96
Future Options 3 4 -12
Liquidity 2 5 -30
Flexibility in delivery 1 2 -2 P
Public symbol 9 1 72 A
Quality 5 7 -70 G
Delivery 7 8 -56 E
Other
…Tradition
…Innovation
62
… Image.

To prepare this table, we have to make a double exercise of
reflection and creativity. The reflection about ourselves,
"What - really - do we expect from this negotiation?" Let us
not remain on the surface. For example, I want more money.
We have to answer the question "Why?”
This same question can be asked in reverse. A trivial

example:
 I need to get money from this operation

 Why? I want to own a high-end car
 For what? To impress the residents of my condo. P
A
In this somewhat cartoonish example we identified what the G
best interests of the party and we did not stay on the surface, E
which are the positions (money and big car).
Another simple example. Imagine that you are dealing with a

63
municipality to grant a license for a fast-food outlet.
If we negotiate with the mayor we must first investigate his

needs: Services for the city? personal image before voters?,
a better service to his people?, etc.
To construct this table, we have to value (it may be 7, 8 or 15

factors or whatever...) both the weight and the cost, not
repeating any value (there cannot be two factors of equal
weight, that's part of the difficulty when using this tool).
Then we simply measure the difference between the value

and the cost, and this difference, which can be positive or

negative, gives us the first clues about the vital or trivial
factors over which we will negotiate.
In the table we have taken an example and we see clearly

that there are 4 sections in red (very negative), to which we
must pay special attention as they imply a significant risk for
us. Instead we see 2 positive sections (green), where we
have great leverage and on which we must emphasize.
Ultimately we shall focus on the sections in colours and we

forget those in white, where there is not much to gain and a
lot to lose.
P
It is important that when we prepare our table we are open
A
and creative. Indeed, the natural tendency would be to think
G
only in terms of price, time and quality, for example, and we
E
would leave many other keys untouched.
We can also represent our table graphically and we see at 64

once what are the "keys" to touch (green), the keys to be
avoided (red), and the keys not very profitable (yellow).
The astute reader will also notice that the green keys (trust
and symbol in this example) are connected with personal
values. This is no accident at all, it confirms that values are
decisive.

Valu
Public
e symbol Trust
(him)
Terms
Safety
Qualit
y
Future options
Pric
e Liquidity P
Flexibility
A
G
Cost E
(me)
65

Collect data
Preparing for negotiation may involve an investigation. If this

is the case, you have to find useful information to support the
results you want to achieve. In addition, you must collect
information to help you minimize the arguments of the
opposite party. Here are some things you should remember:
 Make sure your information is correct, timely and relev-

ant.
 Too many stats may muddle the whole affair, so pick the
most relevant figures and use stats only if necessary. P
A
 Gather as much information about the people you are ne- G
gotiating with and about what you think they are going to E
deem as an acceptable result. Today social networks are
a good tool, but it is only complementary; they are not the
sole source of information. 66
 If you need information, just get it. But you must decide
beforehand what you are going to do with the available in-
formation you hold at that moment.
Here's a basic example:
You want to have a batch job printed through FC Printing

Company. You would you like to have it ready quickly so you
may deliver it on time.
When you communicate the date estimated to finish the job,

you may:

 Ask them to do the job if you meet the date planned.
 If the date you get is too late, you can carry the work or
impression to another company (BATNA).
 If the date you propose is close to the one you have in
mind, you can open negotiations in order to have some
work partly done right now or perhaps you may modify an
element of the job so it can be done quickly.
Thus, once you've made a decision you can work with the
printing company on what to do, and your action plan will be
traced. You do not have to sit and think about it for a while; P
and in any case, you can investigate other options when you A
get the information. G
E
In this example of printing, look about your interests. How
important is the "time" factor? Are there other interests of
yours to work with this specific printing company? They can
67
be about comfort, quality, relationship, etc. Mull it over before
making a decision. For example, if you externalize a service,
the money factor is relevant but less than you might think.
The reason we want to outsource might just to be more

comfortable; Comfort in this case is one of our biggest
interests. Outsourcing can also allow us to focus on some
more added-value business.
Note that this is not the same as taking a position and

sticking to it: all you're doing here is to evaluate your options
beforehand. Of course, it is appropriate that you remain
flexible. The information you get can sometimes will surprise
you.

Choosing a strategy
Once you are clear about your results and you have
analysed the likely priorities of the opposite party, you are
ready to formulate a strategy to achieve the results you've
identified as desirable.
Strategy is an overall frame to achieve a series of results. It

is not necessarily connected to the methods or tactics we
use to follow the said strategy.
The strategy follows a process of logical thinking leading to a

successful conclusion.
P
A
Questions you may ask yourself:
G
E
 Who needs to be part of the discussion in relation to the
strategy?
 How many people do we need at the negotiation team?
68
 What role for each of the team members?
Every negotiation you engage in has the possibility of failure.

You need, therefore, to know what your alternatives are, if,
ultimately, you cannot get what you need on that particular
topic. If you ask someone something, and he cannot or will
not give it in minimum acceptable terms, what are you gonna
do?
So it is very important to know what you do in such cases in

order to be in a position to negotiate effectively. If you have to
reach the agreement because it is your only hope (your
BATNA) this will give guidance on how many concessions

and what size they need to be. If you have other interesting
choices, it is also good to be aware of them before you sit
down to negotiate.
F Remember: Strategy and tactics.
Strategy is more important than tactics.

There are no right tactics for the wrong
strategy. If you do not know where you are
going, what's the point of discussing how to P
get there? Remember the white rabbit from A
Alice in Wonderland. G
E
69

Define the roles
Are you negotiating a long-term contract with a supplier or

deciding with your team who is responsible for some aspects
of a new project? The full understanding of your role is
another aspect to consider as you prepare to negotiate.
Some questions you may ask yourself as you prepare are:
"Will I need other people to negotiate?" If so, "Who must

attend the negotiations?" If so, "We have to rehearse or
practice what we are going to say?"
P
Each negotiating team needs a leader who is responsible for
A
conducting negotiations and coordinate the team members
G
when necessary.
E
In a negotiation, a good strategy requires that the right
70
people are fully involved. If you are part of a team, you must
decide on the roles and responsibilities you want your team
members to assume, (technical, commercial, financial ...).
Beware of the risk of appearing divided and thus giving

advantage to the opponent.
Take in account their experience with the topic at hand, also

whether they are more suitable for watching the process or to
present some of the aspects.

Develop an agenda
Now that you've decided what range of results you want to

achieve you can take care of the development of an agenda.
An agenda is a list of items to be put on the table for
discussion.
There are two types of agendas:
 agendas focused on agreements, and

 disagreements centered agendas.
P
Each of the types of agenda is essentially a list of issues and A
positions that need to be reconciled. G
E
Agenda-based agreements: 71
The main use of this kind of agenda is to sell to the opposite
party the agreement's value. Essentially this puts the
emphasis on reaching an agreement on the different
elements from the very beginning (without anyone having to
make concessions) instead of focusing on the areas where
there may be some disagreement.
Here's an example:
"Look at all the things we have agreed upon; it would be a

shame to dump it all".

Agenda based on disagreements:
An agenda based on disagreements takes the opposite

position, "these are the areas where we need to sort things
out". The agendas based on disagreements don't have to be
necessarily negative; we simply focus the discussion on the
problems areas and work on them directly.
Negotiating with this type of schedule is more appropriate

when interacting with a person whose basic style is
collaborative and cooperative negotiation. However, it is less
appropriate when working with a negotiator who puts forward
a lot of problems, so you need to have a base firmly built to
P
avoid being locked too early.
A
G
E
F Remember: Do we start with the easy issues or with the
difficult ones?
72
This is one of the dilemmas that may arise in the
negotiations. What´s better: starting with the
easy points and leaving the difficult aspects to
the end? Or, do we start with the points more
confrontational then address the easiest ones?
Technically we are talking about whether it is

better to base the agenda of the negotiation on
agreements or on disagreements.
The answer depends on your interlocutor, what

your negotiating style is and what type of
relationship you have with the opposite party.

With tough negotiators, it is better to go slowly. Perform the
negotiation on an agenda based on reaching agreements.
Obviously, this type of negotiation is rather time-consuming.
However, if the relationship with the opposite party is stable,
firm and durable, and assuming that there is an atmosphere
of win/win in our relationship, then the best, in order to
capitalize on the time and energy parameter, is to start
negotiation on the points where we disagree.
It is useful to have at hand a list of questions to help us focus

on the preparation. Of course it is possible that each
negotiation process requires different information and,
P
without doubt, each business should generate its own set of
A
questions. For guidance, here we consider some that are
G
vital:
E
 What are my needs?
73
 What are my goals and desires?
 What is the power relationship between the two parties?
 Do I have defined negotiating limits?
 What might be the needs and desires of the opposite

party?
 Is it mandatory to reach an agreement?
 What if we do not reach an agreement?
 Precedents can be established?

 Will it be possible to enforce the agreement?
 How much time do I have to negotiate?
 What will be the role of the other negotiator in the

execution of the agreement?
 Is the future relationship important?
 Is the reliability of agreement high or low?
 What strategy is best suited for this negotiation?

P
 In what scenario will we negotiate?
A
G
E
Parallel to the development of these questions it is necessary
to collect all the information you might need. For example:
74
Finding information about the opposite party: Financial
information, compliance with previous commitments,
negotiating history, current situation, etc.
Issues that you are negotiating: Priorities and time

management. It is advisable to start with the easy stuff,
followed by the hard one and leave for the final the complex
stuff. This way you will develop some common ground and it
will be easier to reach agreements on the most complex
issues.
Arguments: Although we have said that we must reduce the

number of arguments to defend your position, you need to
think about theirs. Analyse the arguments to defend your

position and choose those that are really solid, even if there
´s only one.
Concessions: What concessions do you plan to make and in

what order? Always analyse it in terms of cost involved for
you and also the value for the opposite party.
Strengths and weaknesses (yours and of the opposite party):

You should recognize your strengths and your weaknesses.
This information will allow you to choose the right strategy
and tactics.
The view from the opposite side: It is always advisable to

P
empathize, not to sympathize (Stockholm syndrome) with the
A
opposite party. It's good for both if you place yourself in the
G
position of the other; this way you can not only predict their
E
behaviour and reactions, but you can obtain information that
will allow you to better identify their needs and interests,
75
which will facilitate you to find points of agreement beneficial
for both.
Training: When you need to carry out some particularly

complex negotiations, it is recommended that you train in
advance. Ask a partner to play the role of the opposite party
and negotiate with him. This simulation allows you to analyse
their behaviour and recognize their weaknesses.

Meet the opposite party
In the preparation phase is very important to meet the

opposite party.
The more we know about our counterpart the better we are

prepared for negotiation.
Among other information we are interested are the following:
 General information about the organization or its activity,

its sales and profits, the range of products, their markets,
their market share. P
 Strategies, objectives, goals pursued. A
G
 The style of our negotiating partner (cooperating or E
confronting), the practices often used, some personal
character about negotiators (manners, honesty,
friendliness, etc.). 76
Knowing this information will allow us to:
 Better tailor our offer to the needs of the opposite party.

 Use the arguments that can be most convincing.
 Choose appropriate negotiation strategy or tactics.
 Anticipate the foreseeable conduct of negotiations,
avoiding surprises.

Feel the power ratio
The knowledge of the opposite party also allows us to
estimate the possible relation of power during the
negotiation. Of course it is not the same deal with a large
organization as with a small one. Nor is the same deal with
an issue that affects the core business of a company or
negotiating on a marginal issue. It is not the same
negotiating when trying to establish a lasting relationship with
the opposite party, who simply seeks a timely agreement.
He who has a strong need to close a deal, is the one who will
likely have a weaker bargaining position. Another thing is the
perception that the party may have of our position; but this is P
not like playing poker, it is about differentiating between A
reality and perceptions. G
E
This possible interest of each party to reach an agreement
will depend on the best alternative of the parties in the event
that no agreement is reached. 77
For example, assume that Company A negotiates with
retailers selling their products through their retailers
nationwide.
In case of failure to reach any agreement the best option will

be trying to sell their products by catalogue (with very bad
experience in the past), while the best option B will be to
contact another organization (they are numerous and all of
them are willing to work with B).
In this case, it seems clear that if the agreement is not

reached, the alternative option B is substantially more

attractive than A, so B will negotiate from a position of
strength.
Now, as we see in our cost-value table, it may happen that

the interlocutor wants to work with us for reasons other than
purely economic; as can be of comfort, image, etc. so it will
be necessary to determine the real needs (not the assumed
ones).
In any case, although the power balance is unfavourable to

us, we can not begin a negotiation with a sense of inferiority,
in the belief that the opposite side is stronger and smarter. If
so, we would have little chance of reaching a minimally
P
satisfactory agreement.
A
G
If the opposite party is abusing of its power and tries to
E
impose unacceptable terms we always have the option to
break the negotiation and not reach an agreement.
78
John F. Kennedy once said something it is worth
remembering: “We must never negotiate with fear but we
must not be afraid of negotiating”.

Know your own offer
When we come to the negotiating table is necessary to have

a precise knowledge of the offer presented:
 Main characteristics of the product or service, with some

level of detail.
 Delivery.
 Guaranty.
 Price range, possible negotiable discounts (purchase

P
volume, prompt payment, etc.). A
G
 Financial facilities.
E
 Technical support facilities
79
 Etc.
However, there may always be more specific aspects

(technical, legal, financial, etc.) one cannot ignore.
In those cases, and with the negotiation already in progress,

commit yourself to place a query to the correct department
and to bring back an answer as soon as possible.
We also propose to contact the relevant departments of both

organizations.

What, of course, you should not do under any circumstances
is inventing an answer (this could put yourself in evidence
thus losing all your credibility).
Is also useful to try to know how much the product or service

you can offer meet the needs of the opposite party. To do so
you can compare your offer with that offered by competitors.
A good understanding of all these aspects will provide

greater safety during the negotiation, and it may develop
more agility. Also, you will project an image of
professionalism, earning respect from the opposite party.
P
A
G
E
80

The MinMax
In the preparation phase it is also critical that you define

precisely what you intend to achieve. This goal should be
ambitious but also realistic.
It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the more

ambitious, the better the final result.
Do not look for a single result as you probably will not get it.
Preferably determine a possible range of valid results. This
range is determined by the following values:
P
 Optimal result: the best possible outcome.
A
G
 Acceptable result: result below the optimal but good
E
enough to close the deal.
 Minimum: marking the acceptable minimum, below which 81

there is no interest in closing an agreement.
If, as a negotiator you don't decide on the minimum

acceptable, there is a possibility that you enter the
negotiation being convinced that you must close a deal at
whatever the price (just as if not closing were the worst of the
failures).
The way to determine the minimum acceptable is assessing

what would be your best alternative if you do not reach any
agreement.
For example, suppose you want to sell your current house to

finance the purchasing of a new home. If you do not sell here

are the options: renting (allowing you to get a monthly
income) continue inhabiting it (you save the costs of
financing the new home), transferring it to a family member,
etc.
Of these alternatives you will select the most interesting and

will proceed to value them. For example, if you choose to
rent you receive a monthly income of about 1,000 Euros,
allowing you to deal with the monthly instalments of a loan of
200,000 Euros.
Therefore, the minimum price that must be accepted for your

old house will be 200,000 Euros. Below this amount it would
P
be preferable to rent the old house and getting a loan for this
A
amount.
G
E
If your best alternative is better than the opposite party
imagines, it is desirable to have in mind those values when
estimating your minimum acceptable. 82
If, however, your best alternative is worse than the opposite
party imagines, you better not comment it at all (if the
opposite party becomes aware of that information your
negotiating position would be weakened).
In addition to these primary objectives, it is also at this stage

that you elaborate alternatives.
It is also helpful to decide at this stage of preparation what

will be your starting position.
Typically, this will be quite far from the starting position of the
opposite party.

This initial position will be, far from it, what you hope to
achieve. It will be even above your optimum result.
It is recommended to set a reasonably high initial position in

order to have room for manoeuvre if you have to make later
concessions.
However, this starting position is not to be ridiculously high

because the opposite party would reject it as absurd, would
not take it seriously (with the consequent loss of credibility on
our part) or may even discard continue negotiating.
Another reason to set a high starting position is that usually

P
mutual concessions by the parties shall approximate
A
positions and it is very common to converge at an
G
intermediate point between the two starting positions.
E
Setting a high starting position makes this midpoint closest to
our goals (although the opposite party will also do something 83
similar).
Obviously the big question is: how do I determine this point?

The answer is simpler than it seems: if we are in a "mature"
market or if we think of a product or "mature" service, we all
have a sensible idea of the market prices.
In fact, as already noted, the most important thing is to try to

determine what might be the objectives of the opposite party,
i.e., what their interests are. Remember that the positions are
merely a manifestation of the interests, and we negotiate on
interests, not on positions. The positions are merely trading
elements.

For instance a low price, quality assurance in the delivery,
good aftersales service, etc.
This allows you to better tailor your offer to the interests of

the opposite party. It is also convenient to estimate what
could be your best alternative if no agreement is reached.
An example of MinMax strategy
The so-called game theory tries to find suitable mathematical

models to many economic, social, operational research
P
problems, etc.
A
G
One of the key concepts is the mathematical idea of MinMax
E
strategy. Let's see an example of military strategy.
Before the use of radar to locate submarines, sunken 84

submarines percentage was 40 percent. When the planes
began using radar, the number of submarines sunk rose to
80%.
Soon submarines began using radar detectors and could

perceive ahead of time the proximity of aircraft equipped with
radar, so the percentage of sunken submarines went down to
20 percent. Seeing this, the high command of the RAF
stopped using radar, expecting to return to a percentage of
40 percent. However, the percentage of sunken submarines
rose to 70%.
Information demonstrated that the submarines still used

radar detectors, which represents a disadvantage for

submarines, as they had to remove the unit and put it under
cover, which meant a waste of time to start the dive.
After a time, the command of the submarine realized that

using the aircraft radar detectors was counterproductive. And
indeed, it was found that the percentage of sunken
submarine was back to 40 percent.
The problem is to know which is the most advantageous

strategy. If both parties decide to use the radar, then the sub-
marines have an advantage. If one of them uses radar, they
the air force has the high ground.
P
The solution according to the MinMax strategy was that each
A
controller used radar occasionally in a certain proportion
G
(called optimal strategy), but within that proportion,
E
completely at random. Obviously the latter is necessary
because if the command of the submarine knew the
sequence of the command of the aircraft using radar, he 85
would have a real advantage using the detectors on the
same occasions.

The importance of preparation
The most valuable suggestion we can give is that you

prepare well any negotiations and have very clear goals. We
emphasize on the importance of planning and preparation,
which is the best strategy to not only get what you want but
also to eventually be able to face the techniques of "hard"
bargaining.
A good preparation is a powerful weapon against all

negotiating tactic.
A well prepared negotiator, having a clear idea of his

P
objectives, possesses ample information and relies on a
A
correct strategy (however flexible if needed); so he rarely will
G
fall as a victim of a shrewd opponent (namely who is prone to
E
“dirty tricks”).
Especially against a cunning adversary (i.e. who uses tricks). 86

P
NEGOTIATION BASED ON A
G
PRINCIPLES: 5 PHASES E
87

Negotiating soft, hard... Well, as we have seen, there is a
third way to negotiate, which is neither hard nor soft, but both
at once. It is a method of negotiation based on principles and
it serves to decide on matters, issues and topics.
It connects with your own circumstances, and it doesn't need

to go through a haggling process where each party says
what they going to do and what they won't.
This form of negotiating suggests that, whenever possible,

we seek mutual benefits; and when interests conflict, we
insist on the result to be based on independent desire or on
the will of the parties to use certain standards or fair criteria.
P
A
The method of principled negotiation is hard on the facts (the
G
problem) and soft on the people. No tricks or posturing.
E
It allows us to be fair while at the same time it protects
ourselves against those who would take advantage of our 88
honesty.
This negotiating method is based on principles.
F Remember: The elongated shadow of the future.
The most important fact that enables the

emergence of cooperation is that the parties
perceive that there is the possibility to re-found it.
The future casts a shadow on the present and,

thus, influences the current strategic situation.

P
PHASE I: A
G
E
SEPARATE THE PEOPLE
89
FROM THE PROBLEM

This sentence is well known and disseminated, it has
"become fashionable". Many authors simply state it and
move on to the next topic. We think that they pass it quickly
for the reason that it is not so easy to achieve.
The reason is that we are talking about an emotional aspect,

ergo difficult to manage. Let's give a twist to some concepts
and processes that might help us.
Dealing with perceptions
Why when facing the same facts do people react differently?

P
What are the mechanisms that lie behind our decisions? Why
A
sometimes it is impossible to agree with others on certain
G
issues?
E
To a large extent these questions can be answered with the
help of what Chris Argyris called, in 1985, the inference 90
ladder. This concept which later was taken over by Peter
Senge, is a model that illustrates perfectly how we mentally
ascend from observations to decisions and finally to actions.
Here's an example to illustrate it best: "My son failed a test,
so I get angry and I will chastise him". What has really
happened?
Explanation by the inference ladder:
 First: Objective data, first we observe an event and we

select what interests us My son failed a test. Note that we
discard other data such as notes, matter, circumstances,
etc.

 Second: Interpreting. According to our beliefs we give
meaning to the data that we have selected: My son did
not devote enough time to study.
 Third: Trials and opinions. At this stage we compare the

performance with our values and parameters: Not
devoting time enough to study is an act of irresponsibility
and disobedience.
 Fourth: Conclusions and decisions about how to act: My

son did not fulfil its responsibilities and disobeyed me, so
I get angry and I chastise him.
P
This process, more than just a ladder, is in practice a high A
speed elevator: something happens and immediately we G
jump to conclusions. The main problem is that we do not E
usually recognize this mental process and we are also
strongly conditioned by our mental models, so, many times,
we can draw the wrong conclusions. 91
With this in mind, when it costs us to agree with someone, it
is very useful to inquire about the facts, the reasoning and
the objectives of the person in front of us.
Expose and investigate productively, descend our ladder of

inferences explaining our evidence, our standards, our
reasoning, our conclusions and suggestions and, in the same
way, invite the opposite party to do the same to try to find
common ground where we may build a shared
understanding.
When we make our thinking processes and mental models

visible, we can change some ways of thinking that are not
effective. And this will impact on the decision-making, on the
results we achieve, on the opinions we have about other
people and on the ways we interact with them and even on
the way we see ourselves.
Think about it: What each of us sees depends on our point of

view.
If you agree with the previous sentence, therefore, you

should be aware that the same situation can be
seen/perceived by two different people as something
completely different. The same situation can be seen as a
threat to a person while another person sees it as an
opportunity. A person can see the bottle as half full. Another
P
person can see it half empty.
A
G
How does all this relate to negotiation? On many occasions,
E
we sit down to negotiate without even thinking about what
the other person sees. We are bypassing this fundamental
principle: each person sees depending on his point of view. 92
What differentiates good negotiators is precisely the ability to
detect what the parties perceive.
Therefore, don´t deduce the intentions of others from your

own fears. The usual way of seeing things is that if one of
them is right, the other is not. An alternative is to think that
both may be right. The other may be right according to his
experience.
To minimize and, where appropriate, address the problems of

perception we propose several suggestions:
F Put yourself in the place of the other. Surely it is the most

important ability. If you try to change the minds of the

negotiators of the opposite party, you need to first
understand them. Ask questions. Listen. Check to see if
you understand. Reformulate.
F Do not blame them for the problem. Talk about the

problem without attacking people as this usually
backfires. The opposite party will put on the defensive
and return the blow.
F Request advice ("What wrong do you see in this

proposition? "). Approve ideas whenever possible.
F Always give a possible solution to the other negotiators. P

Keep in mind that everyone has his own ego and self- A
image and we must care for them. G
E
93
F Remember: On perceptions.
The usual way of seeing things is that if one

of the two is right the other is not.
The alternative is that both may be right. The

other person (the opposite party) may be
right according to his experience.

F Remember: Facts and statistics are always negotiable.
Behind them all there are variables such as:
 What methods were used to compile data.

 Reasons to compile.
 Criteria and prejudices that influence.
 Hidden values.
There is always a story behind the information.
People may disagree on assumptions and
interpretations surrounding the facts.
P
The facts are always oriented to the past while A
negotiations are future-oriented. G
We should ultimately be sceptical about statistics E
and numbers.
94
F Remember: Putting ourselves in the other´s shoes.
We are not that much aware of it. But sometimes

a situation might be seen from different points of
view, both being perfectly valid.
In negotiations, we invest a lot of time trying to
convince others of some facts when we should
just try to understand their perceptions.
That is, we must place ourselves in the other

person position to see the situation from their
perspective.

F Remember: Change appearances.
P
The perception of the other part of what has A
happened in negotiation is crucial. So even G
though you generated a clear loss E
(sometimes it's inevitable), trying to change
appearances so the opposite party does not
feel defeated is a highly recommended
95
practice.
Remember the anecdote from British Prime

Minister Benjamin Disraeli, whom finding
himself urged by one of his followers who
wanted a title then suggested: "You know I
cannot give you a barony, but you can tell
your friends that I offered you one and then
you turned it down."

Dealing with emotions
We have repeated several times that we are constantly

negotiating in our daily lives. Similarly, emotions are with us
permanently. These emotions can be positive (such as joy)
but also negative (such as anger or frustration). Although
there is a neutral emotion which is surprise and that can be
used with advantage. As it is neutral, our interlocutor may
interpret it one way or another. It's up to us to nuance it or
not, depending on how we want to use it.
When negotiating it will always be helpful to know how to

deal with those emotions, both yours and your partner's.
P
A
Many people claim, and rightly so from our point of view, that
G
emotions may constitute an obstacle to negotiations as they
E
may:
 Diverting the attention from the really important matters 96

and re-aiming it at protecting us or attacking the other
instead of helping us achieving satisfactory agreements.
 Harm a relationship. Uncontrolled emotions can reduce
the ability to act with wisdom and may also ruin the
relationship with our partners through hurtful comments or
attitudes that generate resentment in the other.
 Serve to enable partners to take advantage of us as they
show our vulnerabilities and may give clues to what are
our real concerns.
However, it is also true that emotions may also, on the other

hand, be advantageous in a negotiation. We invite you to
contemplate these other perspectives:

F Positive emotions can facilitate reaching agreements and
reconciling interests. Positive emotions toward the other
reduce the fear and the suspicions and help turn the
opposite party (which many consider as an "adversary")
into a collaborator. Thus, it is possible to work together,
with an open mind and to listen to the interests of each of
the parties. Then we generate a greater emotional
commitment of both parties in order to achieve an
agreement, satisfactory to all and that can have continuity
over time.
F Positive emotions can improve relationships. Let you

enjoy interpersonal interactions and the benefits of P
camaraderie, which can act as a safety net or as a A
protection. G
E
F Positive emotions do not increase the risk of being
exploited by the opposite party whenever we are fully
aware that we should not feel so comfortable and 97
confident that we may make unwise concessions or show
overconfidence.
Obviously, our recommendation is that you should never

inhibit positive emotions but they should be contrasted before
making a decision that satisfies our interests.
In any case, it is virtually impossible to fully disconnect from

our emotions. Emotions will always be present and will
always affect us in one or another way.
For example, in our body. Emotions can have an immediate

impact on our physiology causing sweating, blushing,
laughing... Of course, after experiencing an emotion we may
try to control its expression and we can avoid enthusiastic
smile or tears before a disappointment, but the body will still
experience physiological changes and suppressing emotions
has always a cost. They may even generate stress that can
divert our attention and make it hard to concentrate on the
important issues.
Likewise, emotions can affect our reasoning. Negative

thinking tends to occupy our minds and prevent us from
learning and reasoning. Actually they may block us and make
us stop listening to interesting proposals made by the
opposite party.
Positive thinking, however, enables us to focus on the

P
beneficial ideas that appear in the course of a negotiation.
A
Without the anxiety that generated mistrust, thinking
G
becomes more creative, more open and more flexible and
E
that leads to not reject ideas and strive to find options that
are viable.
98
Bluntly put, any emotion we experience often motivate us to
take action. If the emotion is too strong it will probably take
the reins whereas the logical brain will feel impotent and we
might performs acts we could lament later.
What is the key then? Addressing our emotions. We're not

saying this is always simple. Quite the contrary, it is a difficult
and complicated task. It is true that there are people who
seem to have a natural talent to do it, but usually we have to
strive to develop our skills to manage our emotions. It is also
good to note that it is physically impossible to try to control
and be aware of all the emotions we experience, both we
and our partners at any time during a negotiation.

In any case, emotions will provide information on what is the
relative importance we attach to each of our concerns and in-
terests and reciprocally, they are going to tell us something
about the importance of worries and interests from the op-
posite party.
F Remember: Talk about feelings.
Carl Rogers has shown that the expression

of feelings is directly related to the P
establishment of confidence in counseling A
situations. The same effect occurs in G
negotiations. E
Therefore, to openly express how you feel

inside and give information on what things 99
are happening within us and our mind is
tremendously recommended to be
implemented in any negotiations.
It is also a great idea to ask the opposite

party how they feel about the various
proposals that we are shuffling.
Talking about emotions always provides

benefits... and valuable information.

F Remember: Quote.
"Never steal a person dignity. It's everything

to her whereas it does not represent
anything to you".
Frank Barron.
F Remember: Ask for forgiveness.
Or apologize. Many people consider this

implies stooping to the opposite party. P
Nothing wronger. By doing this we are not A
accepting being responsible for the problem; G
we just apologize. E
In any case, apologizing is not humiliating

ourselves. And asking for forgiveness or
100
apologizing (if deemed appropriate, of
course) are invaluable when it comes to
improving a hostile emotional situation. And,
in contrast, it has a very low cost.
F Remember: Quote.
"Build a golden bridge for your opponent to

flee".
Tsun-Su.

Active listening
Active listening has become popular. It was first expressed

by Epictetus in the first century BC when he reminded us that
"God made us with two ears and one mouth so listen twice
and speak once".
Sounds simple, but try to do it... in a negotiation. Active

listening is a critical skill which has a direct impact on the
negotiation process. Active listening includes various
behaviours that communicate to the opposite party that you
are listening and understanding, that you appreciate them
and accept the feelings expressed through their words and
P
that no matter what their thoughts or words are, you accept
A
them as a person.
G
E
Therefore, the purpose of active listening is to communicate
that, whatever the quality of the ideas, events, attitudes and
101
values of the speaker, the listener is not evaluating a person
because of his beliefs or feelings. The listener accepts the
speaker as he is, without making moral judgements about
what is right and what is wrong, not condemning them as
logical or illogical.
Usually, however, when we listen there are two types of

connection mechanisms activated:
Should I agree with the other person; i.e. thinking the same
as the other? In essence I think that his understanding of the
problem is correct? Would I do / think the same?
Put yourself in his place: Do I understand the position of the

other?

If we cross the two variables there are four possible
situations:
Agreeing with the Not agreeing with

other the other
Putting yourself
in the place of SIMPATHY EMPATHY
the other
Not being able
to put yourself EGOPATHY or
Antipathy
in the other APATHY
place
P
A
When we agree with someone a process of sympathy is G
generated. Sympathy is not counterproductive in a E
negotiation, but should be handled with caution, as we could
lose sight of our own goals.
102
If we do not agree with the other person and are unable to
understand his position, because we find ourselves in that
situation or simply because we do not accept his point of
departure, we have an antipathy situation. Beware! Antipathy
generates poor personal relationships and, like the poles of a
magnet, often causes rejection between negotiators.
Antipathy is often a good source of disagreement because of

the strong emotional charge involved.
If we agree with the opposite party, but are unable to put in

his place, we are falling into the biggest trap of listening,
egopathy. Apparently, we have the feeling that we are
listening but really all we do is simply listen to ourselves.
Rings a bell? You've probably seen someone acting that way.
Examples of situations:
Situation A
"I feel tired; I just got out of a cold and..."

"Ugh! Terrible, at home last week we all had a very high
fever. "
Situation B
"...We have a stressful job. There is no way to end the task

because…"
P
A
"Do not tell me we're all cramped up and down. It seems
G
incredible that with all the rampant unemployment we have
E
to work harder and harder..."
Note that in both cases the recipient is not truly listening to103
what the opposite party is trying to say. He is simply
interpreting his words from his reality. Careful! That is a major
trap that keeps us from listening and, moreover, often causes
the person speaking stopping transmitting any information.
If we are able to put ourselves in the other person shoes

regardless of whether we agree or not, we will use empathy.
Empathy is the best formula for active listening, allowing to
understand our interlocutor without judgement, without giving
reasons. Remember that the ultimate goal of listening is to
understand, not to evaluate.
Hence, active listening requires effort, but it can be learned.

Some of the behaviours that we suggest below may seem
awkward or forced at first, but with some practice they will

become more natural. In other words, you will have
developed a skill.
It is difficult to respond with patience, understanding and

empathy when the person in front of you is expressing ideas
that would seem illogical, deceptive, or even morally wrong.
However, the behaviours listed below will generate, if
practised with confidence, attitudes of tolerance and
understanding that will facilitate empathy and non evaluative
acceptance of the others.
Our suggestion is that you start practising right now, even in

non-sensitive situations in your daily life; that's the way to
P
develop this skill.
A
G
E
Paraphrasing content
Consists of repeating, in your own words, what the other 104

person just said in order to check that you have understood.
They can be used as starting phrases:
 "To me, what you say is..."

 "Do you mean...?"
 "So, what you propose is..."
The key to this behaviour is that we must first listen with real
intent what the opposite party has said. If we think about
what we're going to respond or if we conduct mental
evaluations and criticisms it is more than likely that we do not
listen enough to paraphrase correctly.

It is useful to paraphrase with some frequency, to acquire the
mental habit of doing it. In general, most people do not care if
we interrupt them occasionally if they see that our real intent
is to properly understand what they are saying.
Projecting or reflecting the consequences
To project it is necessary to go a little beyond the content of

what the other person is expressing.
Our intervention may take the form of an extension or an

P
explanation of the ideas of the speaker, using phrases such
A
as:
G
E
 "I guess if you can do this..."
 "That can lead to a situation where..."
105
 "Would it help to solve this problem...?"
 "How does our situation affect what you're asking?"
 "A direct consequence of the proposal would be that..."
When projecting or reflecting the consequences it is

important to let the speaker control the discussion or
conversation. If this technique is used to alter the direction of
thought of the speaker or to demonstrate that the listener is
much smarter, building trust is hampered and this technique
becomes a negative resource.
Reflect underlying feelings

This technique goes beyond the obvious content of what is
being said and brings out some feelings, attitudes, beliefs or
values that are perhaps influencing the speaker to express
himself the way he does. The aim is to empathize, to take the
place of the person speaking, to experience what they must
feel in their situation.
Then listening tentatively expresses feelings, using phrases

like:
 "I guess you are pretty worried".

 "If that happened to me, it would upset me deeply".
P
 "Sometimes, when I've found myself in that kind of A
situation, I missed a helping hand". G
 "If I get that, I think I would feel really proud". E
 "That must have caused you great satisfaction".

106
We should avoid exposing too much to the person. It is also
critical to avoid any suggestion or advice. This could make
the speaker evaluate what we are trying to do is
communicate acceptance of the feelings from the opposite
party.
Invite new contributions
Even though we have not heard or understood enough to

make indications of understanding, empathy and
acceptance, we can at least communicate our interest in
continuing listening. In this sense, phrases like this are very
useful:

 "Tell me more about that"
 "How did you feel when...?"
 "Help me understand..."
 "And what happened next?"
To keep your balance, you should avoid using questions

exclusively, and they must be accompanied by the
reformulation and the reflection of the underlying feelings.
In short, using a cocktail of the above techniques is how we P

practice active listening. A
G
E
107

F Remember: The weight of the past.
One of the major obstacles in many

negotiation processes is to allow the past to
have too much weight and this impedes
progress towards a brighter future.
Thus, some speak of the importance of

initiating, in these situations, what we call a
process of "decontamination".
P
A
F Remember: The importance of sensations. G
E
They are essential. Many people do not pay
too much attention but they make the
difference and determine the future. We may
108
think that we have conducted an excellent
negotiation and that we have even obtained
a great result, but the feeling from the other
part of how was conducted the negotiation
(the process) and the result of this will shape
the future between the two negotiators.
It is not about being tricked or manipulated.

In other words, having played a real win-win.

F Remember: Rebuild trust.
In any situation, trust may suffer. Also in

negotiations. In this case, it is convenient to
think of what can be done to repair the
relationship. You have to start a repairing
process that restores the integrity of the
wounded relationship. It is good to
remember that confidence is the result of a
series of steps, consistent and sustained.
Ultimately trust is built or reinforced by deeds
and not only by words. You cannot get
someone to trust you just by saying "trust P
me". A
G
Apologize sincerely, expressing your sorrow E
or an explicit recognition are some of the
options in these cases.
109
The chiropractors argue that after a fracture,
the bone becomes stronger. This is the
benefit when trust between the parties has
deteriorated and is then rebuilt.

F Remember: Difficult negotiations.
Any negotiation can certainly get

complicated. But there are negotiations
where more than money is at stake. For
instance, negotiations with kidnappers. In
such cases, the parameters may be slightly
different from traditional negotiations.
The first thing professional negotiators do

when dealing with those situations is to gain
time. A few seconds can mean the difference
between life and death. P
A
Gaining the trust of the kidnappers is capital. G
Therefore, the ability to actively listen, to E
earn the respect of the opposite party is vital.
Besides, at the same time we are dealing 110

with the opposite party fears. We might say
that those negotiators are people socially
warm and emotionally cool.

The case of hostage taking
We've all seen movies or series, - where a group of felons

rob a bank, but things go wrong and they have to make
themselves strong in the facilities and take hostages.
P
A
G
E
111
Then appears a very important character in the plot, called

the Negotiator, whose responsibility is to secure the release
of the hostages at the lowest possible cost. Ultimately he has
to resolve a conflict with a good negotiation.
The first thing the Negotiator does is to contact the head of

the gang of robbers and begin to "negotiate".
Here start happening some very interesting things:

The Negotiator empathizes with the leader of the gang (very
important, no sympathy, he just empathizes which is a very
different thing), etc.
The baddie-usually very altered - often asks for a plane to

Somalia or wherever, a million dollars, etc. Here the
Negotiator begins to gain time as he is the one who is in
charge of the agenda of the negotiation, not the baddie.
Then the baddie - still very altered - demands the police to

send them a pizza and cokes, or else they start killing
hostages. And here's a key point: the Negotiator does not
send in what the baddie wants; what he does is always ask
P
for something in return (usually to free the pregnant lady or
A
whatever.) That is, he is not deluded with a gesture, hoping
G
that the baddie will soften. In other words, he goes for a
E
strategy of exchange: you ask me something, - what do you
give me in return?
112
Following such a strategy is very difficult due to the tension of
the moment, and it would be natural to give up something,
waiting for the opposite party to give up something in return.
If the negotiator accepts to play that game, then the

bargaining has failed and the solution to the conflict can be
converted into a Russian roulette.
In parallel, if you look closely, the Negotiator does not usually

work alone, he has a helper. The role of the latter is critical.
His role is to permanently ensure that under pressure, the
negotiator does not end up sympathizing with baddie and
giving something for nothing, breaking the whole negotiation
process. (In the movie, the assistant usually ends up hurt or

dead, but that's artistic license and screenwriters
imagination).
In short, in dramatic situations (but it applies to less bleeding

situations), in order to resolve the conflict, the Negotiator:
 Empathizes with the counterpart (i.e., you put in his shoes

but you do NOT sympathize with him; Stockholm
syndrome). He tries to move from an emotional level to a
rational level before starting any hint of negotiation.
He sticks to the process, with its well defined stages. He

decides on the agenda and always something in return of a P
concession, as nothing comes free. A
G
E
113
F Remember: Key distinction.
Sympathy and empathy have nothing to do

with each other.

Practical recommendations
Here are a number of practical recommendations that you

should consider appropriate in order to achieve productive
results in negotiations. These recommendations focus on
specific suggestions to separate the people from the
problem.
Keep in mind that the negotiators are human beings:
 Be aware that the opposite party has values, emotions,

experiences, personal views, which in addition may P
possibly be different from yours. A
 Develop a relationship with negotiators from the opposite G
side where there is respect, trust and understanding to E
make negotiations much more fruitful.
 Encourage the other negotiator to develop a logical 114
commitment to help achieve better results.
 Try to arrive a little bit early so you may start establishing
some rapport.
 Ask yourself constantly if you are paying enough attention
to the other negotiator as a person.
 Note that the negotiator of the opposite party wants to
look good, especially in front of his bosses.
 Do not pretend that the other negotiator is a perfect
person.
 Be aware that the opposite party will say things that, as a
person, you may not like. Do your best to avoid those

impressions to cause adverse effects in the negotiation
process.
Remember that negotiators are interested in the substance

and in the relationship:
 Verify that the other negotiator is interested in maintaining

a working relationship with you or not.
 Stress the importance of developing a working
relationship on the long term.
 Remember that the results of this negotiation can affect P
A
other subsequent negotiations.
G
 Be aware that the "profitability" of negotiations is the E
repetition of business.
 Do not sacrifice the potential future benefits jeopardizing 115
relationships.
 Do not confuse the relationship with the problem.
 Do not let your ego get involved in negotiations.
 Do not take comments from the counterpart about your
behaviour as personal attacks.
 Be careful and try not to reach biased conclusions.
 Try to see if there might be something sensible hidden in
the unsettling comments from the other party.
 Don't sacrifice the relation because of the problem, and
don't sacrifice the problem because of the relation.

Do not negotiate by focusing on positions as you can put at
risk both the substance and the relationship:
 If you assume strict positions, the opposite party may

interpret that as a lack of interest in the relationship.
 Do not contemplate the negotiation as a struggle.
 Give the same importance to the substance as to the re-
lation.
Separate the relationship from the substance: P

A
G
 Remember that achieving good results in the negotiation E
and maintaining good relationship are not at all
antagonistic goals.
116
 Fix the problem directly, separating it from the relation.
 Build a relationship based on accurate perceptions, clear
communication, working with the appropriate emotions
and with a long-term vision.
 Be hard on the problem and soft on the people.

Perception
Put yourself in the other's shoes:
 What you see depends on how you feel.

 You see what you want to see.
 Prevent selective perception and accept information that
confirms it or not.
 Try to avoid bias when analizing both your situation and
the other party's.
P
 Try to understand why the opposite party thinks different A
from you. G
 Try to envision why, despite thinking differently from you, E
it might make some sense.
 Keep in mind that the negotiator of the opposite party 117
may be thinking honestly that he can't be wrong.
Do not deduce the intentions of the opposite party from your

own models:
 Do not assume that the opposite party is going to do

what you fear he is going to do to you.
 Do not interpret the hard way what the other says or
does.

Do not blame the negotiators for the problem:
 Before you blame them for your problem think if yourself

are not the cause of the problem.
 Avoid to the max the feeling of guilt even when justified.
 Do not make the other take a defensive position or
counter-attack.
 Be aware that you might be responsible for the other
people stopping listening to you.
 Refer to the problem instead of to the person "causing"
the problem. P
A
G
Discuss with them the perceptions of both parties: E
 Make explicit the different perceptions and talk about

them.
118
 Develop a honest discussion in order to find an under-
standing over the existing differences.
 Hear the other's affairs even if they may be considered by
you as unimportant or not intimately related to the issues
of the negotiation.
Act inconsistently with your perceptions in order to explore it:
 Be aware that they have certain preconceptions about

you.
 Send them unexpected messages.

 Use the element of surprise in a positive way.
Always give the opposite party the opportunity to participate
in the process:
 Remember that not participating in the process difficult

results.
 The more difficult the affair, more participation is
required.
 When you are planning a negotiation you may attach
great importance to the selection of the participating
individuals. P
 If a party has been excluded from the negotiation they A
might be resentful and will have difficulty accepting even G
the agreements that clearly favour them. E
 When someone generates an idea, give it credit clearly

and frequently. 119
 Try to give the ownership of the ideas to the maximum of
people participating in the negotiation.
 Remember that every person is constantly reporting to
someone within his organisation.
 Try to involve them in the process as soon as possible.
 Honestly give them advice if you think you can give it.
Make proposals that are consistent with the values of the

opposite party:
 Be aware of the positions and values they defend.

 Do not pressure them to change their positions openly.
 Do not make people feel you have an arbitrary behaviour.
 Remember to take care of the ego and self-image of the
opposite party.
 If someone loses face, he will react using his old brain
and reasoned actions will no longer fit in.
 Understand that many times they do not give you the
reason, just because they can not do it or because you
have placed them in a difficult position.
 Find a way to say the same thing in a way that is
P
acceptable to them.
A
G
E
Emotions:
Recognize and understand the emotions of the opposite 120

party as well as yours:
 It is important that you know yourself in negotiations.

 Try to understand their emotions.
 Remember that even negotiators representing
organizations are people with emotions.
 Recognize the issues they are particularly sensitive
about.
 Observe what they fear, what they are proud of, what are
their dreams.
 Ask yourself the reasons behind those emotions.

 Remember that emotions can block issues.
Explicit the emotions and accept them as legit:
 Talk openly about emotions (both yours and theirs)

 Discuss the emotions given that emotions are often
unreasonable.
 Focus specifically on what the parts are feeling; that way
you may reduce the importance of the problem.
 Try to switch the negotiation process from reactive to
proactive. P
A
Allows negotiators to let off steam: G
E
 Allow them to express their feelings. 121

 Help them uttering aloud what concerns them.
 Remember that when someone wants to complain and he
is not allowed to do so, the problem is acquiring greater
proportions.
 Remember that sometimes their emotional speech is kind
of a pose in front of his mates. Let them do it, it is good
for the agreement.
 Be aware that your reputation as a negotiator is always
on the line.
 Do not interrupt somebody who is venting.
 Don't react, listen to them carefully y respectfully.

 Pay attention to the mood so the venting is complete.
Do not react to emotional outbursts:
 Be fully aware of the great risk of reacting violently.

 Stay self-controlled.
 All reactions must be controlled.
Use symbolic gestures:

P
 Find a constructive emotional impact. A
G
 To stop the battle you can use symbolic gestures or E
inexpensive cessions.
 A sincere apology can be a very effective action. 122
 If you consider it appropriate, ask forgiveness. This is not
about accepting being responsible for the problem, but
admitting some responsibility for the emotional exchange.
Moreover, remember that apologizing is not to self-
humiliate.
Communication:
Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said:
 Remember that listening is difficult, especially in the heat

of a negotiation process.

 Listen actively in order to clarify what your are listening
and what the opposite party is saying.
 Occasionally paraphrase what they say.
 Remember that feeling listened to is a great motivator.
 Remember that the cheapest concession is listening.
 Pay attention to what they are saying.
 Encourage them to present their ideas clearly and
carefully.
 Encourage them to repeat ideas where there is some risk
of ambiguity. P
A
 Do your best to not respond mentally (your inner voice) to
G
every idea they put forward.
E
 Consider the perceptions, needs and constraints of the
opposite party.
123
 Show them that you understood them perfectly.
 When making this demonstration of understanding do it in
a positive way.
 Keep in mind that understanding is not about agreeing.
We can understand perfectly what the other says and, at
the same time, be in complete disagreement with him.
 Attach great importance to understand, because if this
does not occur, the opposite party may not be willing to
listen to your arguments.
 Try to rephrase what they said, that will give you more
weight and reduce the misunderstanding possibilities.

Talk so they understand you:
 Remember that a negotiation is not a debate or a trial.

 Talk addressing the other.
 Consider that your main objective is to convince the
person.
 Convincing other stakeholders in the negotiation is
important, but it is not essential at the negotiation table. P
A
 Consider the opposite party as someone that wishes to
G
solve a problem with your help, despite having an initial E
point of view.
 Remove the external elements that may affect the
communication.
124
 Even in matters of public negotiations, consider the
possibility of private negotiations.
Talk about you and not about them:
 Describe the problem in terms of the impact on you

instead on what the opposite party did.
 When you blame the other negotiator for what he did you
are making judgements of value but when you talk about

the impact on you, it is within your rights to do so and it is
not questionable. This is assertiveness.
Speak with a purpose:
 Do not overflow with communication, it's bad for the

understanding.
 Before talking, think about the purpose.
 Remember that sharing some topics may reduce your
negotiation capacity.
P
 If you try to "overload the communication channel" of your A
interlocutor, sending too much or even irrelevant G
information, this is foul play. If you're going to use this E
trick, think of the consequences.
125

P
PHASE II: A
G
E
FOCUS ON INTERESTS
126
BEHIND THE POSITIONS

Interest and positions
As you know, preparation prior to any negotiation is one of

the most crucial aspects. During this stage, it is of utmost im-
portance that you clarify your interests. This in order to avoid
a common mistake: swapping an important interest for a trivi-
al one.
Lord Palmerston, head of the Foreign Office, nearly two

centuries ago outlined the philosophy of British foreign policy:
"England has no permanent friends and enemies. Only
permanent interests". Two centuries later, it is called
Realpolitik.
P
A
Let us review the concept of position. A position is a view that
G
excludes the possibility of any other position. It's something
E
tangible. What people say they want. It is thus given as the
only option. It is closed and does not affect other options.
127
On the other hand, interest is the motivating force that drives
people to stay in a certain position and make a decision.
Usually something intangible. What people really want. What
motivates a person to take a position. In short, the reason
that establishes a position.
Let's review the old tale of two sisters who held a controversy
about some grapefruits.
The two sisters, married with children, were responsible for

cleaning a room where some people had held a meeting.
Upon entering, the younger sister noticed that there was
nobody in the room and that on one of the tables stood ten
grapefruits. She was very glad to see them, and she knew
that no one would claim them. So she began introducing

grapefruits in a plastic bag she was carrying, thinking of the
grapefruit she would prepare later at home.
Her older sister suddenly entered the room, saw the
grapefruit and exclaimed:
- "All right! They left us ten grapefruits ".
To which the younger said,
- "You mean, they have left me ten grapefruits ".
- "And you are not going to offer me a single grapefruit?",

asked the older sister.
P
A
- "I tell you no. On another occasion, luck will favour you,
G
as it has done before, "- said the younger sister.
E
- "This does not seem fair!”, Insisted surprised the older
sister. 128
- “What would have happened if I had been the first to
enter this room? Would it be fair that I would have stayed
with the ten grapefruits? Would it be right that I had not
given you any? "
- "Well, sister - corrected the youngest - I can give you a

couple of grapefruits".
- But the older insisted: "Only a couple? Only two

grapefruits for the sister who has loved you all her life.
Practically you give me the crumbs."

This discussion went on for several minutes and finally after
some "give and take", the older sister ended up getting four
of the ten grapefruits that had picked her younger sister.
The latter took his six grapefruits home. With them she
prepared some grapefruit juice and she thought about how
lucky she was to find ten grapefruits and, above all, to be
able to keep more than half of them.
That night, her older sister also took her four grapefruits
home. She peeled them and prepared a cake. She also
thought about how lucky she was to stay with four
grapefruits, especially after not having any in their hands.
P
She finished dinner, threw the four grapefruits pulp away, as
A
neither she nor her family liked grapefruit juice.
G
E
A twist to this story is that grapefruit juice is contraindicated
in certain diseases of the liver, which few people know.
129
Clearly this is a metaphor, but in this case we can also give
some medical valuable information.
We can think of many other metaphors of this type. For

example, in the Argentina pampas or in the Venezuelan
llanos you may kill a calf if you need to eat; his owner will not
report, but you must leave the coat clean and hanging in a
prominent and safe place so his owner may retrieve it. The
meat does not have much value, what has value is the clean
coat.
These are extreme examples of course, but there are many

situations like "juice-shell", "flesh-skin", etc. at least more
than you think.

Exploring interests and needs
Consider the history of the grapefruits. Note that in this case

an excellent solution to the dispute can be achieved perfectly
if at least one of the parties explores the why of the
proposals from the opposite party. Unfortunately, the situation
outlined in the history of grapefruit also occurs in many daily
life and professional situations.
So what is the key? It is essential to perform a scan of the

interests and/or needs of the interlocutor that can pave the
way to facilitating the construction of agreements satisfactory
to both parties.
P
A
For example, if for the sisters it is clear that one of them is
G
interested in grapefruit juice while the other is interested in
E
preparing a grapefruit pie, then a good solution is evident.
Here are evident two of the essential elements that, as we 130

say, occur with unusual frequency in real negotiations:
 The poor ability to understand the interests of the oppos-

ite party. It relates to the next point.
 We must be careful when investigating the other person

interests and not remain on the surface. We do must
delve into the authentic interests of the opposite party.
As noted above, the central issue in negotiations is not the

pursuit of a supposed objective reality, but rather a deep
understanding of the experiences and interpretations of the
negotiators.

It is true that in many cases, it is difficult to explore the
interests of the opposite party as they are reluctant to
explicitly manifest them.
Generally, this takes place due to the mistrust towards the

other negotiator, and it is usually thought that showing one's
interests may facilitate attacks or the use of "dirty tricks" from
the interlocutor.
The suggestion to avoid this is "simple": "If I give you some

information, what information will you give me in return?"
P
A
F Remember: Key idea:
G
E
The quantity and quality of information
exchanged is also something that can be
negotiated. 131

It is worth noting an even more singular fact: negotiators
often do not usually identify the interests of the party, during
the negotiation process, not because they do not want to
express them, but because the negotiator himself lacks the
skills to explore them.
Unfortunately, however, many negotiators are not aware of

this problem that sometimes afflicts the process; and in fact,
very often they deny it.
We have filmed many negotiating teams conducting

negotiation processes. When the negotiating team closely
watches the filming of the negotiation, it is very usual that
P
they discover that many times they wasted some very
A
obvious opportunities that would have allowed them to
G
explore earlier in the process the interests and needs of the
E
partner.
Why is it sometimes so difficult to explore the interests and 132

needs of the other negotiators? Of course, there are several
answers that may be valid in different circumstances:
 We are not aware that exploring the interests and needs

of the opposite party is very valuable to us as negotiators.
 We are not sensitive to the opportunities that the opposite
side gives us to explore their interests.
 We usually believe that negotiation is an activity where
the one who does most of the talking is the best
performer.
 We think it is important that the opposite party
understands our concerns.

 We are clumsy in investigating the interests of the
opposite party.
Of course, other reasons could be cited. However, the

aforementioned are a good example of why we don´t explore
the interests of the opposite party. Let us briefly discuss each
of these reasons in an attempt to detect what lurks behind
them.
We are not aware that exploring the interests and needs of

the opposite party is valuable to us. P
A
Some people consider that exploring the interests of the G
opposite party weakens us as negotiators, as we can come E
to sharing their motivations and abandoning the defence of
our interests. False, provided we do not fall into sympathy
(Stockholm syndrome). Understanding is essential even for 133
those who face a dangerous "enemy."
One of the oldest and most influential texts from the great
military strategists of the last two millennia is the classic "Art
of War".
This book offers recommendations to the strategist, always

with the notion that winning without fighting is the best skill of
all great strategists.
Here are some of the recommendations that, in our

judgement, are also very interesting:

 "Study them to discover their plans, their successes and
failures. Lure them into action to discover the patterns of
their movement. "
 "Probe them to discover where they are strong and self-
sufficient and where they are weak or show flaws".
 "A military force has no constant formation, and the water
has no stable dimension: the ability to gain victory by
changing and adapting according to the interlocutor is
what is called genius."
The way to develop a successful strategy that functions

depends on our ability to adapt to the opposite party. P
Therefore, understanding the behaviour of the opposite party, A
their weaknesses and their strengths, interests and needs, G
tastes, resources, etc. is essential in the art of negotiation. E
We are not sensitive to the opportunities that the opposite 134

side gives us to explore their interests.
If you do not listen then you are not sensitive to the

opportunities that the opposite side gives us to explore their
interests. Sometimes some negotiators focus on both
promoting and defending their own arguments, and they do
not perceive the "invitations" to explore the other party's
interests.
We usually believe that negotiation is an activity where the

one who does most of the talking is the best performer.
Interestingly in many negotiations the opposite is true

(remember the words of Epictetus?). The one who knows

how to listen more patiently is the one who gets the best
results.
Mainly in the early stages of a negotiation is when we should

be more receptive to the ideas of others. In those early
stages, we should listen to the opposite party carefully,
understanding their needs, interests and tastes and even
explore their deepest concerns.
We think that the most important thing in negotiation is that

the opposite party understands our concerns and promises
to try to meet them.
P
A
But this is a naive assumption in many cases, especially in
G
those where the opposite party considers us as their
E
partners.
Why should I worry about the other satisfying our interests? 135
What if our interlocutor has a dark desire to harm us?
Should we plan a negotiating strategy based on the

assumption that we will get good results if we convince the
other to care about us?
Undoubtedly, such a strategy would be highly unreliable and

vulnerable. It is much better to adopt a strategy where the
opposite party chooses an alternative because he or she
considers it appropriate in relation to their own interests.
This point is clearly illustrated by the tale of the grapefruit: If

the younger sister had found out what her older sister was
interested in was making a cake grapefruit then she

immediately could have proposed her to keep the peels and
trading them for the pulp.
In other words, she could have conceived and propose an

alternative interesting for her sister but simultaneously also
very good for her.
The conception of such alternatives depends largely on the

skill that we can develop to fully understand our interlocutor,
and especially with regard to their interests and needs.
P
A
G
E
136

We are clumsy in investigating the interests of the opposite
party.
Of course, in negotiations with a high emotional load, where
reigns the tension between the parties, inquiring directly
about the interests of the opposite party can generate very
negative reactions ("my interests are my problem, mind your
own stuff” ).
There are various options to explore the interests of the

opposite party. Which one is more convenient?
 build trust and share information

P
 ask many questions;
A
 share information with the opposite party (information that G
can not be used against you, even if it is minor); E
 make multiple offers simultaneously, and compare the
responses of the opposite party to these offers; 137
 seek post-agreement arrangements.
Of course, as we mentioned previously, before making any

offer a good negotiator must try to gather as much
information as possible about the caller and the situation in
general.
A good alternative is to solicit criticism or support when you

are trying to get information from the other.
For example, if a proposal is presented and is rejected flatly

by the opposite party, it is inappropriate to proceed
immediately to make a new proposal. It may be more helpful
to ask the opposite party to explain us the reason for the
rejection of our proposal ("Help me understand why you think
our proposal is not Ok”).
Types of interest
There are three different types of interests including:
F Shared interests
Forming the basis for the negotiation. There is a benefit for

both parties to reach agreement on a particular issue, P
something that both parties want to happen. It is mutually
A
beneficial to reach an agreement. For example, you sell a car
G
and I want to buy one.
E
Obviously, if we want to perform a negotiation we need those
actual interests to exist. 138
Keep in mind that emphasizing common interests during the
negotiation can make the negotiation process smooth and
friendly.
F Opposite interests
It's about giving more to a person and less to the other.

Example: I want to get more money for the car that you want
to pay. Usually, they are trading interests.
F Different interests
In principle, they do not affect the other part but can become
complementary. The area that offers most opportunities in
any negotiation is when we have different interests. For
example, the seller sells a red car, whereas me as a buyer, I
do not care about the colour. The seller would like to sell the
car before Thursday whereas I am in no hurry.
Obviously, the percentage distribution of these interests is

different in each situation.
P
Questions to discover interests
A
G
The most powerful is why? or why not? It must be handled
E
carefully because it can be perceived as an implicit value
judgement. So clearly explain that you are not asking for a
139
justification of his position, but you are trying to understand
what are his needs, hopes, fears or desires (for example:
"Mr. Smith, what is your biggest concern for not wanting a
contract longer than three years? ")
Do not ask for the sake of asking, but for getting more
information. To better understand the interests that motivate
the opposite party to take such a position.
One way is to propose something and have it analized.
Another way is by explaining your own interests and

concerns and asking the others for their interests. It is
important to let them know that you understand their interests
and has them recognized as part of the overall problem that
is being addressed.

 "Help me understand why this is really important to you? "
 "What concerns do you have?"
 "What is the real problem?"
 "What could go wrong if ...?"
 "What are your fears about all this?"
A common mistake when diagnosing a negotiating situation
is to assume that every person in the opposite party has the
same interests.
About questions P
A
 Questions provide insight into the thinking and the posi- G
tion of the opposite party. E
 Thanks to them, we may lead the discussion.

140
 Questions are an acceptable alternative to downright dis-
agreement.
 Questioning reduces the opposite time for thinking.
 Questions can give you a break and allow you to control
your own thoughts.
Here an important remark: many times we and the opposite

party have not a clear enough vision of what our own
interests are. A good negotiator should be aware of his
interests. And besides, he should help the other discover his
interests and then start negotiating on them. If not, we can
hardly speak of negotiation and probably have to talk about
haggling (or anything else).

This situation can easily become a confrontation generated
by this "fake" negotiation as either party may think that the
agreement was "unfair" (if you get to it, of course).
P
A
G
E
141

The case of the tenant. Understanding interests
P
A
G
E
142
The protagonist of this negotiation had been living in a rented
flat in an expensive area of Madrid (near the stadium
Santiago Bernabeu). The flat consisted of a living room, two
bedrooms, swimming pool on the roof, luxury details, 24/7
janitors and security, etc. Heating, air conditioning and all
services were included in the rental price. In 1994, the
negotiation date, he paid the equivalent of € 720
renting/month.
After a negotiation process, he got the following: reduce the

rent to 661 € and maintain it unchanged throughout the years
(yes, actually reducing the rent).
In 2010 the landlord passed away and the tenant had to deal
with his widow and the rent was updated to 830 €. (Here

there was another process of negotiation but that´s not what
we want to highlight in this example).
It may sound extraordinary. In reality, our protagonist simply

applied a negotiation process, with a thorough preparation,
with its different phases.
Something relevant: the same flat next to our protagonist is

currently rented for € 1,200. Perhaps some reader has been
quick to think that the situation arising from this negotiation is
unfair to the landlord. Well, it is not.
Think of this: In the case of the contiguous flat, a new tenant

P
pops-up every year, resulting in a nuisance and the
A
corresponding associated risk. Between tenant and tenant, it
G
usually takes between 2 and 6 (six!) months.
E
Every two or three years, the flat requires - for wear or
destruction – some refurbishment. 143
And all this, assuming that the owner of the apartment never
has trouble collecting the rent.
We invite you, dear reader, to do your maths and perform an

analysis of whether the difference between the rent charged
and the neighbour is actually significant. After measuring the
difference, attempt to quantify (or, if you prefer, to assess)
what the protagonist was winning.
The final demonstration took place in the year 2012 when the
owners - actually the widow and her two daughters - decided
to sell the famous apartment. During this stage, which lasted
for more than a year because the initial financial claims were
unrealistic in a market crisis, both the landlord and the tenant

continued to work together to find a fair solution for both.
Without restating all the details and steps, at the end it was
sold to a buyer who wanted to buy it as an investment, and
the tenant continued to live in the flat, now with a rent of €
800. Indeed, this is the final story, the new owner proposed €
800 spontaneously.
You may object that using sophisticated negotiation

techniques may be excessive, but if we value what we
achieved just think over this:
Over 20 years, the difference between the market price and

the one paid by the tenant was about 1200 - 800 = 400 € /
P
month. If we multiply by 240 months it comes to € 96,000 for
A
the tenant. We think it is a relevant quantity that was the
G
purchase price of a Porsche 928 S4 in its day for example.
E
Another important aspect is that for tenant the comfort of
144
staying in that flat, its location, facilities, etc. were powerful
interests. In fact, ultimately, he would even have been willing
to rent at market price, in this case € 1,200.
But the new owner did not explore those needs. While this
may seem like a unilateral gain for the tenant, it is not,
because for the new owner, (remember that he was an
investor with a long-term vision), the fact of having a reliable
tenant and no time limit was a powerful and dominant
interest.
Finally, with a tenant vested, it was vital for the seller to have
the cooperation of the tenant for the process to be conducted
in a civilized manner, namely profitable for all parties.

In fact, during the process of selling the condo, the landlord
even proposed the tenant to rent another flat - a bigger one
in another area - to encourage him to leave the current flat
(remember that the tenant had acquired rights and it was not
easy to quickly sack a twenty years tenant) and thus sell it
more easily. But the size was NOT part of the interests of the
tenant. This is a case where we see that one of the parties
does not investigate the needs of the opposite party and
assumes that any tenant is seeking size and price. And it's
not always the case, so never assume what may be the
interests of the opposite party; we have to investigate first.
But in the end, we see that all three parties have gained. But
P
none of this happened by accident, it happened by sticking to
A
the principles and techniques discussed in this book.
G
E
By the way and finally, as you have already guessed, the
tenant protagonist of this story is one of the authors of this
book. 145
The above case is a paradigmatic case of a "win-win"
negotiation based on interests, not on positions. In such
negotiations, an outcome where long term success, even in
this case with three parties involved, is achieved.
Some will object that the tenant was lucky to meet such
open-minded and smart people.
But as we advanced at the beginning of the book, attributing

to "luck" - good or bad -, the outcome of a negotiation is an
excuse. The only "luck" of the tenant was to strictly follow the
principles and techniques developed in this book.

The daily practice is usually to negotiate on positions -
usually money - rather than on interests - what I hope to get
from the negotiation - and that only leads to "poor"
agreements.
F Remember: The way of negotiating:
Negotiate always on interests, not on

positions.
P
A
G
E
146
F Remember: Always have a clear vision of your interests:
And, oddly enough, that´s not always so

obvious. Interests are the desires,
weaknesses, aspirations and concerns that
often are hidden behind a position.
Reflecting deeply on our underlying interests

is an essential exercise before undertaking
any kind of negotiation.

F Remember: Divorces.
Divorces are usually tough and the relational

cost is very high. Especially when there are
children involved. The process is painful and
devastating.
The amicable divorce solves these

situations. So it is booming in our society.
The couple sits side by side with their
lawyers in a negotiating session. The
process divides the legal costs of the
divorce. P
A
Each part brings a lawyer to the meetings, G
as a mediator and advisor. The format itself E
changes the way lawyers behave.
Most divorce lawyers typically measure 147

success based on who won and by how
much. This is different. Success is the
solution that is appropriate for both sides.
The cornerstone of the process is that both

attorneys sign a pledge to withdraw if one of
their customers decides to go to court. That
makes them less competitive and
encourages customers to continue
negotiations avoiding looking for another
lawyer.

F Remember: Resolve conflicts through mediation.
70% of couples require a professional

mediation to resolve their conflict. That is,
reaching a satisfactory agreement for both
parties to avoid legal conflict that can further
aggravate family differences.
Mediation is a complementary tool to the

courts which are used to resolve conflicts in
the family. The process is voluntary, and it
takes place through the intervention of a
third person, the mediator, who is appointed P
by the parties or by the Family Mediation A
Centre. G
E
We see that those systems help us save the
great pitfall of the negotiation process, the
emotional involvement. 148
We have stated it from the beginning, it is tough to separate

the people - namely the emotions - from the problems. We
can not deny it. Therefore, in this book we insist so much on
the urgent need to learn and practice techniques and skills
that "cool down" the negotiating process and will not leave us
in the hands of our emotions. Remember the negotiator in
the hostage taking and his assistant who ensures that the
process is followed by the book so the negotiator is not
swayed by his emotions.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Hereafter you may find a number of specific practices to help

you truly concentrate on interests and not on positions.
 Interests define the problem

 Do not fall into the trap of thinking that the problem is the
positions.
 Note that the problem arises from the clashes between
the needs, desires, concerns and fears of the parties.
 Think of the interests as the motivators that lurks behind
the positions. P
A
 The positions are the choices whereas interests are the G
cause of these decisions. E
 Exploit the fact that for each interest there might be
various positions. 149
 Don't go for the most obvious positions.
 Find positions that meet your interests. Not those of the
opposite party.
 Remember that in opposite positions we may find more
shared than conflicting interests.
 Remember we may find interests both opposite and
shared.
 Do not assume that if the positions are opposite, interests
are also opposite.
 Look then for both the conflicting interests and those that
are only different.

 Remember that negotiation exists because there are
different interests.
Search for the complementary interests:
 Always try to identify the "decision maker" to help you

identify his interests.
 Be clear about the decision you expect from the
negotiator.
 Ask yourself why is the opposite party acting that way.
P
Wonder what he wants in reality. A
 Wonder what is preventing the negotiator to take the G
decision you want him to take. E
 Analyse the options available to the opposite party.

150
Try to understand that the behaviour of the opposite party
is in line with the thoughts they have.
 Determine the possible positive and negative
consequences for the opposite party to take the decision
you want them to take.
 Think about the consequences for the negotiator as a
person but also as part of a group.
Realize that each side has multiple interests:
 Remember that most negotiations imply more than one

single interest, so probe harder.

 Do not assume that both parties share the same
interests.
 Remember that even in bilateral negotiations there are
many stakeholders in the outcome of the negotiation or
interests that may exist in "cascade".
Consider the hierarchy of interests:
 Remember that the interests or needs have a hierarchy

(Maslow, McClellan, etc.) and place the interests of the
opposite party negotiator on the scale.
 Do not fall into the trap of thinking that the unique interest P
involved in the negotiation is money. Think of money as A
just the visible part of a deeper interest. G
E
 Note that what is true for people is also for companies, as
they also have a hierarchy of needs.
151
Make a list of your interests and of the interests of the
opposite party:
 Initially make a list of interest from a brainstorming

session.
 Refine the information about the interests set.
 Rank those interests and fill your Value-Cost table.
 Ask yourself how can you satisfy those interests.

Make explicit your interests:
 Remember that the negotiator in front of you does not

necessarily have the ability to read minds.
 Express your interests (up to a level that doesn't harm
you).
 Show specific details (even if not vital to you). That gives
you more credibility and impact.
 Show -and demonstrate- that your interests are
legitimate. Careful with any clash of values. P
A
 Sample and demonstrate the legitimacy of your interests. G
But always beware of any possible clashes of values. E
 Reaffirm that the objective of the negotiation is a joint
problem solving. 152
 Don't fall in the trap of giving importance to your interests
and despising the interests of the opposite party.
 If you understand the interests of the opposite party,
make them know about it.
 Attach importance to the interests of the opposite party.
 Utter aloud the other party's interests that you have
already identified.
 Ask if they have additional interests that have not been
mentioned so far.
 Let them know that their interests are important for you.

First express the problem and then a possible solution:
 Remember that if you start mentioning the other actions

that should be executed, it might seem that you are giving
orders and probably you won't get a positive response.
 Concentrate first on explaining your interests and your
vision of the problem.
Look forward, not backward: P

A
G
 Do not react immediately to anything the other says. E
 Remember that this is a negotiation not a debate.
 Do not think that in the negotiation the goal is to obtain
153
the maximum number of points.
 Remember that you are negotiating with a purpose, not
dwelling on the past.
 Do not fall into the trap of responding to every argument
that the opposite side will present, especially if you find it
meaningless. In that case, simply ignore it.
 Instead of being reactive, be proactive, this way you can
determine your future.
 Make sure that the negotiation focus more on clarifying
the final goal instead on where we do come from.

 Jointly define the desired vision i.e., the desired future for
both parties.
Be concrete but flexible:
 Be clear about what you want to achieve, but remain

open to new ideas to help you meet the objectives.
 Don't go to a negotiation without an alternate plan beside
listening to the other.
 Display different possible scenarios in the negotiation. P
A
G
E
Be hard on the problem and soft on the people:
 Remember that the problem, with the 154

interests
represented, is your primary focus.
 Commit to the maximum with interests but not with their
positions.
 Use both all your energy and your creativity to address
the problem.
 Help the opposite party focus on his interests.
 Emphasize -and demonstrate it- that you are attacking
the problem and not him.
 Listen respectfully to the other negotiator.
 Let him know that you appreciate the time and effort
invested.

 Show the negotiators that you're interested in the
satisfaction of their needs.
 Use the same intensity to attack the problem and to
support - empathise with - the negotiator in front of you.
P
A
G
E
155

P
PHASE III: A
G
E
CREATE MUTUAL
156
BENEFIT OPTIONS

If you can separate the people from the problem, if you have
an overview of the topic and if you have identified and
analysed your interests and those of the opposite party, you
will be in a position to develop creative options for mutual
gain that allow you to "expand the pie". The ability of
inventing options is one of the most important skills for the
negotiator.
One option is a possible solution to reach an agreement that

does not exclude other alternatives. At this point, creativity is
fundamental to generate options that meet the interests of
the two parties negotiating.
P
Precisely the greatest obstacles to devising new options is to
A
believe that the size of the pie is already fixed, that there is
G
only one solution to the problem and thus make the
E
consequent premature judgements.
Normally, a negotiator defends a position you are not 157

prepared to deal with or proposes different ideas that
unexpectedly might suit your interests equally well or even
better.
Remember Abraham Maslow quote: “When the only tool you

have is a hammer, all problems look like nails".
Another mistake is to see negotiations as an exercise to

resolve differences and reach consensus, which may lead
the parties to seek the "lowest common denominator",
thereby missing the opportunity to create value beyond the
differences. In this case, we are simply in a “lose – lose”
situation, looking to lose as little as possible, which is not a
satisfactory negotiation.

To avoid these common mistakes, the negotiator can change
his mindset from "How can I win the most?" to "How can we
win more together?" So, having a clear understanding of the
interests involved helps negotiators create more value and
therefore generate better options.
So once again, we have to think that our goal when

negotiating is to solve a problem (the same goal the opposite
party has, by the way. Though the problem is certainly
different). We have to solve the problem by working with the
counterpart party together, "side by side" rather than viewing
them as an adversary.
P
Adopting this perspective, therefore there comes a time
A
when you have to think creatively. And that means letting go
G
of judgements. In this process the two parties are involved.
E
And more quantity than quality is sought. Why? Because the
goal is to precisely generate the largest number of ideas
(through divergent thinking). 158
Then we move on to selecting the best ideas (in this case,
through convergent thinking)
The British economist E. F. Schumacher, author of "Small is

beautiful ", argues in his "Guide to shocked" that there are
basically two types of problems: convergent problems and
divergent problems.
Convergent problems have a solution: what is the fastest

route to Madrid if we are in Barcelona? In a convergent
problem, the more intelligence is applied the more
"convergent" the solutions are.

A divergent problem might be: what is the most effective way
to educate children? The more intelligence is applied the
more contradictory the answers are. The difficulty lies not in
the experts, but in the nature of the problem. Several people
inevitably come to very different conclusions.
Always think of negotiations as a divergent problem solving.

Always keep that in mind: there is no unique or optimal
solution.
The differences may be complementary. The slogan could be

for a good negotiator: Vive la difference!
P
Many times the differences can become complementary. For
A
example:
G
E
F For variations in interest. The parties may have different
interests but they can be complementary. Remember the
case of the grapefruit? 159
F For value in time and money. There are people who are
willing to pay more, if you can ensure a long-term deal
(always return to the table of cost-value).
F Because of forecasts. The different perceptions of the

future (what happens in the stock market) is perfectly
complementary. Therefore, a person sells shares and
another purchases. An agreement is often based on a
disagreement.
F Aversion to risk. Something can be risky for you - i.e.

have a high Cost-Value -, but not for the opposite party.

F For different beliefs. Suppose a football player who sees
himself as a better player than he is. This situation can
block the negotiation, however an option could be to
initially maintain that top player and offer him a specific
premium for each goal scored. If he is as good as he says
he should be creative and accept this proposal.
Barriers to creativity
Here are the behaviours that hinder idea generation: P

A
 Judging ideas prematurely G
 Finding the unique answer. Beware of "perfect" solutions. E
 Not addressing the needs of the other
160
In this sense, there are some "killer phrases". Such phrases
restrict freedom from others and do not invite looking for
options. Maybe once you've heard phrases like these:
"It's a good idea but..."

"This goes against the company policy"
"Be practical, please..."
"That's ridiculous"
"No time"
"So far we have done well without it"
"We believe in a committee"

"What are we going to change it if it works well?"
"We've never done that before"
"We're not ready for that"
"That your problem, not ours"
"The board will not admit it"
"Back to reality"
"That's not practical"
"That would cost too much"
"It is not in the budget"
P
It is very important to review our thinking and our behaviour A
when we are generating options. The kind of thinking that is G
required is a kind of thinking very different from what we E
usually use.
161

The case of the roundabout. Generating options
One of our clients, a highly successful corporation, built

some modern facilities to house its 3000 Corporate
employees. Located on the outskirts of a big city, they did not
have any public transport at hand, so the employees had to
move there in their private vehicles.
The company made available to its employees a huge free

outdoor parking. So far, so good. The problem was the (only)
access to the car park, from a roundabout. As you can P
imagine, at rush hour, the bottleneck became an extremely A
contentious area in terms of circulatory vehicle density. Bad G
thing to start the day with enthusiasm. Staff representatives E
filed a complaint and demanded to "negotiate" a solution to
the problem.
162

The board, fully aware of the problem at hand, with its hidden
cost to the company, decided that they "had to do
something".
Largely managed by civil engineers - remember Maslow's

hammer metaphor - the company discussed the possibility of
opening other exists from the roundabout, assuming high
costs (about half a million Euros).
Given the situation, we proposed to put creativity to work.
Indeed, an exercise in creativity - with a simple, "words

randomly or analogies" - turned what was a request for a
P
new entry into a request to provide more information
A
(perhaps through an intern) at the entrance of the parking
G
area.
E
Probably, the employees were aware that they could not do
163
miracles, and were willing to, orderly, access to parking areas
after some wait.
What really bothered them was the discomfort and tension

that made them aggressive because of the jam that was
generated at the entrances of the parking lot. That was their
point of real interest, convenience to access. However, their
demand to open a new entrance was just a position.
Thanks to this exercise of creativity, we were able to

negotiate a satisfactory solution for both the company and
the employees.
How important it is to deepen the exploration of interest

before jumping to action is now clear.

In this particular case, the cost of building new access roads
to the parking lot was set at 500,000 €. The cost for one
person for two hours a day was valued at € 5,000 / year. An
amount worth compared to € 500,000 (the cost of that
employee for a century).
F Key Idea
In a negotiation - also with a strong

emotional component - lateral thinking is
what will allow us imagine creative
alternatives. P
A
G
E
164
F Remember: About options:
Priorities are inevitable and even desirable,

but nothing should be in principle excluded.

F Remember: The level of the offer:
¿What's an offer? It's an option not yet

committing but that leaves the door open.
Great negotiators are distinguished from

those that are not by the way they put offers
on the table.
Now, what should be the level of the first

offer? The amount of the first offer affects the
results. How?
P
Aim too high and you will be seen as unreal- A
istic. Aim too low and you will be seen as not G
knowing your business. It seems that the ne- E
gotiators who stubbornly stick to their initial
idea of an offer tend to be more aggressive.
In the end they get better results. Anyway, be 165
careful with entering a battle on positions.

F Remember: Burning bridges:
The strategy of "burning bridges" is a very

famous contribution from game theory.
A player may decide to sacrify some of his

options. This self-imposed sacrifice may lead
to a better outcome for that player.
Hernan Cortes needed a brave and resolute

response from his men to attack the Aztec
empire. So, with the burning of the ships and
the impossibility of escape or return to Spain, P
Cortés ensured unconditional commitment to A
the fight to come. G
E
Once again we emphasize that there are
several negotiating strategies and we can
choose our favourite; just always being 166
aware that this entails some consequences,
good or bad.

We present in the following pages a number of specific

recommendations that will help you in generating options for
mutual gain in negotiations.
 Remember that "no invention" is the natural state of

things and therefore we must act against it. The most
usual argument against creativity is "so far it has worked
very well," whatever the definition of "very well" might be.
 Avoid premature judgements that "murder" ideas.

P
 Allow yourself to generate unexpected ideas although A
they might seem crazy to pragmatic people. G
E
 Note that the presence of the other negotiator may inhibit
your creativity.
167
 Creativity in a negotiation process must be handled
carefully in order not to reveal sensitive information that
might hamper you negotiation capacity.
Don't look for the single correct answer:
 Remember that your goal is not to reduce the gap

between positions - haggling- but to expand the options
available in the negotiation.
 Generate multiple options and then decide between them.

Do not assume that the pie size is fixed:
 Do not assume that the “pie” has a fixed size and cannot
grow.
 Look for ways of expanding the pie.
Invent first and then decide:
 Separate the stages of evaluation and of invention.

 Use creativity techniques when inventing options. This
process should be carried out with your collaborators P
prior to meeting with the opposite party. A
G
 Develop creativity sessions with your team to figure out E
options at the stage of preparation.
Suggest conducting a brainstorming session with the other

168
negotiator:
 Convince the other negotiator to perform a creative

session.
 Design the conditions in order to eliminate any risk for
both parts.
 Consider having an external and neutral facilitator to lead
the creative session.
 Remember that discussing options is not the same as
taking positions.
 Build options on previous options.

 Use open questions instead of statements.
Move from the specific to the general and vice versa:
 Use tools to retrace the steps of options generation.

 Remember that there are different types of thinking and
that they are all useful at different stages of the options
generation.
 Define the problem in simple terms and enunciates its
symptoms.
 Diagnose the problem, stating the reasons. P
 Generate a number of possible corrective actions. A
G
E
Look through the eyes of experts:
 Admit that because of your own speciality you may suffer

169
from tunnel vision.
 Ask yourself how would people from other crafts
negotiate.
 Try to use, with appropriate adjustments, some analysis
instruments belonging to other disciplines.
Invent agreements of different intensity:
 Consider agreements of minor intensity.

 If failure to agree on the substance, seek at least
agreements on procedures.

 If you fail to reach a permanent agreement, seek an
interim agreement.
Change the scope of the proposals:
 Consider splitting the problem into smaller manageable

units.
 Note that increasing the scope of the agreements may be
attractive in some situations.
 Consider agreements with different ranges in different
cases (Geographical coverage, time effect ...). P
A
G
Identify shared interests: E
 Remember that you need to "delve" a bit to find shared

interests. 170
 Always remember that, as a first step, you have to find
solutions to leave the opposite party also satisfied.
 Remember, your satisfaction or satisfaction depends on
what the other can achieve.
 Keep in mind that shared interests are latent in every
negotiation.
 Find out if there are shared interests to preserve the
relationship.
 Display whether there are opportunities to exploit together
in the future.

 Estimate the cost resulting from the failure of the
negotiations.
 List the principles of behaviours on which both parties
agree.
 When you find a common interest use it as a joint goal.
 Remember that if you emphasize evidence and shared
interests, the negotiation can be more fluid.
Identify the different interests:
 Keep in mind that many agreements are conducted P

because each side wants different things. A
 Don't assume that differences equal problems. G
E
 Remember that the final agreements are based on initial
disagreements.
171
 Spot the differences in interests not in positions.
 Think that you may be able to satisfy, in many cases, the
interests of both negotiators.
 Note that it is not easy to satisfy different interests with a
unique solution. It is much easier to find a solution
package.
 Can one negotiator be interested in the economic aspects
and the other on political issues?
 Can one of the negotiators be interested in the internal
aspects of the negotiation and the other in the externals?

 Can one of the negotiators be interested in the progress
and innovation, while the other is interested in preserving
the tradition?
 Can a negotiator be interested in the concrete result of
the negotiation and the other only in its symbolism?
 Can one of the negotiators be interested in the effect of
negotiating in the short term while the other is more
concerned about the long term?
 Can it be that one of the negotiators is interested only in
this particular agreement whereas the other is interested
in the precedent that this negotiation may create in the
future? P
A
 Can one of the negotiators be viewing an optimistic G
scenario and the other one a pessimistic? E
 Can you have a high risk appetite while the other has a
high risk aversion? 172
 Is it possible that one negotiator is mainly concerned
about the money whereas the other is not.
Find out the preferences of the negotiators of the opposite

party:
 Prepare several proposals or options that are attractive to

you.
 Remember it is important to know the appeal of your
proposals before asking your partner.
 Rank them according to their attractiveness.

 Put forward the most appealing options so you may
discover the preferences from the other party.
 For each of these preferences, use questions to
investigate and not to intimidate or attack.
 Consider each of the objections raised by the other
negotiator when analysing the proposals you put forward.
 Find a way to find answers to such objections in other
proposals.
 Try to find topics that are of low cost to you and of high
benefit for the opposite party; also look for high profit for
you when inexpensive to the opposite party. P
A
Make them easy to decide: G
E
 Remember that you want the other negotiator to take the
decision you seek. 173
 Try to provide the other's decision-making.
 Think that there are solutions that are less painful.
 Don't get trapped in the strength of your own arguments
-well, from your point of view- and pay more attention to
what the other party tells us.
 Remember that an important part of your job is to
influence effectively.
 Choose a person who could influence the decision.
 Try to see the problem through the eyes of the other
person.

 Identify the difficulties that the other has for making his
decision.
 Be clear about what you need before the other
investigates it.
 Prepare multiple versions beginning with the simplest.
 Determine the points of agreement that may be attractive
for both parties.
 Think of an agreement that can be easily implemented.
 Remember it is easy to suspend execution on something
and to decide on an entirely new direction.
P
 Search for precedents that can help the decision. A
G
 Search for the justifications that other people has to make
E
a decision.
174
Do not use threats:
 Visualize both the outcomes that may worry or satisfy the

opposite party.
 Do not use threats and warnings about what will happen
to the other if he does not take the decision you seek.
 Consider it more productive to concentrate on generating
deals.
 Display positive consequences for the other to accept
your offers. While not intending to give a lesson.
 Try to improve the consequences from the point of view of
the other.

 Identify some specific things that the other might wish for.
 Pick some of the most critical aspects for the other.
 Imagine and jot down the criticisms that the other is likely
to receive if he takes the decision you want him to make.
 Write down the possible answers to those possible
criticisms.
 Present options so the negotiator from the opposite party
has to answer with a “yes”.
P
A
G
E
175

PHASE IV: P
A
G
E
ESTABLISH OBJECTIVE
CRITERIA176

At this part of the negotiation process we have worked on:
 separating the people from the problem,

 discovering the interests that lie behind the positions and
 both sides have worked together to generate options for
mutual gain that can meet the interests of each
negotiator.
In other words, we have stretched out the pie. Now it comes

to deciding how to distribute it. So instead of trying to reach a
meeting point when facing stubborn defence-based
positions, waiting for the opposite party to give up, this P
method is agreed between the parties applying an A
unquestionable criterion. G
E
For example, in the purchase of a flat, the first type of
negotiation is to try to reach an agreement by the classic
bargaining process between buyer and seller. Instead, the
177
new method seeks to define and implement a technical
approach that is independent of both parties.
While the first method of negotiating the final result is

arbitrary (it will depend on the level of intransigence by each
party), with the second method you can reach a fair result.
We talked of using objective criteria when it comes to

"splitting the cake". What objective criteria means? A
standard, independent of both parties, to evaluate and
choose among various options.

The bottom line is key: it is to negotiate on any parameter
"independent" from the will of either party, that is, based on
the basis of objective criteria.
There are many examples of objective criteria that refer to:

the market value, history, tradition, reciprocity, costs,
efficiency, equal treatment, scientific judgement, professional
standards, moral or ethical principles, etc.
When a negotiator from the opposite party proposes the
application of a criterion for determining the end result we
should be flexible when selecting this criterion and not try to
impose our will, even if it is objective.
Of course the main requirement is that it is an objective P
criterion. But appealing to certain objective criteria does not A
exclude the possibility that negotiators can also support G
various other objective criteria. E
Another possibility is to apply the two criteria advocated by

both sides and calculate an average value. 178
What's interesting in keeping this in mind is that it allows us
salvage the personal relationship as we drift towards
technical aspects.
It is not the same discussing on each party positions than on

which criteria apply.
This stage of negotiation negotiating method is particularly

suitable in multilateral negotiations where there are many
parties involved.

Use objective criteria
Do not decide based on your feelings. Typically, negotiators

try to resolve this kind of conflicts through positional
bargaining, in other words, talking about what they are willing
to accept. A negotiator can get important concessions simply
because he insists. Another can make a generous offer,
hoping to get approval or friendship. Always avoid this type of
negotiation.
Try to establish objective criteria. Normally you'll find more

than an objective criterion that can serve as a basis for
agreement. Remember that these criteria should be
P
independent of the will of each of the parties.
A
G
The approach is to commit oneself to achieve a principled
E
solution. Concentrate on the circumstances of the problem.
179
Formulate every case as if it were a joint search for objective
criteria. Remember that your choice of criteria does not
exclude the existence of other criteria.
Listen to other arguments. Those of the opposite party. About

what criteria are appropriate and how they should be applied.
Ask questions to find the criteria for the opposite party. Some
questions to find out the criteria include:
 How did you come to this conclusion?

 What principle lies behind all this?
 What makes you think this is fair?
 How are other people dealing with this problem?

Never yield to pressure, only to reason. Focus on objective
criteria in a firm but flexible manner. Force yourself to reach a
solution that is fair.
What it does is provide us with a strategy that can move

forward without the high costs of positional bargaining.
And when we speak of criteria, we can talk in terms of

features (measurable), but we must not dwell on it; we have
to translate the feature (and advantage) into an ultimate
benefit (interest) for the partner.
P
When presenting criteria, the model "FAB" can help, always
A
starting from the interests of the party:
G
E
Describe the characteristics,
1 FEATURE
facts, data of a product or 180
function
2 ADVANTAGES The function of a characteristic
Describe how the

3 BENEFITS
characteristics of a product or
service addresses a need or an
explicitly expressed interest.
How does it work?:

"Given the need for a lightweight laptop .... (INTEREST)
A key feature of ... Dell XPS M1210 is that it weighs only

1.9kg ... (FEATURE)
It means... it's easy to carry ... (ADVANTAGE)
And.... this will solve your worries of having to carry a heavy

machine that was a problem for you. (BENEFIT).
To get this benefit the best option is to buy this model at this
price that fits your interests.
P
A
So when it comes to presenting our arguments, a good way
G
to do this might be: because we have something (FEATURE)
E
that can do... (ADVANTAGE), which means... (BENEFIT).
181

F Remember: Appeal to objective criteria.
Great negotiators negotiate about a "stand

alone" basis of the will of either party, based
on objective criteria.
Legitimacy helps us divert the possible

perception of a personal attack.
F Remember:
When a judge is sentencing he could say P

"you have won" or "you have lost." However, A
he explains how his decision is consistent G
with the principle, the law and precedents. E
He does not want to appear as arbitrary. A
negotiator is no different.
182
F Remember: Ask open questions.
The questions provide insight into the thinking

and the position of the opposite party.
With them, some control of the discussion is

acquired. Questions are a more acceptable
alternative to direct disagreement.
Questions keep the other part active and reduce

the time for mulling over.
Questions, eventually, give us some time for

controlling our own thoughts.

The following pages present a series of practical and specific

recommendations that will be useful when you have to resort
to the use of objective criteria in the negotiations.
Always insists on the desirability of using objective criteria

(i.e., measurable)
Do not decide based on subjective opinions:
 Do not negotiate on positions.

P
 Do not make the negotiation a battle of wills. A
G
 Always remember that there is a background history, as E
well as some habits and moral standards.
 Search independent bases for the wills of the parties. 183
 Remember you intend to achieve a solution based on
principles and not by pressure.
 Be open to reasons and closed to threats.
 Create an environment of openness so that the yield to
reason is not seen as a weakness.
 Don't press for agreements that won't be respected.
 Think of standards of justice, efficiency and scientific
support to strengthen the agreement.
 Take in account already standard accepted practices that
may support the agreement.
 Focus on using fair standards or procedures.

Use fair procedures:
 Keep in mind that usually there are objective available
criteria that you may use in the agreement.
 Try that the criteria are independent, legitimate and
practical.
 Check that the objective criteria are respected by both
parties.
Use fair procedures:

 Try to use something like “one party propose a split and
P
the other party decides”. A
 Consider other criteria such as sweepstakes to decide, G
use coin tossing, ask a third party to decide, etc. E
 Do not forget that the results of the procedure are not
necessarily equal but there are equal opportunities. 184
 Think of using the “last best offer” technique.
Seek objective criteria with the help of the opposite party:

 Make the quest for adequate objective criteria a common
goal.
 Create an environment for the generation of those
criteria.
 Starts suggesting some criteria.

 Invite the opposite party to suggest their own objective
criteria.
Ask about the other party theory:
 Remember that when listening to positions you may not
answer with positions.
 Don't reject immediately the other party's positions
 Ask for the supporting theory (of the counterpart).
 Commit to the shared search for objective criteria that will
support the data and positions.
P
Seek first to agree on standards: A
G
 Before seeking an agreement on interests, make sure E
you agree on the standards that will apply.
 Value seriously the standards proposed by the other 185
party.
 Prepare convincing statements based on the standards
proposed by the other party.
Have an open mindset:
 Enter negotiations with an open mind.

 Do not use the standards and precedents only to support
your initial positions.
 Remember that what is right for you is not necessarily
right for the other.

 Act as if you were a judge who is listening to the reasons
for both parties to decide.
 When the standards to be applied are in conflict, seek the
most adequate amongst them.
 Keep in mind that both standards might be legitimate,
albeit different.
 Check the effectiveness of the concerned standards.
 Show the analized standards to a third party for them to
analize.
 Try that both standards (yours and the other party's) are
P
reasonable.
A
G
Never yield to pressure: E
 Recognize the pressure exerted on you, even when it 186

comes disguised as kindness.
 Never yield to pressure, only yield to reason and
principles.
 Do not counter-attack, just invite the opposite party to
support their reasoning and put forward objective criteria.
 Recall the need to separate the problem from the people
involved.

P
PHASE V: A
G
E
DEVELOP OUR BATNA
187

The acronym BATNA stands for "Best Alternative to a
Negotiated Agreement", a term coined by Roger Fisher and
William Ury.
We know that people negotiate to reach agreements ("I need

to do business with you because... "). Now, how do we know
if the deal that we are about to reach is really a good deal?
The BATNA should be the standard against which any

proposed agreement should be measured. In fact, it is the
only standard which can protect you from accepting terms
that are not too favourable for you and also tell you the
conditions that you could reject. It is very important to have it
P
very clear: always have a BATNA.
A
G
The fact that you are not aware of your BATNA, does not
E
mean it does not exist. If you do not think carefully about
what you do if you do not manage to reach an agreement,
you will be negotiating with a disadvantage. 188
On the other hand, being too committed to reaching an
agreement can also be dangerous because you could get to
sacrifice some of your interests only to get the deal.
If that happens, it could be that you've got the "right" deal but
instead, you remain with a bad taste in your mouth. Viable
alternatives make the negotiations simpler.
Imagine you're negotiating a raise, knowing that in that

moment, you also have other offers for an alternative job.
Interesting picture, right? This will give you more power, more
strength, and eventually you will achieve a better agreement.

It is therefore imperative that you develop BATNA before any
negotiation. In other words, you have to know very well what
is your best alternative to a negotiated agreement.
Developing your BATNA is something you have to do before

the negotiation starts and it requires a series of steps:
Invent a series of alternatives to go along with if you do not

reach an agreement:
 Investigate the case

 Discard the least feasible alternatives
P
 Do not overestimate any alternative (For example, if, at A
the end of a negotiation, the X client does not sign a deal, G
are there any other clients you can call?) E
Refine some of the promising alternatives and convert them

189
into alternatives:
 Try the alternatives most appealing to you.

 Be prepared to explore more alternatives if good results
are not obtained with the current one.
 Select the best alternative.
 Compare the alternatives that you have
 Be open to change your election if you receive new
information
 Think of the BATNA of the opposite party
 Try to think of the alternatives of the opposite party

Try to alter the power of the BATNA of the opposite party (if
they seem to overestimate their BATNA you may want to
lower those expectations)
Anticipating the other negotiator's BATNA helps you to define

your negotiating strategy and your positioning.
It is worth to develop your BATNA because the better your

BATNA, the greater your ability to improve the conditions of
any negotiated agreement.
Do not forget that your BATNA is in continuous state of

change. So, no matter how difficult a situation, you can P
always have a viable alternative. This is crucial in order to A
have your emotions under control and make sure you are not G
going to reach an agreement which you might regret in the E
future.
Never reveal your BATNA because doing so will weaken your 190
position. To make clear what your position breakpoint is, the
opposite party could be tempted to negotiate an agreement
close to your absolute minimum.
However, when they ask for your BATNA, do not lie under
any circumstances because at some point the negotiator of
the opposite party may embarrass you and then you'll be
forced to deny previous claims. This will make you lose
credibility and prestige and, even worse, the trust you had
earned over time. It is also ethically and morally wrong to lie
during a negotiation.
Most companies have values that include honesty and

openness. The last and most serious reason why you should

not lie is that distortion is illegal and, in specific situations,
you could be prosecuted. You can always make him a wink
without revealing your BATNA.
For example: "I have another offer but I must respect the
wishes of the opposite party not to make it known to you.
Thank you for understanding”.
Finally remember that, oddly enough, the easier to leave a

negotiation and feel happier for it, the greater our ability to
influence the outcome.
Maybe your BATNA is better than any arrangement that you

P
can achieve with the other person. In addition, the
A
negotiating process itself is not without costs. It can be time
G
consuming and hard work, and meanwhile your other
E
alternatives might fade away. Therefore, we must carefully
consider the decision to negotiate.
191
So, in summary: your BATNA is what you can do if, in a
negotiation, you do not reach an agreement that satisfies
your interests.
It is an alternative plan, you have to compare it with any

agreement you propose.
The better your BATNA, the greater your power.
It's what we would do if negotiation fails.

F Remember: Reaching an agreement?
The question seems trivial, but it is crucial to

be very clear about that the purpose of a
negotiation is not always to agree.
A deal is only a means, and the end is to

satisfy your own interests.
Seen this way, the purpose of negotiation is

to explore whether we can better meet our
interests through an agreement than through
our BATNA. P
A
G
E
192
Regarding the BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated

Agreement) we suggest you remember these points:
 Know your own BATNA.

 Try to identify the BATNA of the opposite party.
 Look to improve your BATNA.

WHAT IF THE OPPOSITE PARTY DOES NOT RESPECT
THE RULES?
Sometimes, we are negotiating with the opposite party and

suddenly they make a comment that gives us the impression
that they no longer want to negotiate.
For example: "I see no reason to continue with this. Sorry,

but these are company rules. It's out of my reach". "Let's
face it... your ideas are very outdated. And their numbers are
out of the ordinary. That's not the way we do business
around here".
P
"That does not cover the budget. No more paying a single
A
Euro. You can take it or leave it".
G
E
Some negotiators see these comments as a personal attack
and of course that makes it more difficult to continue
negotiating. The key, when you hear this kind of comments, 193
is to convert the alleged attack towards you in an attack on
the problem.
We propose to use a tool called the "Jiu-Jitsu" negotiation.

The "Jiu-Jitsu" is based on the mental agility to confuse and
counteract rigid negotiating positions method.
If the opposite party advocates a position, ask "Why?” or

"Why not?". Do not reject nor accept the position. Treat it as
an option and especially seek the interests behind that
position.
If the opposite party attacks your ideas, ask for advice. Do

not defend your ideas. Ask them. Make comments that
provoke criticism.

Ask questions and listen to answers. Questions are always
useful to discover interests, to create options and to use
objective criteria.
Use silence. Make frequent breaks. If attacked, consider not

saying anything.
Sometimes, the opposite party will lean back and will nuance
his comments. When reaching this point, we are to deal
positively with a conflict, as it is precisely what we are facing
now.
In any case, counter-attacking seldom helps immediate

P
interests and harms long term relationships.
A
G
Another problem is that the people who like rough play are
E
generally adept at it. Maybe they expect you to attack back. If
you do, you will be trapped in the game they like to play.
194
Building bridges (Gerry Adams)
What is needed actually is a person who at least tries to build

bridges. That someone might not agree with my political
views, but is convinced that dialogue is essential if we want
to solve conflicts. A party defeats the other, or we reach a
negotiated agreement. One of a problem with a negotiated
agreement is that people enter those negotiations without
having yielded in their positions. So the most probable
outcome is we win and you lose.

F Remember: The Jiu Jitsu negotiation.
Jiu Jitsu is a method of combat allowing a

less gifted person to beat a stronger
opponent.
Speaking of negotiating, this method is used

(based on paradox and surprise) to confuse
and counteract rigid negotiating positions. In
short, turn the attack from the opposite side
towards us in an attack on the problem.
A Jiu Jitsu is the famous response from P

Churchill to Lady Astor in the British A
parliament after being accused of being G
drunk (which, besides, not only was certain E
but apparently very common). Churchill,
displaying a mastery of Jiu Jitsu method
replied: 195
"I'm drunk, but tomorrow I'll be sober. You
are ugly, but tomorrow you will remain so. "

F Remember: The dilemma of the coward.
It is a dilemma extensively studied by game

theory. He became famous in the 50s when
it became a sadistic sport practiced by
American teenagers. The game in question
was initiated when a driver challenged
another to a race towards a head-on collision
of two cars after forewarning that he would
not stop.
In this scheme there are two possible

equilibriums. We may reply with a new P
challenge sufficiently credible for the first A
defiant to force him to stop. G
E
Obviously, the scheme can only lead to the
victory of one of the two parties but never to
compromise or negotiation. 196
This is what happens when, in a negotiation,
there is a high degree of customization of the
conflict.

F Remember: Saying "never" (i.e., at the moment).
The story that follows is attributed to the Earl

of Romanones, on which many people
recounted many malicious jokes occurred
during the reign of Alfonso XIII.
It seems that the Count spat out a torrent of

phrases aimed at denying he was to accept,
in any circumstances or on any occasion, his
political partners claim. However, after that
endless rant, he concluded with a historical
phrase. Romanones added the tagline “only P
for the moment". A
G
Which, obviously, removed any validity to E
everything previously said.
However, in negotiation it is a phrase to keep 197

in mind (we mean, of course, as "for now"...).

Negotiator Manual (for peace processes).
This is the table of the 10 commandments for political

negotiations:
1. The negotiator must be clear about the fact that his

objective may not necessarily be the same as the
opposite party.
2. Sometimes you have to spend a lot of time preventing a
bad deal, because it goes against the objective.
3. The negotiator must prepare himself to use any "window
of opportunity" when it shows up.
P
4. There is no incompatibility between a realistic policy and A
moral principles. G
5. The mediator should not be neutral, for there is no E
neutrality between victims and executioners.
198
6. If the political and military weight of the parties is too
uneven, we will seek the support of organizations like
"group of friends of the secretary general" (UN).
7. Do not fall into the temptation of a precipitate an
agreement, because reaching an unfair agreement might
lead to an unfair or durable conclusion.
8. Although this person or agency he represents raise
blisters, the negotiator should try to earn the respect and
confidence of the parties.
9. Beware when the parties are trying to create divisions
among you.
10. Any mediation for peace should include the crucial issue
of human rights and their application.

However, as we mentioned at the beginning of the book,
remember that this is not an exact science, but these
principles can help us. Although here are our nuances:
 Human rights are NOT the same depending on the past,

culture, religion... This is directly linked to the values of
each person and it complicates the negotiating process.
 If they have a problem with you or your organization, it
will be probably for irrational causes, namely NON
negotiable. In this case, the best option will be to switch
interlocutors and / or negotiation structure.
 The definition of "peace" is NOT the same for everyone. P
Low intensity conflicts can be regarded as perfectly A
acceptable by some. G
 Windows of opportunity will lead to small steps E
(remember Kissinger) and that's always good to go in
both directions. 199
 Try to find common values and build on them. It is here
where being able to discern between what belongs to the
level of values (not negotiable) and what belongs to the
level of interests (negotiable) is vital.
For example, we can think again about Gerry Adams and

Ulster. There was a conflict between Catholics and
Protestants but if we dig a little bit we see that Catholics were
poorer and marginalized whereas Protestants were the
leading community (for historical reasons).
The conflict moved to the deepest levels – religion - when in

fact it was possible to negotiate on issues that did not affect
values.

Somehow, that is what has been attempted in Ulster. So far it
seems that peace has been achieved. But remember what
peace is called here, elsewhere it would be called "latent
conflict", but in the case of Ulster it is accepted as a peaceful
situation.
In the most obvious Middle East conflict, the innocent

observer it perplexed to see that there is not one iota of
progress towards a "viable" solution. And here the devil is in
the semantics of the word "viable". Its translation into the
language of negotiation is the MinMax party. If my MinMax
contemplates and accepts a fixed number of bombing
attacks, obviously never declaring such a thing in public,
P
since that would be an unacceptable manifestation of
A
cynicism by the public, then my BATNA does not improve my
G
current situation. It is a good -and very cynical concept
E
illustration of BATNA and starts explaining why some
negotiating processes seem to be stuck forever.
200

DIRTY GAMES
The strategy determines where you want to go: tactics, how

to achieve it. There are good tactics even if the strategy is
bad. Knowing about tactics will be useful, even if you are not
going to use them. But you may recognize it when the other
party will use them.
The principled negotiation is fine, but what if the opposite

side plays dirty?
There are many tactics and tricks that people can use to take
advantage of you. Everyone knows some. These tactics can
P
be called dirty negotiations.
A
G
Although it is not convenient to use dirty tricks, it can be
E
helpful to know them and to learn how to detect when the
opposite side uses them. The general rule in these cases is
to make the opposite side see that we have noticed his tricks201
and that they do not work with us.
If they realize that they are using against you one of the
tactics of the dirty game of negotiation, most people react in
one of two ways. The first is to tolerate. The second most
common way is to use the same weapons. If they start
demanding too much, you play fool. If they threaten, you
threaten.
Probably the other party hands the values differently, as

Fisher and Ury say: "It is often difficult to decide what means
to negotiate "in good faith". People draw the line in different
places".

The following pages review some of the handiest "deceptive
tactics". Of course, there are countless tactics and
techniques. In general, each can be divided into three
categories:
F Obstructive tactics: trying to put pressure of the opposite

party.
F Offensive tactics: seek to pressure or intimidate.
F Cheating practices: usually referred to as tricks.
P
The knowledge of these techniques or tactics allows us to A
face every situation in a better position. G
E
The last minute rise
202
After reaching an agreement, one party tries to change
something in their favour. Just a little, just a detail, but not
enough to remove the opposite party from the agreement.
Imagine you buy a house for 300,000 Euros, which suits you.
When you go to the notary, the seller tells you that now it is
350,000 Euros.
How can you turn your back, if you've even bought the
furniture? This is not a moral practice, but it is relatively
common (we've seen that first hand). You have to stand firm
and probably the opposite party will withdraw the petition. It
depends on the market situation of course and on your
BATNA.

Now when the opposite party uses this trick, we personally
think that there is no such thing as a "unique opportunity" in
life, the opportunity no one before you has seen. And that's
true in a mature market like real estate, cars, any business,
etc.
All that glitters is not gold
Read an advertisement for a loan at a low interest, and when

you're “negotiating” at the bank, check the fees, expenses,
etc. as they do not make the product as attractive as you
P
thought. And yet the desire to buy has already been
A
generated in you.
G
E
This tactic is very common in international transactions. It is
related to the tactics known as "last minute rise". They are a
203
little bit different, the latter occurs towards the end of the pro-
cess whereas the former takes place at the beginning. So
analize if you really want to get the loan or sell the business
in real conditions, not in the initially proposed ones.
To give you more strength when faced with situations of this

kind, the suggestion is that you can express to your partner
that he has piqued your interest and you will consider to
move forward on the project. We can even give him thanks
-not showing irony - for the information you get from him.
This approach is related to what we discussed earlier when

we talked of foul play; it is vital to identify it and to call the
cards, hence unveiling the bluff lurking behind.

Good cop, bad cop
Suppose that you negotiate with a team. One member plays

hard. The other is amiable. They are very common practice
and many consider them legitimate.
Sometimes the bad cop and the good cop are the same
person, depending on the negotiation phase. We may be
tempted to make concessions to the good cop. Sometimes
the bad cop can be a third party: an accountant or a boss. Do
not be tempted to help your interlocutor.
The best measure against this tactic is to make a particular

P
mental process. Think that the good guy is not that good, he
A
is on the same line as the bad guy, you do not have to solve
G
their problems, their problems are probably fictitious. You
E
may also use this tactic. For example, you can ask to
negotiate with the "good cop" arguing that you feel more
comfortable with him. 204
Take it or leave it
Famous last words, which tend almost never to be the last.

Sometimes prematurely or frivolously used. They must be
serious: credibility is lost if one comes back after saying "take
it or leave it". Careful with bluffing.
Never use this tactic especially at the beginning of the

negotiations. Make it clear that you are interested in
continuing the discussion, but you can not accept his offer.
A good rule is to ignore the bait; keep on as if you had not

heard the "take it or leave it".

Challenged with this tactic, you can also modify the
agreement asking “What if...?” The risks of this tactic are very
high. Psychologically, it is difficult to accept this position.
The tactic of "my first offer is the last" does not work.
Especially in public negotiations, or in the event that the
opposite party has to answer to other people. You cannot put
the opposite party in the position of having to say yes to
everything. Recall that in many cases, the negotiator will
have to negotiate with his bosses, fellows, partners, etc.
P
Limited authority
A
G
Sometimes, a negotiator can only accept an agreement if
E
approved by someone: the boss, the board... as a tactic they
say that they have less authority than they actually have. By
205
using this ploy, it is easier to be rigid. Psychologically, the
situation of the opposite party is uncomfortable. Therefore,
not only has he to convince the person in front of him, but
also someone "invisible".
It's something like "the last minute rise" A caller reaches an

agreement, but then says "my boss agrees, but there are
some details we have to change." Naturally, in their favour.
The suggested rule is the same: do not give up.
Another interesting possibility is to say that you do not find

the person who has to decide. This gives you time to deal
with other people, etc. Beware when you say that.
Try to determine before starting a negotiation, what's the

authority of the person with whom you're negotiating. Try to

avoid negotiating with others. If the opposite party has little
authority, also limit yours. Note that ratification may require
making new concessions. Require to negotiate only with the
person who has sufficient authority.
Of course, it is sometimes difficult to identify who that person

is. Some trick we use sometimes is to ask for small
concessions that do not involve risk for the caller (usually
procedural, for example, to validate a written text or a
technical presentation). Depending on how he reacts to our
request we will know if the person is really in charge. This is
based on the premise that if he is not in charge, he won't
even dare to validate something merely formal and he will
P
head to his manager, that will betray him pretty quickly.
A
G
This tactic is based on the fact that the negotiator is not clear
E
about the scope of his power when negotiating. Similarly, his
boss is not physically involved in the process and therefore
do not have first-hand information on how the process 206
unfolds. In that case, he has fallen into his own trap and will
have to continue to delegate to his subordinate or to
intervene personally and reveal before your eyes.
Closed mind
A negotiator may refuse to make any concession.

Paradoxically, adopting this position is strengthening his
position when saying he cannot do anything. For instance, a
politician who says he will never come to terms with his
partner if certain conditions are not met.
The problem with this tactic is that they are employed by

inept negotiators who have not thought enough about the

consequences. Sometimes, of course, this tactic works, but
usually the opposite happens. What can we do when the
opposite side is closed to our proposal? Resist. He cannot
always maintain his position. This will make him lose the
confidence of his people, but that's his problem. It is
important that the opposite party clearly knows that you want
to move from your position, but then show him you do not
understand his position.
Pardon my French
Try not to negotiate in a language you do not command well.

P
But on the other hand it may be a tactic to negotiate in a
A
language that you speak with difficulty. This allows you to
G
repeat or rephrase tricky issues (thus having more time to
E
find an adequate response), or you can go back on previous
commitments, alleging that you didn't heard right. Also it can
be used as an excuse to use written media, which have more 207
weight.
Faced with someone using this tactic, make it clear that he is

using unfair tactics with a real or pretended ignorance of a
language. Ultimately, require the translator to be present,
although this will also place him in an advantageous position,
allowing him to focus on the subject while you listen to the
translator.
Additionally, an interpreter can distract and confuse. Thus

there are two alternatives: either to accept the
inconveniences of the interpreter or allow your opponent to
continue with his tactics. Although if he persists in his
attitude, it is best to leave it.

Bullying
Sometimes incorrect behaviours are common, with the intent

to abuse, etc. You wait in an uncomfortable seat, or in a
lower position. We must never tolerate this. Protest clearly.
But wary of those who use the opposite tactic: too gentle, too
much cooperation or understanding. Seduction" can lead to
something you may regret later.
We have found this tactic in some countries, which makes us

think that it may be a cultural thing. Now, very carefully here.
What to you seems rude and aggressive can be seen by
them as perfectly acceptable within their cultural parameters.
P
A
G
E
Emotional Reactions
208
A controlled discomfort can be an effective way to show the
opposite party that they have gone too far, and that they
have to stop. Note that we say controlled discomfort. Faced
with the emotional reactions of the opposite party, stay calm,
allow the opposite party to vent. Usually in this situation they
will provide you with information. When faced with poorly
controlled demonstrations of the opposite party, do not be
intimidated, make a joke, make it clear that you are not
impressed.
This is closely related to the previous point. Although it may

seem offensive to us, it may perfectly acceptable for them,
especially in some cultures.

Scouting
In the American election campaigns frequently people are

sent in advance, for recognition actions, for testing and
collecting from the opposite party. Unfortunately, these tactics
are also used for many other arrangements.
Information
P
A
Sometimes, in the final phase of negotiations, the opposite
G
party leaves on the table some notes or documents,
E
apparently by mistake, although in reality the action is
performed absolutely on purpose. You read these forgotten
documents, but they contain incorrect information. Or they 209
take notes you can read and confuse you. Our suggestion is
that you never read those notes or documents, your
dishonesty will match the opposite party's if you try to use
that information you assume as certain by the way. Be
prudent and honest. Obviously one way to react may be
using exactly the same technique, but then we enter an
intellectual loop.

F Remember: Consent.
Sometimes, in the negotiation, we agreed to

cede believing that this will be the last time.
Rumour has it that the appeaser is one who

believes that if you continually throws chunks
of meat to a tiger, it eventually will become
vegetarian. But we can hint that this is not
going to happen
P
A
F Remember: Playing dirty?
G
E
Playing dirty tricks in a negotiation is something
many people continue to do every day when they
have to negotiate with the opposite party. 210
In general, all these "moves" are designed to
cause anxiety, guilt or to increase pressure on
the negotiator.
It is true that many times, this type of negotiators

achieved what they wanted at the time. However,
long-term costs can be high (in relational terms
but also in terms of results).
Perhaps the question to ask yourself is: how long

do I intend to stay in this business/market?
If the answer is "a lot", it is certainly much more

convenient to "play fair" when negotiating.

Countering the dirty games
Regardless of behaviours that, in a timely manner, can give a

response to some of the "tactics, traps or tricks", we want to
share with you several tips on tactics and behaviours that
you can implement to protect yourself from this type of
behaviour. If we had to summarize the essence of all these
suggestions in a single sentence, we would say the following:
do the opposite of what the opposite side expects you to do.
 Observe and recognize the tactic: To remedy something

you need to know what's happening. Identify the tricks P
(making you uncomfortable, some kind of deception, A
entrenched in their position...). Often, the mere G
recognition of a tactic can neutralize it. E
 Recognize the tactic and explicit it: "Mr. Smith, maybe I'm
wrong, but my impression is you and Mr Brown are 211
playing the game of good cop and bad cop. If you want a
break, to settle your differences, I have no objection to
leave this room for a while". Putting on the table tactics
not only reduces their effectiveness but makes them start
worrying about their credibility. It is essential to remember
that it is to question the tactic, not the integrity of the other
person.
 Denounce the use of the tactic, so you may get back to

the proper game rules. That way, without retiring from the
negotiations, you may restore confidence between the
parties and lay the best conditions for the trade.

 Do not personally attack people because they use illegal
tactics: If you get defensive, it may be more difficult to
renounce the tactic. It is more effective to attack the
problem, for example, instead of saying "I was
deliberately placed facing the sun" (that we would be
attacking people); it is preferable to say "Sunlight bothers
me, and in these conditions, I find it difficult to read the
papers and follow the conversation. Can we change my
location?" (Here you'd be attacking the problem). This is
basic when dealing with conflicting situations. Always try
to describe a situation and how that situation affects you.
Repeat again and again, this is the key to assertiveness.
P
 Record the dirty tricks they are using against you and see A
them as an early warning. In the business world we G
cannot simply pass over small lies. They tend to be the E
sign of worse things to come.
 People who use dirty tricks are looking for the easy way: 212
If you confront them to speak and act honestly, most
negotiators may withdraw.
 Try to know as much as possible about the people with

whom you are going to negotiate: Those who have a
history of integrity are not easily diverted from that path. If
their record is not good, do not expect the best, protect
yourself as much as possible, or change partner (if that's
possible).
 Request that everything is written down. The more

detailed, the more witnesses, the better.

 When you reach an agreement, have a good lawyer
review it. Many of the dirty tricks those negotiators use
are often hidden in the contracts, which very often we
seldom review.
In what follows we remind you of some of the strategies that

will help you in any negotiation:
The penetration strategy
It is an integrated strategy to turn the negotiation partner into

a collaborator. It is based on controlling one's emotions and P
reactions. The relationship with the opposite party negotiator A
is based on respect and empathy. Your goal is not to win the G
negotiator of the opposite party, but to win the negotiator as a E
person. Furthermore, it is a gradual process that requires
great patience and prudence.
213
We can use this strategy as:
 Do not go back, stay strong.

 Do not answer on the spot, continue asking.
 Do not fight; control your reactions.
 Listen carefully.
 Tune and emphasize.
 Empower mutual trust.
Like any strategy it depends very much on our own personal

style. That is, we will feel more comfortable with a strategy

over another. This has an advantage in that we will naturally
use the closest to our natural way of being. The risk is that it
might not be the ideal strategy. However, the penetration
strategy turns out to be quite efficient if measured in terms of
investment-result. Here's why: as you can see, if you're a
wise person and given little prominence in the conversation,
this strategy is ideal from your point of view, since the effort
lies with the party. The risk is simply that the party gets
overtired and start to react emotionally. It may be your goal,
but then you have to assume that the relationship may be
damaged.
P
Depersonalization
A
G
It is one of the key aspects of any negotiation. If we have
E
repeated so many times the idea of negotiating with people is
because the psychological aspects of negotiating are
responsible for most of the disagreements or 214
misunderstandings.
Depersonalization seeks to minimize the emotional

interference concentrating the attention of the parties on the
contents of the bargain.
The differences of both parties determine different views of

the object of negotiation. Depersonalization seeks to transfer
to the negotiation table these different perspectives making
them visible to all. At the same time, you should strive to find
criteria and analytical tools and metrics for a more objective
approach to the problem.
As for external positions, it is important to learn to

differentiate what you want from what they want. Always

keep in mind that the formulation of positions usually
correspond to what the organization wants.
Depersonalization is precisely about controlling or

neutralizing the subjective aspects that influence it.
Remember that you and the opposite party will not
understand it because you are part of the problem. If you
ignore this you could reach unsolvable situations. Therefore,
analyse the subjectivity of the parties to objectify the
confrontation.
There is a tool by E. Bono typically used in creativity groups

and which is known as the six hats. We will not detail it here
P
again. But it can help us work with our partner
A
dispassionately if both parties have the maturity to use it.
G
Briefly, in this technique is to take up to six different roles far
E
from our natural style when negotiating. You can even share
with your partner if you are both open to explore all means to
help you achieve a satisfactory result for both. 215
Improvisation
Leaving things to chance is never advisable. For how much

experience you have, you are never sure that we will get the
attention, concentration and quick reflexes necessary. So, do
not leave things to chance because the ideas that are
perceived as improvised easily cause mistrust.
Always keep the situation under control, but even in the un-
likely event that it is not so, try to pretend full control and
knowledge of what you're doing. It's a bad sign being con-
stantly reviewing papers and data just before the negotiation.

This behaviour would be conveying an impression of insecur-
ity.
This is where we insist on that you have to lead the

negotiation agenda. Negotiate only when you're ready. If
you're not, do not be afraid to be "rude" and refuse to
negotiate at that place or time. Remember that your partner
will not come in improvising, although he may give that
feeling a priori.
Now, here there are no laws engraved in marble. Imagine

that your partner is actually improvising; in that case he is
giving you an advantage, especially if you adopt the above
P
strategy, penetration, where the weight of the action rests
A
upon him.
G
E
216
A withdrawal on time
You are not always going to achieve your goals nor will you
be able to get the right price (or better put, the right value).
Whether you pursue an agreement where distributive
equilibrium, it is possible, although unusual, that at any given
time we understand the impossibility of reaching the target. If
you have the slightest doubt about the viability of the
agreement, you must continue to negotiate. Even if you think
vaguely that you will not get the closure we also recommend
that you keep on trying. In most negotiations, especially on
long ones, there is usually a time when it is believed that all
is lost and that the agreement will not be reached.

However, if, for any reason, you think that the agreement is
impossible, don't try to show off or be pushy. Don't waste
both your time and your opponent's.
Retire in time, if the time comes and above all, keep in mind
that a timely retreat is a victory.
F Remember: About pressure.
Many times we impose it on ourselves. At other times, the

opposite party is using some form of pressure to try to get an P
advantage.
A
G
The key here is not to respond to that pressure reacting and
E
remaining calm. If we give into the pressure of the other, we
will be rewarding his behaviour. If we fight back we will enter
a fight. Neither way is the best for us. 217
The alternative is to stay calm and self-controlling. Normally,
just exposing the opponent's tactics will be enough to deter it.
Again we emphasize some common sense: history teaches

us that there is no such "unique opportunity", no "can't miss"
the "ideal business". Remember that if you looking for big
business it is because you are supposed to have something
that the other person needs and therefore they be willing to
spend some time with you. If they are not willing to do that
effort, then begin to suspect.
Many of the classic scams rely on such pressures, yet

unfortunately they still work.

F Remember: Change the negotiator.
It happens, especially when the negotiation

comes to a dead end. Although it can also be
a tactic of "foul play". In the latter case, the
reason to use this tactic is to have the
opportunity to withdraw from the previous
concessions, introducing new arguments,
delaying agreements or switching the nature
of the discussion from one topic to another.
When they change the negotiator in front of

us, we should take into account the P
following: A
G
 Don't waste time repeating past E
discussions.
 Be patient if the other person refuses 218

previous agreements. He will probably
come back to them later.
 Anticipate how to deal with such changes

would they occur.
 Feel free to change your position if the

opposite party changes his.
 Some changes show weakness. Try to

find a new offer or concession
 Speak privately with the new negotiator.

Summarize how to counter the dirty games
The "tricks and traps" are behaviours and tactics used mainly
in the "competitive negotiations", where "Win - Lose"
solutions are sought. Negotiators in such negotiations focus
on fulfilling their own interests and believe that relationships
are not important.
By the frequency where these behaviours apply, it is

important that you are prepared to identify and manage
them.
Regardless of the tactics all of those dirty tricks or games

P
have three objectives:
A
G
 Lowering the expectations of the opposite party.
E
 Pressing for concessions in return.
 Circumventing or minimizing the granting of concessions 219
The most effective ways to counter the dirty tricks tactics are:
 Identify and assess them.

 Express the possible consequences they will have on the
process.
 Attack the practice and not the person using it, not to
generate defensive responses from the other part. Give
them the opportunity to improve their behaviour, without
attacking them personally.
 Use them to redefine the rules of the game.

If, after identifying them, and redefining the rules of the
game, you are still seeing unacceptable behaviour, you have
the following options:
 Do the same to the other side, to make them understand

and feel the impact of their behaviour.
 Momentarily stop the discussion until we are back on
track. Remind the other party what you had agreed upon.
 Advertise your intention of stopping the negotiation if
those behaviours persist. It is preferable not to agree and
accept the compromise that you having to be sorry later.
Also, if you continue negotiating admitting foul play by the P
other negotiator this will create a negative precedent for A
negotiations with another negotiator. G
E
You read it right. If those unacceptable behaviours persist,
stop negotiating. It is better not to reach an agreement than
reaching it through conceding things you might regret in the
220
future. Besides, if you keep on negotiating, hence accepting
the dirty tricks, you will be setting a negative precedent
should you face new negotiations in the future, with this very
negotiator or with a new one.
Finally, remember that the knowledge of the those tactics and

their use does not imply that we consider using them,
although it is important to know that we will eventually have
to counteract them.

F Remember: Quote.
"The best general is the one who is never

dragged into battle".
Sun Tzu
P
A
G
E
221

Dealing with challenging behaviours
No matter how well prepared you are, or open, trustworthy or

honest you are, do not expect the other negotiators to be just
like you. Also, do not expect them to agree with you: a
honest disagreement is a common factor in business life.
In an ideal world, negotiations are collaborative, objective,

serious and nice. But in the real world, evil appears, people
make personal comments, abuse of their authority,
sometimes insult (fortunately less and less) and if you have
bad luck, everything at the same time. Here we want to share
with you some techniques so you can deal with these
P
particularly difficult situations. Not necessarily dirty games, so
A
we place them in another section.
G
E
Some of these techniques are not easy to use at first, so you
know what to do: keep practising.
222
Respond to critics
If the critic is valid and fair, recognize it and openly show

agreement. However, remember that this critic is only about
one aspect of your behaviour, not about you as a person. If
the critic is fair, but unsuitable for the situation, you can
decide to ignore it. If only part of the critic is justified, but it
has been exaggerated, recognize the part that you think is
fair.
For example, someone might comment, "You're always very

disorganized. In the end, everyone just doing your job for
you". If you agree with the statement that you are
disorganized, an appropriate response might be: "Yes, I am

aware that could improve my personal organization".
However, we suggest you do not try to fight or comment on
the ”other people are doing your job”.
If the critic is unfair and you don't think you are disorganized,
it is best to respond with a question. One possible answer
could be: "What makes you think I'm messy?" Which forces
the person who put forward the criticism to specify the root of
his complaint.
Change the subject

P
You could ignore a comment which is inappropriate or
A
provocative or even irrelevant to not stray from the general
G
discussion of the negotiation. However, if you choose to
E
ignore the issue, the best way to proceed is to first
acknowledge and agree on the fact that you are ready to talk
223
about this later. If you ignore it completely, it is likely that the
other person will insist. Simply they will wait for another time
when you have dropped your guard to return to the attack.
Abuse of authority
This is a well known way to criticize someone - after all, it's

easy! Fortunately, most people do not fall that low. Although
there are also people who regularly behaves well, there are
some analytical-authoritarian (Director in the following table)
profiles, and is just their personal style. We can rely on the
simple table below. It's important for us to accommodate to
our style interlocutor. If my partner is "rough" and (namely
Type Director) I have to be concise, analytical and forget
"good vibes". It just would not connect with his personal style.

P
A
G
E
Someone might say exclaim: "Why should I listen to what
224
you're saying?”, implying that you are not important or do not
have any authority. Your answer might be to ignore the
comment and reply as if he had asked a perfectly normal
question. Explain what your practical experience on the
subject is, that you are updated on what is happening, that
you have spoken to experts, etc. It is crucial that you have a
lot of data and evidence to support you. Remember that you
face a "Director" and that is the only language he
understands.
Ignoring the implied insult works well in many types of

situations. You have not been rude or impolite, but you've just
taken the opportunity to answer and, best of all, you can get
your opponent feel extremely uncomfortable (not that you
intend to do it though).

If they yell
Nobody likes being yelled at. It's always embarrassing when

this happens in a business situation, and when it happens
unexpectedly it can surprise and disgust. However, it is
something that happens, especially under pressure in a
crucial stage of negotiation.
Remember the model of New-Old Brain that we used in our

book on conflict management; it explains it very well.
Replying with another yell is never a good answer. It only

causes the aggressiveness to escalate and thus further
P
problems occur. Apologizing on these occasions can also
A
make the situation worse. Leaving the negotiating table gives
G
you another problem: How do you go back to it without losing
E
face? And you probably will have to meet with this person in
the future, and that will be weird. The best choice is asking
directly to that person to not shout, then pause and pretend 225
that nothing has happened.
F Remember: Get onto the balcony.
The term refers to a mental attitude of

distancing especially in the difficult times. It
means discarding the impulses and
emotions and keep your eyes fixed on the
objective.
Something definitely difficult but rewarding.

Here we may use some "6 hats" tool to see
things from different balconies.

F Remember: Personal attacks.
Sometimes it happens. What to do then? Keep

an attitude of detachment, an attitude of "getting
onto the balcony".
It can be very effective to rethink the personal

attack as if it were a friendly comment. Example:
A general from the eighteenth century had lost
the favour of Frederick the Great from Prussia.
Upon meeting, the general greeted with great
respect to King but Frederick turned his back.
"Glad to see that your majesty is not angry with P

me" - said the general. A
"Why?" - asked the king. G
"Your Majesty never in your life has you turned
your back on an enemy" - replied the general.
E
F Remember: Respect the others.

226
Etymologically, respect means "to look again".
Look again to see each other better, to do it
without any attachment to our negative emotions
aroused by the behaviour of the other person.
In a negotiation, act with respect, regardless of

what you are feeling.
By respecting one another, we are not doing any

favours to the other person. Respect not only
makes sense because "it is right" but also
because it is effective.

F Remember: Quote.
"The best speech you will ever regret is the

one you utter when speaking under the
influence of anger."
Ambrose Bierce.
P
A
G
E
227

P
A
G
MANAGE YOUR E
INFORMATION
228

As you might guess, information is at the heart of any
negotiation. If managed intelligently, it lets us glimpse many
opportunities you would not normally see. It affects the
perception you have of yourself, in addition to the way others
perceive you. However, research shows that many
negotiators do not think about what data they want to share
and prefer to keep it to themselves.
This dilemma often leads to situations where (unintentionally)

we share too much information resulting thus in a damaged
position. It is also possible of course that we do not share
sufficient information (again, unintentionally) which creates
some lack of confidence. Being unnecessarily cautious can
P
trigger the same response from the other negotiator, creating
A
an atmosphere of suspicion and finish the game long before
G
we started.
E
On the other hand, it is also important to analyse the extent
of the information that you want to get from the other 229
negotiator. If you ask them to unveil valuable information we
can lose great opportunities to increase the value. Without
this information, it is unlikely we reach the level of
collaboration necessary to solve the common problem. It also
limits your chances of finding creative solutions.
What do successful negotiators do? Those negotiators plan

their strategies carefully to communicate and receive
information during negotiations. They understand that
perceptive people will not communicate with them beyond a
basic level, until it reaches a point where the risk is
reciprocal. Skilled negotiators therefore do not share
information until you share information with them. Sharing
information is seen as a behaviour where both are at risk.
These negotiators also know that sharing some information

influences the way they are perceived, which in turn may
result in a lower level of expectation.
The information (both in quality and quantity) is negotiable.

But we will have to explain to our partner that we demand
"fair play" in return.
And it is true that most people have difficulty with silences,

namely that we have a natural tendency to talk about our
stuff, particularly to avoid uncomfortable silences.
Although not be very scientific, remember that more than one

billion people are connected to social networks (e.g.
P
Facebook) where they openly share very personal things. We
A
don't go into the motivations of those present in such
G
networks, but it can serve as a metaphor for the need to talk
E
about us instead of listening.
Back into the world of business, typically everyone will want 230
to talk about his business, his accomplishments, his
aspirations etc. Let not hesitate to ask about the activities of
our party. They will answer with pleasure.
Today, social networks give us clues about the

"communicative-social" style of our party while we can get
relevant information about himself.
By the way, without having any scientific value, it happens

that none of our fellow consultants or negotiators has a page
on Facebook, despite strong pressures to activate one. It
might mean something.

Plan how to get information
 Information to be disclosed and which not. As a rule, any

information that can be obtained easily with a basic
search should be shared freely. The other negotiator will
not always be aware of this "public" knowledge, as the
case may be, for example, the data in its annual report,
but revealing that information can increase trust between
both parties.
And we will be offering value to our counterpart with

something that has had little cost to us.
P
 What would you like to obtain specific information from A
the opposite party. Prepare some open questions in G
advance so you do not forget. E
 Prepare appropriate answers for questions that could

potentially damage his confidence level. 231
 Remember the appropriate amount of facts you
memorized or brought to your negotiation.
For this early stage is sensitive for establishing bridges of

communication- I.e. for "negotiating information", then we
have a situation a little different from the table "Value-Cost"
where Value and Cost may well be "asymmetrical" provided
that both parties win. Here, however, we should be aware
that both the amount and the quality of information
exchanged are symmetrical. The reason is that we are
building a relationship of trust in order to investigate and
understand the interests of both parties.

Thus we see that we are walking on an edge. The only way
is to not deviate -check number and quality of information
you are exchanging.
F Remember: Quote.
"Act speedily but apologize slowly”.
P
A
G
E
232

HAVE A PLAN
Although we recommend the negotiation based on principles,

it is well known that every negotiation involves certain
concessions. Therefore, before starting any important
negotiations, you should be aware of what you are happy
with, what you aspire to and how you can achieve it (of the
three levels). Knowing your limits will allow you to negotiate
with confidence and make (and ask) without any concessions
or a iota of repentance.
The most important reason to create a concession plan is

relevant to the human mind. Have you ever wondered, "Is
P
winning the only satisfaction derived from the negotiations?"
A
G
If you think so, consider the phenomenon known as the
E
"Winner's Curse ".
Imagine you are walking through an Arab market and 233

suddenly you find the vase of your dreams. It is quite old (the
label says nineteenth century), but beautiful. This label is the
price, 1,000 Euros, which seems too expensive. To compare
prices, you visit other markets located in the vicinity where
they sell similar vases and discover that the cost of similar
vases is between 900 and 1,100 Euros. You decide that due
to limitations you have in the budget, paying between 500
and 600 Euros would be reasonable. After two days
comparing, you decide to buy the first vase you saw. Back to
the place that sells the precious vase and walk around
without showing too much interest, because you know that if
you show enthusiast, it will cost money. After a while, the
store owner comes to you and asks you if you're interested in
something. You answer: "I like that vase, but I'm not sure I
want to buy it." The owner continues to insist and, after what

seems an eternity, you start by offering 150 Euros. The
owner looks at you and immediately answers: "Deal". The
speed of his response has left you dumbfounded. Why would
a vase will be sold for 150 Euros if you had paid him 500?
The real question is how you feel after negotiation: cheated
or satisfied?
This anecdote shows that satisfaction is related not only to

getting what you want. However, many negotiators give too
much too soon when negotiating with the opposite party.
Their thinking is: "A good deal is a done deal." As soon as
the tension grows and the opposite party negotiator adopts a
competitive position, weak negotiators (and/or
P
inexperienced) give away everything they can just to make
A
sure that they are going to close the deal. Why? By the need
G
to satisfy the human psyche.
E
234
There are several ways to obtain satisfaction from
negotiations
 Getting the price and desired conditions

 Having the feeling of exclusivity (nobody else had been
able to close it)
 Getting an agreement under unfavourable circumstances
 Knowing that one is able to reach an agreement on a
regular basis
 Knowing that with hard work comes big rewards.

Professional negotiators know the principle of giving
satisfaction; therefore they negotiate slowly and carefully.
They also always ask for something in return for the
concession they make. First they negotiate what has value to
the negotiator of the opposite party but it's cheap for them.
Successful negotiators prepare every marketable aspects in
advance and plan the strategy of how to give and, more
importantly, what to ask for in return. Remember than taking
your time and yielding the less possible will defeat hastiness
and openness.
P
A
G
E
235

The case of the fees
One of our clients wanted us to intervene in a seminar, but

feared that we might try to snatch the final customer that had
contracted him. After listening carefully, we explained our
ethical model (in short, we stressed that we would not risk
our reputation for a few thousand Euros).
After a while he offered a 20% increase in our fees. We

thanked him and continued talking about this and that.
Actually, that client had done what is called a "free grant", P
which means giving away something for nothing. Probably A
the client expected some return for this increase, but we G
offered him nothing as it was not justified. E
Another very similar case occurred about fifteen years ago,
when a customer called us to urgently replace a trainer who 236
had just left on bad terms in the eve of a seminar, in order to
achieve a significant increase in his wages.
We were his only alternative. An immediate reaction would

have been to try to take advantage of the situation. Instead,
we agreed to help him, although telling him that such short
notice forced us to do some additional preparation work
-which was not entirely true, we may confess -.
Suddenly, to our surprise, the client offered an increase of

30% over the rate we had anticipated. We thanked him and
kept talking about preparing the seminar (as it seemed to be
the real concern of the opposite party).

That is another example of a free gift. That is, we got
something for nothing.
Most striking is that in both situations the opposite party, as

we would discover later, was very satisfied with the
agreement, because in his mind it had taken place a free
concession, but actually they felt that they had achieved
"something" thanks to this grant. Obviously, it was not.
In both cases it involved a "psychological" factor that was

what made them rush and skip some of the stages of a
negotiation process. Specifically, they went straight to the
stage of "exchanges" without first having closed the stage of
P
"interest checking" on both sides. To all this process and the
A
corresponding -and sequential- steps we have dedicated
G
extensive coverage a few pages back.
E
237
F Key idea:
Never give something for "nothing."

Some rules on concessions (or exchanges)
 Always leave room for compromise: between your

starting position and your aspirations.
 Try to get your partner to be the first to make

concessions. The value of concessions increases with
time: hold on.
 If you make concessions, make them as small and slowly

as the opposite party.
 The fact that your partner makes a concession does not

P
mean that you have to do something. A
G
 If you interlocutor makes a concession it doesn't mean
E
that you have to give something in return.
 Try to get something from each concession you make. 238

 Make concessions contingent (What do you offer me if I
give you this or that...?). This has two advantages: you
give nothing if not receiving something in exchange, and
also you know what the opposite party is willing to give.
 In a concession that does not cost you, however, make

them feel it involves a major sacrifice for you. Also, don't
make them see that their “cheap” concession is actually
of great value for you.
 Get concessions creating problems that you can resolve

(at a certain price).

 Ask for something that is important to the opposite party
whereas irrelevant to you, so that you can withdraw that
demand and ask for something that really interests you.
 Sometimes, the opposite party wants to withdraw from a

position but does not know how to do so without losing
credibility.
 Constantly compare your concessions with concessions

made by the opposite party.
 When someone proposes to split the difference, beware,

we are not always talking of 50/50. P
A
 When the negotiation is over, don't diss the other party
G
bragging about what he could have obtained, as you were E
ready to offer more than what he eventually got.
239

F Remember: You have to make concessions.
We have to procure yourself room enough to

negotiate. If you sell, start high. If we are
buying, start low. You should find at least one
powerful reason to start negotiating. It is also
very important not to start negotiating in an
extreme position that can potentially
generate hostility.
It's good to be insisting to the opposite party

to speak first, to put their demands on the
table while we maintain ours hidden. P
A
Also, try that the other person makes the first G
concession on the main points. We may be E
the first (if we so choose) in making
concessions on minor points.
240
People do not appreciate when you get
something for nothing. Therefore, it is
transcendent that the negotiators perceive
that the opposite side had to fight hard to get
everything they have achieved.
And above all, never give something for

nothing. We have to get something for each
concession ("quid pro quo").

P
A
G
AGREEMENT E
241

The agreement marks the end of a negotiation that has been
successfully completed. When finally a deal is reached you
can not afford to spoil it by placing new demands. It is
appropriate, therefore, to always be humble (even if you think
you have a "winner" result).
An agreement should always be expressed in writing, in no

way can it be only a verbal commitment.
Here there may be a cultural nuance; since in some cultures,

especially if we are negotiating aspects of "little" weight,
requesting a written commitment may even be offensive. But
let's not be gullible, rejecting a written agreement can be a
P
dirty trick.
A
G
The written agreement will faithfully interpret the terms of the
E
agreement if some disputes arise during implementation. At
the same time, it can eventually serve as a model for future
renovations. 242
Moreover, the written agreement is there to stay, embodied,
even if some of the people involved in the negotiations may
not continue in the organization.
The agreement is the result of the acceptance of a final

approach that includes numerous points: number of units,
technical specifications, delivery, price, financial facilities,
discounts, warranties, after-sales service, etc.
Many a time, some negotiators think that it's finally over and
they relax, they even think that he would be rude to ask for a
signed agreement.

Actually the negotiation is not over. In order to be complete,
the process requires a formal agreement. Until then, the
process is NOT over. It has nothing to do with good or bad
manners or with our distrust.
As we are sure you can imagine, this final agreement is a

critical moment in the negotiations. At that time the conditions
are fixed, there is no turning back.
What can happen sometimes is this: we've "solved" the

negotiation and we are more relaxed, and it seems even
rude to insist on signing a paper.
P
But really we have not completed the negotiations yet. The
A
negotiation process involves the complete execution of the
G
agreement; and until we have not gotten it, we have not
E
completed the process, it is not a matter of good or bad
education, or distrust toward the interlocutor.
243
The importance of this decision can justify we request some
time for reflection before giving a definitive answer (there is
no need to rush when making a decision of this importance).
The other party, generally accepts this request, totally logical,
and with a reasonable time to answer.
The document calls for relaxed reading, as one must ensure

that it faithfully captures all the treated and agreed upon
points.
Any question arising, well now is the time to formulate it. We

recommend that, in that document, we try to be as
comprehensive as possible, picking up anything that might
affect the development of the agreement or any eventuality
that may arise (expressed or implied renewal guarantees

provided by each party, events cancelled in advance,
possible sanctions to be applied, etc.)
If the document does not pick up some of these issues, a

loophole could occur later, during its execution, and
ultimately should be resolved in court.
All this requires that, once an agreement is reached, instead

of relaxing (something that usually happens sometimes) it's
worth your while to be especially attentive to the wording of
the document and, before signing it, to do a relaxed reading.
Finally, it is essential that before you sign you check if the

P
negotiator has sufficient delegation from his organization or
A
if, on the contrary, he requires authorization from a higher
G
post. But of course, this is an aspect that one should have
E
clear in mind before sitting down to the negotiating table, it is
advisable to double check before signing, then it would be
too late and you could be committed to their organization in 244
an operation which was not authorized.

F Remember: Overcoming the 5 “no”.
In view of a possible deal, and involved in

negotiating with someone you do not know
very well, the proper attitude consists in
overcoming the five “no”:
 Do not react
 Do not discuss
 Do not reject
 Do not press
P
 Do not attack A
G
E
This involves setting aside (or appropriately
manage) the impulses and emotions.
Although, as discussed above, that does not 245
mean we do not expose how we feel in a
civilized manner.
In short, our main concern in this situation as

negotiators should be to create a pleasant
and favourable negotiating climate.

F Remember: Achievers of agreements.
It is not that those people are corrupt,

dishonest or unethical, no. The point is that
being a good "agreements fixer" means he is
a good effective professional when it comes
to closing deals.
The mentality of a "fixer agreements" fosters

the attitude of "go for it". The goal is to make
the most for the opposite party to get the
best deal possible. It's about getting as many
advantages to negotiate. The desire to win is P
imposed on the costs of signing an A
agreement that may not work in practice G
because the supplier (in the case of supply E
companies) will never be able to make
money under those conditions.
246
Many times, however, signing a contract
involves a commitment to collaboration for
value creation. And in these cases, the way
the parties "get to say yes" is really
important.

F Remember: Start thinking about the end.
To have a mentality of taking into account

the implementation of the agreement, one
method is to start thinking about the end to
be achieved.
This is a retrospective analysis performed as

part of the preparation. Imagine that it's been
a year since the deal closed and ask
yourself:
 Is the deal working? P

 What has gone wrong so far? A
G
 What skills are necessary for achieving E
our goals?
247
If negotiators respond to these questions
before finalizing the deal, they will have no
choice but to act differently.

F Remember: Help the counterpart to do their homework.
Another method to account for the

implementation of the agreement is to help
the opposite party prepare his negotiation
process.
Contrary to what many people think,

surprising the other party is not convenient,
because if commitments that cannot be met
the two parts could be damaged.
It is interesting to encourage the opposite P

party to consult with internal stakeholders A
before starting the negotiation process and G
also during it. E
We should tell the opposite party about who

we deem as suitable for the process, even 248
since the early stages. Also about how we
plan to conduct the whole process and what
are our main concerns.

F Remember: We also negotiate internally.
Sometimes negotiators close deals in secrecy to

achieve their goals. However, keeping internal
stakeholders uninformed about the potential deal
may have negative consequences.
Therefore, to understand whether the deal will

work in practice, the negotiation process should
not only include the subject experts or the people
who have authority to negotiate, but also the
people who subsequently have to carry out
essential actions.
P
F Remember: Negotiating with our own people. A
G
E
We have already spoken of the need to build
trust; that's the way forward in any negotiation.
So, we should forget the past and have patience,
lots of patience to overcome difficulties.
249
However, the most difficult negotiations are
sometimes with our peers themselves, with
people of our own organization. And it is here
where our best skills are put into play.
We see that we must help our partner to "write his

victory speech" i.e. to be able to argue in front of his
bosses, partners or colleagues. Imagine that you
have reached an agreement, in whatever form, and
you expose yourself to the members of your side. And
ear comments like "how come you did not get more?",
"And they have been so happy with the concessions
you have made". So give them arguments to present
their "victory". They will need them and they will
appreciate your help.

F Remember: Agreements that don't fly.
Many a time, when the agreement is

reached, the actual negotiators step aside
and some new actors appear on the stage.
However, as they intervene in a late part of
the process, that might lack some insight
about how the process did unfold. Moreover,
they couldn't build the proper rapport and
confidence with the other party.
F Remember: Do not be envious.

P
A
This is one of the main aspects to take into G
account from the great negotiators. The E
reference is almost always the success of
the opposite party in relation to our own
success. And that's a common mistake. 250
A much better reference is to observe what
we are achieving in comparison to what
could achieve another person or party who is
put in our place. Are we achieving the
maximum possible given the strategy of the
opposite party?
In other words, it is not necessary to get

more than the opposite party to get us better
results. Similarly, the success of the opposite
party is not virtually a necessary condition for
success itself.

F Remember:
A negotiation is not closed until everything is

decided and there is a full understanding of
all the key points.
Hence, the fact that there is an agreement

on the first two points does not mean you
cannot reopen these points before reaching
an agreement on the remaining points.
Many people do not quite agree with the

view expressed. In our view, this is because P
those people feel that their safety would be A
at risk if you changed your mind. For us, G
however, one has every right to renegotiate E
any interim point of the agreement before
reaching full agreement.
251
In fact, this renegotiation should be required
if we get new information or if you discover
an error in our approach.

P
A
NEGOTIATING G
E
PROCESS PHASES
252

First contact
At this stage we suggest a procedure for the exchange of

information. Recall that the quantity and quality of information
we will share is also something to be negotiated. Here we put
forward an overview of our position, our interests, objectives
and agreements we hope to achieve and our willingness and
means at our disposal.
True, we are showing some of our cards, but it is better than

having all of them facing upward.
It is especially critical to ensure that we have created the

P
climate for negotiation and mutual understanding. If not so,
A
try to create it at this stage, as in the next one it will be more
G
difficult.
E
Recognition Phase 253

The first exposure is followed by a second stage of
recognition where the negotiating parties do basically two
things:
 They try to learn in greater depth and detail the approach

of the opposite party, usually through questions or
requests for further understanding.
 They nuance the contents and the scope of the original

positions, refocusing them depending on new factors put
forward by the opposite party.
At this stage, what is sought is to increase our options to

negotiate more and better opportunities, and minimize the
limitations and constraints that may hamper our
performance.
Often at this stage we see the first signs of distrust and

suspicion, as well as some early typecasting attitudes and
rejection. Every negative symptom is potentially a possible
source for the next confrontation. It is not necessarily bad or
avoidable for the first differences to appear, but it is
dangerous as we manifest distrust.
Discussion phase
P
At this stage, we try to draw the final agreement to our
A
position. We use those arguments that strengthen and
G
support our thesis and others who "weaken" the thesis of the
E
opposite party. Also, surely it is the most complex part of the
negotiating process.
254
It should be noted that at this stage the final outcome of the
negotiation is already largely influenced by the layout and the
attitude of the parties that have been foreshadowed by
previous and unrelated issues (e.g., the mood and attitude of
the negotiators, the scenario and conditions, the positioning
and the strategy chosen, the presentation of the parties, the
problem statement and the phase of first refusal).
Phase of partial proposals and exchanges
Once deployed the entire arsenal of arguments it's time for

the first proposed solution, usually partial, intending to solve
those aspects that can be easily set to reach agreements.

This approach also helps us clear up or ease the content and
agenda of the negotiation.
During this same stage it's where the first exchanges take
place, where the parties make some concessions in
exchange for others, thus obtaining the first partial
agreements.
It should be noted that these partial agreements technically

have the character of preliminary agreements or interim
agreements, subject, logically, to the overall agreement. It is
desirable to return to pre-agreements or interim agreements.
It is also not uncommon for some of these agreements to
P
become a bargaining chip in the final exchange on the issue
A
or on the fundamental issues. Do not despise them if the
G
opposite party takes this approach, as a betrayal or
E
disloyalty. In a negotiation, no agreement is closed until it is
total.
255
Phase of proposals and final exchanges
This is the final phase because, in it, the parties are

concentrated to the maximum on the most difficult aspects.
Approach and proposed positions and global solutions are
sought; differences are filed, the distances are reduced and,
in short, a full and final settlement is sought.
In most cases, negotiation has created a climate and a

general attitude towards agreement. This is generally good
and desirable, but nevertheless, we must also guard
ourselves against the desire, almost natural at this stage to
precipitate the agreement. Therefore, carefully monitor and
review each new proposal.

Settlement or closing phase
This phase is properly about materialization and training

agreement. Normally it is agreed as a logical and natural
result of a process in which both sides have sought to
achieve a result.
Avoid hasty agreements or forced by circumstances. If any of

these factors change, the agreement or its implementation
may crack. An agreement is when the parties are voluntarily
convinced that it is the best option. Any agreement reached
by mistake or deception is precarious, insecure and unstable.
P
Before agreeing on signing the final deal, make sure you
A
meet all the requirements you set in the context of
G
negotiation. Contrast that with each of your interests,
E
thoroughly review each of the points of agreement. If you
need any verification, testing or final authorization, do
request some time. Rush is usually one of the enemies of 256
any good deal.
Tracking Phase
When negotiations lengthen in time more than a day it is

helpful to review the content of the sessions daily, especially
when they relate to:
 New approaches.
 New information.
 Changes in attitude.
 Progress achieved.

 Difficulties appeared.
 Errors been made.
In summary, anything that alters the initial framework of the

negotiation process.
Based on the analysis of the last session, we will prepare the

next negotiation, with particular attention onto the following
points:
 Maintaining or changing objectives. P

 Maintaining or changing strategy. A
G
 Essential points to be discussed in the next session. E
 Objectives for the next session.
257
F Remember: Deception.
It is a primitive act. Deception intends to get

more for less. Great negotiators do not enter
that game. They know that this implies
"bread for today and hunger for tomorrow."

REPORTS OF MEETINGS
When negotiating, it is very useful to make a brief report of

each meeting where we register the most relevant aspects.
You should take notes, just briefly, in order to avoid paying

due attention to the opposite party.
Reflect the points where it seems to be coincidence and

those where the positions are distant.
Record those areas where the opposite party seems to fix his
attention, as those points will need special attention.
P
A
Collect the reactions of the opposite party to your opinions
G
and to your approaches. Try to detect what he seems to
E
agree upon and what he finds most difficult to accept.
If negotiating in group, note how other the team members 258

react, who seems to be closer to your critical thinking and
who else is not.
Record the questions you could not answer promptly and

about which you committed to make the necessary inquiries
in order to answer as quickly as possible.
Cross out those tasks that each party has agreed to perform
during the next meeting (studies, inquiries, new
approaches ...).
A brief notice of the meeting will be of great help later and will
accurately remember everything that happened during the
negotiation.

These notes are especially useful in negotiations between
groups where many people participate, or in complex
negotiations that continue over time and where multiple
meetings are held.
F Remember: Take notes.
Good negotiators do. Discreetly, of course,

but frankly. Moreover, be aware that this
reinforces your professionalism and also
avoids potential problems. P
A
For example, if at a certain point - after G
reaching an agreement - a party assumes E
some of the responsibilities previously
acquired.
259
Good negotiators take notes on critical
points to eliminate possible ambiguities.
Some even read aloud the words that the
opposite party has said and then formulate a
question to check that their understanding of
the situation is correct.

PLACE AND TIME OF NEGOTIATION
Regarding where the negotiations take place there are three

possibilities.
 Negotiating in our facilities

 Negotiating in their premises
 Negotiating on neutral ground
Each of these options has some advantages to consider.
P
Negotiating in our facilities A
G
Often provides more emotional calm -although there is also a E
danger arising from a possible relaxation- liking feeling at
home.
260
It has all the necessary information. Furthermore, it can be
easy to check with a specialist in the event that it is
necessary.
Choose the meeting room (size, type of table, the disposition

of the people in the room, etc.), select the one that is most
comfortable.
Let´s make a better use of time: starting time, breaks, lunch,

coffee, (can be used for personal benefit).
It allows you host the opposite party and earn appreciation

(pick up at the airport, invite to lunch, show modern facilities,
have everything perfectly organized...).

The negative part is clear; you can not sneak out if things go
wrong. Nor can you dismiss your partner, unless reached a
situation of pure conflict.
Negotiating in the premises of the opposite party
In this case, the advantages mentioned in the previous

section benefit the opposite party. However, this option may
also offer certain advantages.
Pressure allows the opposite party to perform the necessary

consultations and make a decision on the fly.
P
A
We may play with interruptions and gain some time: with the
G
excuse that certain data is not available or that we need to
E
consult with a specialist, we may adjourn and resume later.
The big advantage is that you can "escape" at any time. 261
Negotiate on neutral ground
In this case, both sides are equal, so no one will feel in

foreign land.
The negotiation can be performed, for example, in a hotel

(first verify that it meets the necessary conditions to hold this
meeting).
You can pick a place mid distance.

A disadvantage of this option is that neither party has the
resources available in their offices.
Negotiating on neutral ground may be an appropriate way to

start the negotiations, especially when the parties are not
known to each other. However, as we progress it will be
probably more comfortable to continue negotiating in a
known venue.
We, personally, prefer to negotiate "on foreign ground" for the

following reasons:
 The other party is in his comfort zone and therefore more

P
relaxed, less prone to blockades. A
 We always can "escape" if things get "twisted". G
E
 We can "stand our ground" and force the opposite party
to seek information since it is assumed that it has all its
facilities available. 262
 We have the excuse for not having all the data at hand, if
that trick is needed.
 We can use diversionary tactics, provided you already
have experience in these conflicts.

F Remember: Know the rules.
Today, many businesses tend to close during

lunch. Not surprisingly, restaurants offer a
neutral and relaxed atmosphere, usually with
less distraction than an office.
Therefore, it is essential to know the rules of

a meal. Well, there is still a lot of people that
don't know the rules.
Apparently, a third of the negotiators have
experienced an embarrassing situation at a
meal. P
A
The five worst errors which are often G
committed in a business lunch are: E
 Drinking too much alcohol (91%)

 Foul talking (76%)
263
 Being late for an appointment (50%)
 Spilling food or drink over the client
(47%)
 Monopolizing the conversation (41%)
Reading the above, good manners need to be included

in the negotiating strategy. We see that there may be
external factors against which we can do little (except
apologize) but some are entirely in our hands, so let's
pay all the attention they deserve.

P
A
G
THE ROLE OF TIME E
(THE MANAGEMENT OF AGENDA)
264

Time plays an important role and is often a decisive element
in negotiations. Over time the circumstances may change.
Put another way, when someone is in a hurry to negotiate (or

to agree) he faces an obvious disadvantage. Consequently,
you should avoid by all means to negotiate in such
circumstances and, in the worst case, hide your haste.
Time pressure makes it inevitable for the negotiators to

reduce their targets earlier than necessary, to lower their
demands and increase their concessions unconsciously.
Therefore it is important before you start negotiating to really

P
know what is the pressure of time. In fact, time can also be
A
measured in terms of the priorities of each situation. Prioritize
G
your obligations, your needs, your desires and your
E
commitments and be aware of the availability of time you
have.
265
Taking time to negotiate also has a psychological effect. It
transmits the feeling of being calm, relaxed, not being in
haste and shows that you are in command of the situation.
Do not forget that the urgency of the agreement is only

known by you and you must avoid the opposite party to
perceive this urgency (if any). However, even such a clear
rule as "thou shalt not negotiate in haste" has its exceptions.
When negotiation is between experienced and inexperienced
negotiators, speed negotiation always takes the side of the
experts. The same happens when negotiators that have
prepared themselves thoroughly start negotiating with people
who have not worked enough on their planning. However, as
we have noted on several occasions, rarely an unbalanced
agreement is of great quality.

What happens when you are totally determined to put at your
disposal all the time for negotiations but you have to stick to
a deadline?
First, remember that, in many cases, deadlines tend to be

self-imposed, perhaps you started too late. Second, establish
the difference between the deadlines that are objective and
those that are truly arbitrary.
The deadlines are determined by objective circumstances,

such as the completion of a contract, a subpoena, a warranty
expiration, etc.
P
Deadlines arbitrarily determined by one of the parties fall into
A
a different category and have different implications. If the
G
opposite party tells you that negotiations are broken unless
E
you agree to their terms before a certain date,
Some negotiators tend to be too attentive to their own 266

deadlines and to underestimate those of the opposite party.
When you have to stick to the dates set by your partner, ask
yourself first of all if you can extend that time and then, if the
negotiating party is or not being aware of it.

The case of a procrastinator, playing with the
times
A real and recent example, changing some data for

confidentiality reasons. Recently we had to help an IT
company to negotiate the new terms of its annual fees with
one of the largest global companies of its sector (the third in
its sector). This client sensed that the conditions would have
to be renegotiated at any time as the market conditions had
been changing. The tactic used was “procrastinating” until
the deadline to put pressure on his provider, an IT company.
Our solution was to just take the initiative and start asking for P
a negotiation five months in advance. A
G
This obviously was not in the client's plans and he was E
"stalling". This trick worked for some time but reached a state
where they were already showing bad faith or as minimum
some corporate rudeness. 267
Whereupon they had to start to open up three months before
negotiating what they had coveted.
If we had decided to wait, then the client company would

have waited until the last minute, say two weeks before
signing the annual agreement, putting us in a situation of
time pressure and leading us to a botched negotiation
process.
The customer purchasing department had a goal of reducing

costs by 15% and we had been told subtly (through third
parties, it is a classical tactic). A classic complication is that
these goals came from the parent company, in this case in
the USA.
It is a common situation where not only we have to negotiate
with a company, we also have to "draft the victory speech"
when our partners have to meet with their senior
management in the USA.
All our preparation focused on the needs list, some of them

unspoken or even unknown to the client, and develop sales
arguments and proposals to meet and anticipate those
needs.
Recall that if we fix our gaze on the discount percentage we

are entering a bargaining process against a party with more
power than us. If we also let our partner manage the times
P
then we are accumulating constraints in an already complex
A
negotiation process.
G
E
Our positive message is that if you really think of a big
business, it is unrealistic to think that they will negotiate in
two days. If that were the case then this business probably is268
not as big or interesting, so take all the time it takes to
negotiate in good conditions. If they attempt to tighten the
deadlines, it's probably just a gimmick or a trick, the classical
"I have many people waiting in line and willing to sign now".

F Remember: Time limit.
The time factor plays an important role in

any negotiation. In general, people always
wait as much as possible when making a
decision. Who has 60 minutes to negotiate
often uses most of the time.
Moreover, the time limit puts pressure to

close the deal. Often the problem is that we
tend to be more aware of our limited time
than the opposite party's. This leads us to
somewhat overestimate the opposite party. P
A
It's always interesting to think about these G
questions: E
 What's their time limit?

269
 What is the time limit I have imposed
upon myself? (or someone else may
have impose)
 Can I change those imposed deadlines
Needless to remember that negotiating

under time pressure is not advisable.
Always remember: What is the importance of what I am

negotiating? Namely it is unlikely that a business of great
importance has to be negotiated in minutes, ergo let's not get
carried away by precipitation.

A variant of the previous example we have encountered
many times. Let's say that we are called to participate in a
big project that begins next week. Here are several obvious
choices:
 The project is not so great.

 The project does not start next week. This for a reason of
pure logic. If it is so grand it requires more preparation
than just a week.
There is yet another possibility that can play to our

advantage. The project was started some time ago but we P
were not seen as a supplier. If it suddenly happens it means A
that something went wrong with the previous alternative. In G
this case we have positions to play with; i.e. the urgency E
when dealing with us will involve a cost to the customer, who
will accept the cost easily.
270
What happens is that the client wishes to impose its agenda,
hoping to bait us so please do first carefully analyse the
situation.
So do not forget: large project involve long periods. It is not

negotiated in two days. That's just a ruse.
A brief very recent example illustrates this situation. The

customer, the number one company in its sector in the
country. The project, large, an analysis of all management
positions and managers nationwide for a restructuring of the
entire company.
Chronology: meeting on Wednesday with the HR manager

who had to present the project that same Friday. We told our

colleagues not to waste time, but they seemed excited so
they prepared (Thursday) a proposal to be sent to them on
Thursday night. In this proposal, we proposed the following
Monday to sit down and negotiate as they were in such a
hurry.
Can you imagine the result? It took five weeks to inform us

that they had chosen another provider and thanking us for
the effort.
So remember that big business requires a great time. If

excessive time pressure, something does not fit.
P
Obviously the usual argument our interlocutor will use is to
A
reproach our lack of availability or flexibility, but it's just a
G
gimmick.
E
Furthermore, in this example we see that our partner did not
have the power to negotiate a partnership agreement, 271
despite having the title of Director. The obvious question is
"How do I find out the level of decision-making power without
being rude?"
It is clear that there is no general rule, but the simplest is to

ask about other people involved in the project; that will give
us a clue without transmitting distrust in the ability of the
speaker.

F Remember: Time to think.
It is perfectly fair to request it at any time

negotiation. Great negotiators use this
resource in a systematic way.
 Take short breaks

 Change a person on your team
 Pretend to be hungry or thirsty
 Go to restroom
 Make the other party put forward his P
position before wrapping up the day. A
G
In some cases, we've even seen someone E
fake a heart attack (!). We talk about the
leader of one of the largest companies in the
country, but that was his tactic. Needless to 272
say, this is foul play, with all its
consequences.

F Remember: The temporal aspect.
Everyone has a limit to close the negotiations

time, but this one is far away. In general, we tend
to be more aware of our limitations that the other
person's time. This fact leads to underestimate
our power and overestimate the other's.
With this in mind, it is always interesting to

wonder:
 What is the time limit of the opposite party?
 What timeframe I have set (or have P

imposed)? A
G
 Can I change those deadlines? E
Obviously we stress again that negotiating with
the pressure of time is not recommended. 273
F Remember: Progress.
When the two sides hold positions where –

apparent - reconciliation is impossible, the key is
to sit at the negotiating table and seek
agreement on issues somewhat marginal to
serve as a stimulus to successive agreements of
a highest calibre.
It is, in short, about starting a virtuous circle in

which each step taken, however small, is an
incentive to take the next one.

F Remember: Stagnation.
Few things are as complex as managing a

deadlock in negotiations. Stagnation is a
testament to the strength and resolve of both
parties, but at the same time causes an
escalation of costs and risks that significantly
reduces the aspirations of the negotiators.
On the other hand, always after the latter,

both parties are more willing to make
concessions.
P
A
G
F Remember: Basic (political) recipes. E
In any political negotiation the threat of use 274

of force is common.
To gain the trust of the parties we should

respect the commitments, keeping one's
word and not going into blackmail.
Confidence is achieved by involving the

people in the negotiation and decision
making, but ultimately the mediator will take
the conclusions alone. And like it or not,
diplomats, military and humanitarian actors
must go hand in hand, coordinated.

P
A
G
NEGOTIATING IN GROUP E
275

As noted in several places in this book, it is very different
negotiating face to face instead of in group. Furthermore,
each with his own point of view, interest, fears, his particular
valuation on us, etc.
This aspect is crucial, because what would appear to be a

compact group, often is not such and we can appreciate
different views or strategies among its members.
A good negotiator will attempt to bring out these differences.

In fact, paradoxically, negotiating before a group can often be
more beneficial than against one person.
P
Now there is the possibility that the group of negotiators
A
before us employ "foul play". The easiest is to try to "saturate
G
our channels" talking all at once, for example. Always bear in
E
mind that this procedure is simply a tactic and should be
treated as such.
276
To be aware of this before the first meeting, we suggest you
ask the opposite party a list of people who will attend the
negotiations. For example, if a representative of this financial
area will be there it also seems logical that a representative
assists your company in that area.
However, this rule is not exhaustive. Indeed, if you are

always looking for equivalent participants, you run the risk of
a clash of specialists and that the negotiation process
collapses.
It is not desirable for our group to be made of people of lower

hierarchical level because the negotiators of the opposite
party might feel undervalued (for example, the opposite party
goes with their CFO and us with a simple assistant).

Negotiators from the opposite party might feel uncomfortable,
embarrassed or they may perceive that such negotiation is
more important for them.
Going to the bargaining with negotiators of similar positions

facilitates communication and therefore speeds the same (it
is easier to ask and answer questions, to provide the
requested data, to take the necessary decisions, etc.).
When negotiating with a group of negotiators try to identify

their leader. Who defines its strategy, objectives, who will
ultimately decide whether or not the deal is Ok.
P
But be careful. The group leader may not be the one that
A
takes "the lead" but adopts a more discreet position,
G
intervening only at key moments. This case is very common
E
in Far East cultures.
Therefore, we suggest that you pay attention to the other 277

group members. Each of the negotiators who are before you
can have different interests in the negotiations. For example,
the representative of the purchasing area will be concerned
by the price; production, by the delivery time and technical
capabilities, warranty by after-sales service; the financial
area, by the payment facilities, etc.
This can be very beneficial because it is really easy to make

"cracks" appear between the positions of your partners.
In fact if you supply convincing arguments to each of the

different negotiators, you will find discrepancies as you
reinforce the individual positions of each of them and that will
encourage them to defend their partisan position against
their hitherto "companions".

Moreover, although it is usually always a person who has the
power to sign, there are many who can hamper that
negotiation. The contrary view of any of the persons or
departments involved may be enough for the group leader to
break the negotiation.
Establishment and operation of your negotiating team
Here are some rules that you can keep in mind when forming
your negotiating team:
Try to find people with complementary skills. One skilled in

P
techniques, one with plenty of relationship or social skills,
A
one skilled in building consensus, another particularly
G
rigorous to control small details, another creative, etc.
E
It is advisable to organise an initial meeting before starting
the negotiation so that people can know each other. 278
Create an atmosphere that encourages communication
under the rule of transparency instead of secrecy.
Make sure that everyone in the negotiating team have clear

in mind the purpose of the negotiation as well as the strategy
you want to follow, and know all the information available on
the opposite side and on competitors, etc.
Throughout the negotiation it is a must to communicate

developments as they occur and to assess any obstacles
emerging.
Before each meeting with the opposite party, the negotiating

team should meet to set up the last details.

After each encounter we should have a meeting to analyse
and evaluate what happened.
F Remember: When negotiating in group.
In many cases, negotiators are playing a role.

This is especially prevalent in Asian cultures.
Beside the negotiator, who is leading the pace,

you may invite in an accountant and a technician
that will work on costs and may help the one that
is doing the talking.
It is also nice to have a facilitator, who is in P

charge of lubrifying the cogwheels. A
G
Knowing the role that each person plays in a E
negotiation is fundamental to drive it to fruition.
279
F Remember: Time.
The time factor will be closely associated to the

cultural peculiarities of the negotiators.
For example, for the Americans time is the

enemy. When time passes and passes
inexorably, the American negotiator get
increasingly anguished.
However, in Asian cultures time is considered as

a powerful ally in the negotiation process.

P
NEGOTIATING A
G
WITH OTHER CULTURES E
280

Because of our profile, we have dealt with many different
cultures and languages and we have met some interesting
situations that allow us to share some tips with you.
Negotiations cross not only borders but also cultures. Culture

has a profound influence on the way people think,
communicate and behave. It also affects the types of
transactions they perform and the way people trade. The
differences in culture between the negotiating people can
create barriers that prevent or paralyse a negotiation
process.
Edward Hall - the esteemed father of proxemics - defined two

P
types of cultures, depending on the context:
A
G
High-context cultures (CCA). Those where the context has
E
more importance than the words themselves. Social position
is crucial and knowledge about it too. Many countries in Asia,
including Japan, Africa, the Arab countries and the Latin 281
countries, correspond with such cultures, where businesses
are slower, because they require a personal relationship
previously established as well as trust between the parties.
Low-context cultures (CCB). In these cultures, messages are

explicit and the words convey most of the information. Legal
documents are considered indispensable. Europe (especially
Anglo-Saxon countries) and United States are examples of
those cultures. Businesses are faster because the details are
quickly analysed.
Others see the relationship between culture and negotiation

analysed from the perspective of the dominant values of
individualism versus collectivism and egalitarianism versus
hierarchy. So-called individualistic cultures emphasize self-

interest, while collectivist cultures emphasize the interests of
all, or at least in what they consider to be the interests of the
group.
Individualism distinguishes cultures that put the individual

needs above the collective from those other cultures that
give priority to the needs of the group over those of
individuals (collectivist cultures). In individualistic cultures,
standards promote the interdependence of people by
emphasizing social obligations. Members of individualistic
and collectivist cultures differ in many ways.
Suggestions or cultural "tricks" we offer below have been

P
gathered from various research and publications and also
A
reflect some of our own experiences. There are stereotypes,
G
not infallible or universal behaviour for such groups. They are
E
rather a reflection on the modes of socialization, cultural
patterns, history and assigned identities. It should be noted
that most of the types that describe the researchers only offer282
features that correspond to male negotiators. Only recently
begun to emerge some characterizations that incorporate
features of men and women in the negotiation.
The currently best described types are the North American,

Arab,European and Asians. We will stick to those.

F Remember: When negotiating in group.
We should not forget that today, due to

globalization, the Anglo-Saxon style tends to
"dye" on all of us.
Although on many occasions it's just a dye to

appear more "modern", and very often, if we
press a little more we see the atavistic
behaviours typical of each culture emerge.
We recently had a working group composed

of young executives from countries such as P
Kazakhstan, Iran, USA, Brazil, China, A
Somalia, Egypt, etc. While all seemed cut G
from the same pattern at first glance, the E
issues regarding "sensitive" cultural
differences sprung like sparks.
283

The case of the Kazakh negotiator. Unexpected
tricks
Here we must mention a "dirty trick" that we have found in

some negotiations with international partners, in this case,
from Kazakhstan.
At one moment, the group stood up to debate alone and left

one of its members at the table, someone who supposedly
knew nothing about Spanish. But it turned out that that
member, in the Soviet era had studied in Cuba (remember
that Kazakhstan was a Soviet republic) and spoke excellent P
Spanish (with a Cuban accent by the way). A
G
As we assumed - bad done - there was little possibility that in E
this case a Kazakh dominated the Spanish language, we
started talking freely before a party who did not lose detail of
what we were saying, which somewhat created a minor 284
incident, quickly fixed fortunately.
F Key idea:
Having to negotiate in a language that is not

our natural language can imply more
benefits than disadvantages. Negotiators
forgive the opposite party's "failures" or
inaccuracies during the early phase closure,
where there are still a few things to precise.

NORTH AMERICANS
American business men generally prefer to handle

negotiations themselves and take complete responsibility for
decisions in negotiation.
They manifest preference for informality and equality in

human relationships and are often indifferent to the
distinctions of social levels.
Foreign negotiators use the tactic of "selective

understanding" such as changing previous comments
assumptions based on misunderstandings due to language
P
difficulties.
A
G
Beware! We often think that the person in the team with the
E
best English-speaking ability is also the most intelligent and
influential. This may lead them to pay more attention to the
wrong person. 285
Their approach is aimed at persuasion stage. They believe
that the first two stages of the negotiation process are less
important than the persuasion stage. Therefore, they spend
little time in secondary tasks; they prefer the discussion of
the arguments during the persuasion stage.
They have a vision of competitive negotiation and expect a

definite result, which will determine a winner and a loser (the
approach "win-win" is not natural to them).
For Americans, the contract is binding; it is an explicitly

written agreement which is expected to be honoured in all
circumstances, hence the expression "a deal is a deal". They
believe blindly in the agreements (and sometimes this can

lead to disappointment, for example, when dealing with
"Latino" cultures). In fact, they find culturally elusive the
concept of not respecting an agreement.
Obviously there are isolated cases when this does not apply,
but we're talking then about criminal behaviour.
In normal situations, they value determination, persistence

and competition within an inflexible negotiating style.
They like agendas.
They are aggressive and articulate (consistent).

P
Confrontations and disagreements are expected as part of
A
the negotiations.
G
E
They use a communication system in a journalistic style.
They like to stick to the schedule. They usually interrupt
frequently. They tend to use first names. Privacy and 286
personal space are very important. They are not particularly
adept at reading non-verbal communication.

ASIANS GENERALLY
The Japanese style is based on ningensei, i.e., in

conversation, behaviour and interpersonal relationships
within the negotiation. The ningensei can be translated as
"priority to humanity."
One of the major differences between Japanese and other

styles of negotiation is the relationship status. At the
interpersonal level, the status is determined by age, sex,
education and occupation, while in business relationships it
depends on the size and prestige of the company, the
industry structure, and particularly the role exercising (buyer
P
or seller).
A
G
Asian negotiators are uncomfortable if status distinctions do
E
not exist or are not clear. In a negotiation process, therefore,
we do not seek an impossible equality of treatment.
287
They prefer long-term relationships and, as a result of this
belief, negotiations take place slowly and carefully. One
implication of this aspect is that the Japanese negotiators
spend more efforts in preliminary negotiations and rituals.
The typical negotiation involves the formal greeting,

hospitality and ceremonial gift that usually begins a long
meeting. This serves to establish a harmonious relationship
between the two sides, which is very important to them.
They value superficial harmony, they avoid saying "no"

directly and they use other ways to express their negative
mainly because they want to withhold the true intent, for fear
of offending.

Business relationships are initially established through
appropriate connections. If a party does not know the other,
there are third parties that may come to arrange an initial
meeting.
Business cards are exchanged before the bows and

handshakes.
They rarely use first name. The consensus is crucial. They

do not like to interrupt (even if they disagree). They are not
comfortable with silences. They tend to be well informed and
deal with a lot of information.
P
They believe everyone must win in negotiations.
A
G
They are very attentive to non-verbal communication.
E
Reverence is the traditional greeting; and is highly codified.
They must be handled with care. In fact, it is best avoided as 288
it can mess up with the best of intentions. Mastering angle
and length of the bow requires years of study, so we should
better avoid them.
It's nice for them when a guest knows their protocol.
The handshake is common, taking it as a Western code not

dominated, but the grip should be weak and rapid.
It is impolite to have direct eye contact or during too long.
The personal side of business is very important.
The style is as critical as the content (the substance).

Gift-giving is essential.
When negotiating with Japanese it is important: to
 Listen.
 Present a total picture.
 Never ask questions unless you're sure they can be
answered (do not make them "lose face")
 Never refuse or flatly deny a proposal.
 Highlight areas of agreements to the extent possible.
 Be patient. P
A
 Avoid committing to deadlines or dates of departure. G
E
 Be receptive to invitations.
 Show yourself courteous.
289
 Avoid strictly follow western logic.
 Be aware of the feelings and emotions.
 Do not complain.
 Do not try to haggle.
 Be prepared for silence.
Interestingly -or not - we will find many of these traits in Latin

American countries, so we can use these same rules in that
case.

ARAB
In this culture, they like to develop close friendly business

relations.
They tend to never openly reject a request. Their social rules

demand that they always answer positively, which doesn't
mean that they agree with the proposal; it is just a token of
good will.
To be considered their friend and, thus, do business, the

Arabs need to place you: to know the opposite party, their
origin, their family, their ancestors, their level of education,
P
their career path. However, the Arabs are willing to
A
correspond with the same or more information as it is part of
G
their social codes.
E
They tend to be susceptible to the criticisms that can be
taken as a personal insult. They appreciate praise samples 290
and personal appreciation. Criticism should be sweetened,
made up and in private, and should never be done in public.
It is always useful to be presented or introduced by someone

you trust on both sides.
Punctuality is not a high priority. They have a variable

tracking of time.
Religious beliefs: everything relies on God, so excessive self-

confidence and safety in controlling environmental events
can be considered as a sign of arrogance and even as
blasphemous. It is very common to use the expression
Insh’allah ("God willing"), equivalent to "hopefully".

They pay much attention to human factors when adopting
decisions or when analysing issues.
They tend to negotiate on the long term. They do not mind

investing all the time they deem necessary to build a
relationship of mutual trust, which, for them, is an essential
condition for doing business.
In the professional and workplace, interaction between men

and women is currently accepted at some levels and certain
areas of negotiation. Although they prefer not to find women
in the negotiating team, whatever they might assure of.
In social environments, the interaction is deeply limited and
P
regulated. Behaviour showing excessive familiarity and
A
confidence with a woman can ruin everything.
G
E
For them it is essential to demonstrate excellent hospitality
and generosity towards guests and they may expect equal
treatment from the opposite party. 291

CONTEMPORARY EUROPEAN
The characteristics of European negotiators you see below

are necessarily general; i.e., they may vary in some
countries.
Generally speaking, Europeans are punctual and

responsible; if an appointment is agreed, no need for
confirmation.
With this culture is good to be direct. We must explain the

reason for the visit, objectives, who's who in a brief but
accurate manner. In professional and business environments
P
containment is valued, and emotions are not welcome. Also,
A
an excess of rhetoric and flowery language can be
G
counterproductive, except in France, where eloquence - even
E
pompousness - is highly valued.
The professional relationship is usually cold. Are not 292

considered personal aspects as the origin or family. Always
formality is required.
Although slowly changing, the traditional management style

tends to be authoritarian, bureaucratic and
compartmentalized. Traditional organizations are built on the
concept of personal hierarchy. Organizational charts are
often pyramidal and communication therefore is vertical and
downward.
Because of the diversity of languages, it must be agreed in

advance what will be the official language. If both parties do
not dominate the same language, it will be English language.
In some cases, issues of sovereignty or pride, Europeans

prefer to speak in their native language, so a translator is
needed especially in France as discussed above.
P
A
G
E
293

Variations on the stereotypes
Germans
Procedures are followed faithfully. They provide many details;

presentations follow a logical presentation of ideas. Privacy
and personal space are very important. When negotiating
with people from this culture, it is advisable to follow the
German correct rules of behaviour.
Show respect for the status. They are very polite. The
influence of power and money is not ostentatiously shown.
The title is very important and should be used. Openness,
P
honesty and being direct are valuable.
A
G
E
French
Value eloquence, even pedantry. 294

Courtesy is important.
Like logical and well organized presentations.
They like to see clear benefits.
Verbal agreements are not valid.
British
They value punctuality a lot.
It is very important to be polite.

Respect the privacy and personal space.
Verbal agreements are important and valued as a matter of

honour.
They tend to use innuendo and discrete exposures.
A business practice is to be conservative in dress and

socially.
Titles and honours are highly important.
The rule is quite early appointments.

P
A
Respect personal privacy, avoid personal questions.
G
E
Use of first names.
Light lunches are made. 295

The handshake is common among men and women.
Chinese
Chinese negotiators are recognized for establishing empathy

both verbally and non-verbally. They never work alone,
always in group. One of them will demonstrate verbal
empathy whereas the other will show non-verbal empathy. It
is therefore suitable to act in the same way.
Persistence and tolerance are characteristics of these

negotiators. They do not change position easily. There are no

written contracts because for them, the end of negotiations
on the signing of a contract is only the beginning of the
relationship that matters.
It is very probable they make us a gift, in which case it should

be acknowledged with solemnity, but never open it in public.
For them, it is difficult to separate the person from the

problem.
They change the rules, usually at the end, bringing new

negotiators in.
P
They like to invite others to think and thereby gain time.
A
G
Usually they try to speak Chinese (with language translation
E
or English speaker) to take advantage.
They are very punctual when arriving for appointments. 296

They are not very expressive.
They are very attentive to the business without you knowing

it.
They have excellent listening skills. Think well before you act.
Their persistence is huge.

F Remember: Forms of communication.
Some people use direct and simple forms of

communication; others rely primarily on
indirect and complex methods. The latter
type of negotiator often use circumlocutions,
figurative forms of expression, facial
expressions, gestures and other body
language.
In a direct communication, you can expect to

receive from the opposite party negotiator a
clear and definitive response to proposals P
and questions. A
G
However, when the communication is E
indirect, the reaction to the proposals can be
decoded interpreting vague comments,
gestures and other signals. Whatever you 297
get a first meeting will be an engagement or
categorical rejection.
Watch out! Comparing these communication

styles in the same bargaining situations can
lead to friction. It's a classic, for example, the
ambiguity caused by indirect forms of
Japanese negotiators when expressing
disapproval, and often leads to foreign
negotiators to believe that their proposals
are still on the table when in fact the
Japanese negotiators have rejected them.

F Remember: The personal style.
Personal style is related to the way in which

a negotiator speaks with others, talks about
their titles, dress and interact. Of course,
culture has a strong influence on the
personal style of the negotiators.
A formal style negotiator addresses the

opposite party by their titles or positions,
avoids personal anecdotes and does not ask
questions that touch private topics.
P
A casual negotiator tries to start the A
conversation using the name of each person G
to quickly develop a personal and friendly E
relationship and can take off his jacket and
roll up sleeves when the process of signing
the agreement is at its hottest point. 298
Professional negotiators respect appropriate
formalities. As a general rule, it is always
safer to take a formal position and move
towards a more casual relationship, if the
situation permits, better than adopting an
informal style too quickly.

Salacuse inspired tips
Of course, the enormous diversity of the cultures in the world

makes it virtually impossible for any negotiator to fully
understand every culture he may find. But let's mention the
work of W. Jeswald Salacuse. Salacuse identified ten
elements to be considered during a negotiation and we must
try to identify the cultural differences that may arise
throughout the negotiating process. If you consider these
elements you can better understand the opposite party and,
of course, anticipate possible misunderstandings.
Objective negotiation or not: contract or relationship?

P
A
For some cultures, the goal of negotiation is, above all, to
G
obtain the signature of a contract between the parties. In
E
contrast, other cultures tend to consider that the objective of
a negotiation is not particularly the signing of a contract, but
299
the creation of a relationship between the parties. Obviously,
having one or another belief affects many facets of the
negotiation; for example, the preliminaries.
Attitude negotiation: "win - lose" or "win - win"
We have already addressed this issue in another section.

Negotiators "win - win" minded contemplate closing the deal
as a collaborative process and as a joint problem solving.
Meanwhile, negotiators with an attitude of "win - lose"
observe it as a confrontation. Going into negotiations, you
should know what is the attitude of the negotiator who is
sitting in front of you.

Personal Style: formal or informal?
When negotiating with people from other cultures it is

essential to respect the appropriate formalities. The way in
which a negotiator speaks with others, using titles, dresses
and interacts says a lot of personal style preferred by the
culture of that person. You know the saying: "When in
Rome..."
Communication: direct or indirect?
Can we expect a clear and definitive answer to the questions

and suggestions?
P
A
G
Time sensitivity: high or low?
E
Negotiators from different cultures can come to value
differently both time and the amount of time devoted to the 300
aim pursued.
Degree of emotion: high or low?
Are emotions and feelings openly displayed?
Form of agreement: general or specific?
What form has the written agreement made by the parties?

Too detailed? Or rather the agreement tends to pick only a
few general principles?

Building the agreement, top down or bottom top?
Do we start with the big picture and then we delve in the

specifics (price, delivery time…)? some cultures favour one
style over the other.
No organization or teamwork: A leader or group consensus?
How different stakeholders are organized into bargaining

when negotiating a settlement? Is there a person who has
the authority to negotiate all aspects or rather the decision of
one of the parties has to be consensual? P
A
G
Taking risks: high or low? E
It is clear that certain cultures are more risk averse than

others. Negotiators meeting with the first type of culture must301
have very present the particularities derived from this way of
working and behave accordingly (for example, providing
more detailed or comprehensive information about you or
your company).
If, after everything we have just shared, you wish to expand

your knowledge on negotiating with other cultures, we
recommend the works of Hofstede we mention in the
bibliography. You will find it fascinating for sure, and you will
discover many an additional detail that might help you.

P
A
G
PHONE TALKS E
302

The telephone can be a powerful tool. However we strongly
recommend to be us the first to initiate the contact; we
should never answer a call, however drastic that may sound.
Remember that we should be in charge of the agenda, not
the opposite party. Once established this vital rule, using the
phone entrails both positive and negative aspects. It is
important to have them in mind before deciding your next
move.
There are many positive and negative aspects about

telephone negotiations:
Positive
P
A
 It is easier to say no, or to argue or manage difficult
G
behaviours because we cannot see the other person and E
we can hang up at any moment.
 We can connect with many people in a short time.
303
 Our body language will not betray us.
 In general, the other person cannot see what we are
doing, providing a sense of protection.
 Typically, social norms are much more relaxed by phone
than at face meetings.
Negative
It's easier for the opposite party to say no.
The information seems to be lost on the phone; sometimes

talking on the phone is too easy, and we forget things.

Obviously, if you have a mastery of your non-verbal
language, you lose a lot of communication skills if you use
the phone.
Phone negotiation management
How can we deal with such a valuable tool? Hereafter find

some suggestions:
 Schedule both the incoming and outcoming calls. If you

are busy, just inform that you will be available later (in 30
minutes or an hour, whatever). That way you may focus P
on your own agenda. A
G
As well, ask about which is the best time to call back. E
Don't try to guess or to call according to your own wishes,
as it may probably happen that you won't be able to get in
touch with the opposite party. 304
 Listen. The same concepts that apply to the ability to
listen in a face - to - face conversation apply even more
strongly on the phone. It's easy to overlook things,
particularly because the visual feedback is non-existent.
 Always utter with clarity. Remember that you lose the

non-verbal component of communication.
 Keep a positive attitude. Your interlocutor may detect

whether you are uneasy or even upset because of taking
that call. Remember that our interlocutors are our
business.

 Prepare before you call. Have an agenda, a "tentative
and fast" list. This will keep you on the road, and so you
will ensure that you get to your goal.
 Look at your other colleagues when they are on the

phone. Notice how they tend to nod when they agree, or
have other types of body language. Of course, the caller
can not see these gestures, so make a conscious effort to
reinforce their feeling that you are paying proper
attention.
 Be sure to repeat and verify the basic facts. This avoids

problems. P
A
 Use conflict management techniques to keep things calm G
when they get out of hand. Remember that it is easier to E
be angry on the phone than in a face to face meeting.
 Try to be the person who calls, whenever possible. The 305

caller has had time to prepare, you have prepared what to
say and have the initiative; everything that the called
party can do is respond. The person receiving the call
may not be ready to talk, he or she probably is not
expecting the call, and he may be emotionally unprepared
for it (busy with something else, about to go to eat or to a
meeting).
 Set limits. Do not talk about something until you're really

ready. If you can not give your full attention to the caller,
call him back.
Overall, the phone is a very powerful tool that we all can

learn how to use more effectively. Following the ideas above,

you can greatly improve your ability to manage your time on
the phone and therefore be more effective.
F Remember: Telephone negotiations.
They are usually the fastest negotiations... and

the most dangerous for a number of reasons:
 You do not see the other person

 You run the risk of taking hasty decisions
 You do not know the people on the opposite
P
side
A
 You do not know his environment G
(distractions, ...) E
 It exists possibility of misunderstanding
306
F Remember: Dirty tricks: the Spyphone.
There is a mobile that is prepared to simulate

being turned off and captures all the
conversations in its surroundings.
For example, the owner of said Spyphone leaves

the room with any excuse. From the outside, he
can hear conversations that occur on site.
The use of this phone gives some "advantages"

in the negotiating sessions (for those who play
dirty games) because the owner knows what the
opposite party says in his absence.

P
SIX PRINCIPLES A
G
OF INFLUENCE E
307

Understanding the principles of influence does not mean that
everything goes as you wished, but rather is about trying to
make sure that people really want to negotiate with you. We
want to share some practical suggestions, although be
warned that it all starts with a willingness to change.
By studying how you work with others, what are your

methods and if you're nice as a person, you can identify the
personal changes you should start. This way, you will be
more versatile, more flexible and more effective in your
negotiations. To do that you have to be more aware of
yourself and develop those areas in which you may self
improve. Remember that the word "person" is a Greek word
P
that was used to define the "masks" that actors wore on
A
stage. We all wear a mask, so we are not trying to change
G
you, just be sure to decide whether it is worth while you
E
change the way you work.
One of the most famed investigators on those topics Robert 308

Cialdini proposed six principles of influence:
Principle 1: Reciprocity
One of the universal laws of human culture is represented by

the rule of reciprocity. Reciprocity simply dictates that a
person should give back what he has been given. That is, it
is almost a social obligation to give back what they have
given us.
Since youth, we are encouraged to abide by the rule of

reciprocity for fear of suffering social disapproval if we do not.
Applying this rule to the context of a negotiation simply
means that if you give something to someone (for example,

certain information or a particular concession), then we can
indeed ask for something in return.
If you notice, the business world uses more and more the
rule of reciprocity by giving away samples, giving free
consultations, inviting to testing vehicles, etc. The power of
this rule is that, often, it is the starting point for unequal
exchanges. Because people do not want to feel indebted,
they often return more than they have received.
Cialdini's research indicates that in addition to increasing the

likelihood that the person says "yes" to a request, this
technique also increases the likelihood that he complies with
P
this request and agrees to future requests.
A
G
Remember that people will be indebted to you for those little
E
favours you do to them, though they not necessarily know
why. The more you use this principle, the more you will find
yourself in a position to make use of that advantage. 309
Now it is true that all we know some "ungrateful" people,
namely who do not give back. In our business we have
several examples of consultants, trainers and coaches that
have closed doors because of this attitude.
And they observe with perplexity and bewilderment how their

business is shrinking.
As Ingersold said "in nature, there are neither rewards nor

punishments, only consequences".

Principle 2: Commitment and Consistency
In general, people like to be consistent with their words,

attitudes, beliefs and actions because it is something that
society respects a lot. We also act consistently because it
makes easier the complexities of everyday life. After all, if we
are consistent with our previous decisions, we will reduce the
need to process large amounts of new information in similar
future situations. Instead, simply remember our earlier
decision and act consistently with it.
Cialdini uses the example of a restaurant that constantly

suffered bookings from clients who then did not appear for
P
lunch. The owner solved the problem by asking the
A
receptionist to change two words of what he said to the
G
people calling for reservations. This change caused the
E
percentage of people who did not attend pre-booked table to
fall from 30% to 10%.
310
This change of words was effective because it harnessed the
strength of our desire to be consistent. The clerk simply
modified his speech by saying, "Please call if you have to
change your plans" to "You will call, please, if you have to
change your plans? After that question, the receptionist
waited for an answer. The pause was because it was vital
that customers will complete those few seconds of silence
with some words of commitment. Future commitments such
as this direct future action, and having said that they would
call if they had to change their plans, made most customers
be consistent and keep their word.
Cialdini concluded that it is more likely to be effective when

commitments have been made in front of other people, or
when people are internally motivated. Once we have made a

commitment, we humans have a natural tendency to behave
consistently with that decision. So, if you get small
commitments and agreements at first, it is more likely that
negotiators in front of you continue on the same path you
wanted them to take. Find then opportunities for negotiators
of the opposite party to agree with you, if only just by taking a
position or expressing a certain belief.
Another way of putting it is as follows: The more "yes" we

receive from our partner, the more likely is that we are on
track. This technique, which is basic in "call centers" when
they call you home to sell anything, if you look carefully you
will note that all questions are directed to prompt a series of
P
"yes" answer to their interlocutor on the opposite side of the
A
phone.
G
E
Principle 3: Social Proof
The principle of social proof is based on the simple premise

311
that we do what other people do. We consider a specific
behaviour as correct if we see others behave similarly. If
most people have decided to follow a certain course of action
it is more likely to follow the example because then we
perceive the idea that we are right.
Now, careful again. A metaphor to help: In the subway or

other places with escalators, we find it always interesting to
see that we are the only ones using the normal stairs when
everyone, including young people in sports attire, use the
escalators although they are crowded. Well, you might come
across a negotiator that does not follow the rules and prefers
to walk alone. Here are two possibilities: it can be a pose, to
show how "cool" he is -but he is NOT at all- or it can be a

very internalized attitude; i.e. you'll face someone possibly
open to new options, which can prove to be very profitable
for both parties. It is rare but it can be the case, so do not
rule it out, it can be a great opportunity to achieve
exceptional results.
Think about how many times you influence public opinion or

the actions of other groups of people. Cialdini refers to an
experiment that took place in New York in which a man stood
in a corner to stare at the sky (not looking at anything in
particular). Most people passed by him, ignoring him, and
only 4% also looked up.
P
When the experiment was repeated with five (instead of just
A
one) staring upward, the number of pedestrians that stopped
G
quadrupled to reach 18%. The more people looked up, the
E
greater was the response of others. When there were 15
people looking at the sky, nearly 40% of passers-by stopped
to look up. If you think about it you constantly you see 312
examples of this kind: companies try to get as many
platforms as possible to tell consumers that they have the
most popular product.
People in general are more comfortable when they see they

are not alone when embarking on a particular course of
action. People feel comfortable when they are convinced that
there are other people (especially if they are related) who
have taken the same particular decision and everything went
as expected. When we feel comfortable, we are confident
when we act, and when this happens, it is much more likely
we say "yes".
Make a real effort to use examples that the negotiating party

can identify: Remember that similarity reinforces social proof.

These tactics can be used in your initial meetings, so make
good use of references that you can give to possible
customers.
This connects with something we've already discussed, the

need for "support" that human beings need when making a
decision. Similarly, although many times we forget it, it is
essential, once an agreement is reached, to reinforce our
partner's decision.
A simple example: if you notice, when we buy a car, a few

days later we receive a call from the seller, not to ask if
everything goes well, but to confirm that we have made a
P
great choice and to thank us for our confidence in him again.
A
This helps us strengthen our conviction that we made the
G
right decision, especially when it comes to such an important
E
purchase.
313
Principle 4: Authority
In most societies, there is great pressure to comply with

requests from people in authority. This usually becomes
apparent when obeying laws and rules, and comes from the
perception that obedience to authority is essential.
Besides we obey authority because we must also tend to

fulfil the requests from those who have positions of authority,
because it is perceived that these people have more
knowledge and more power. Sometimes just small details are
sufficient. Studies show that people are more compliant with
people who have an important job or an expensive suit, with
no other credentials. In all those situations, people that

obeyed those authorities were totally unaware of the effect
that the authority had on their behaviour.
In your negotiations, you can use details of authority that

allow you to get people to trust your opinions more easily. It
has been shown that factors as simple as wearing a tailored
suit and wearing a quality watch have a significant impact on
the willingness of people to be persuaded. Is this fair or
unfair? Hard to say, it's just plain reality.
As always, be creative, we can turn the argument upside

down. The peasant wisdom warns us: "In a hunting party
with posh hunters, be wary of the scout carrying a worn-out
P
shotgun and wearing old pants with a rope for belt".
A
G
In more contemporary language this comes to saying that the
E
one who seems holding the less authority may actually be
the one with the most power. The easiest way to tell is by
314
observing the non-verbal language of the rest of the group if
there are more people involved. If after our party makes a
claim he discreetly looks at someone from his team, then we
know where the real power is. This is very common in Asian
culture where the "King" first sends the "pawns" forward to
stand up and even sacrifice themselves, in order to gain
valuable information before "going into battle".

The case of the negotiator who didn’t fly
This is a real case. Recently, a friend's company hired us to

help him renegotiate some major annual contracts. The
caller, one of the world's largest companies in their field
obviously had a significant bargaining power.
We thoroughly prepared the negotiation and on the

appointed day we turned up at their facilities (in Their
Comfort Zone).
P
Our friend had already a long lasting relationship as a A
supplier to the company. However, I was a stranger to them. G
He introduced me as follows: "JD's with me and thank you E
for the late hour of the meeting and that's because he does
not fly, so we had to adapt and find other means of
transportation". 315
The face of curiosity of our partners - top managers -, was
priceless. In fact, they did not ask details about who I was or
what was my position.
This might appear to be foul play, although not intended to be

such (well, not that much). But if we accept going to
negotiate in the comfort zone of our partners (and there is
little choice when it comes to contracts with large
multinational companies), we may have a legitimate right to
balance the scale.
In this case, destabilizing the opposing party by adding a

factor of "authority". Indeed, imagine the doubts generated
by the peculiar way in which I appeared at the meeting. What
was to be a one-way for the client meeting, suddenly did not
seem so unidirectional.
And it is because the supplier had brought someone (!?) with
"authority". Who but someone in authority was daring that the
rest had to adapt to his transportation preferences?
Principle 5: Connecting
In the center of this principle lies the simple notion that we

are more influenced by the people we like. Research has
P
repeatedly shown that we prefer to say "yes" to the people
A
we like. You can use this simple rule and get a great effect.
G
E
A variety of factors have an impact on your chances of liking
another person, and one of the most important is one on
which we have less control: our attractiveness. Although it 316
has long been assumed that physical attractiveness provides
advantages in social interaction, Cialdini's research suggests
that this may be more important than hitherto imagined.
Being attractive often means that people casts on that
person intelligence, reliability or any other positive trait (kind
of a halo effect). For this reason, attractive people are more
likely to attract others. Cialdini refers to a study that
fundraisers for a charity that are good looking get almost
twice much money than other colleagues who are not.
Another factor that influences how much we love another
person is the similarity. We tend to like people who are like
us and we are then more likely to feel influenced by that
reason.

Although it sounds deeply unfair it turns out to be the reality.
Moreover, as this perception is generated in the deeper parts
of the mind, we can hardly fight it. So we have to understand
and accept it.
A good tool to get a good communication is to create, or
increase, the notion of similarity, which is also known as
"rapport". The safest thing is to find common ground with
negotiators before us, regardless of how small these aspects
may be, because they contribute to forging a sense of unity
and, therefore, increase the opportunity to influence that
person.
The key is generating similarities, giving compliments,

P
cooperating, etc.), although, of course, always while
A
remaining credible and professional.
G
E
Some people spend a lot of time dealing with people who
want to impress them, so do not expect to activate your
charm and get immediately what you want. You will probably 317
need to be extremely subtle when using this principle, but
remember: people always negotiate with other people.
Principle 6: Scarcity
According to the scarcity principle, we assign value to things

when they are less available. This reflects the basic truth that
usually things that are hard to get are better.
The perceived shortage has a major impact on our

judgement, for example, marketers take advantage of this by
proposing unique offerings. This is another reason why you
constantly see posters in stores with "closed" and "limited"
promotions that have the sole purpose of consumers

competing for scarce goods. Also, things attract us more
when we have to compete with others, and the harder to get
something, the more valuable. When a product or service is
scarce, we also perceive that it has more quality.
Cialdini also found that not only the shortage of products and
services can be used to influence others. The lack of
information is just as powerful. On the other hand, studies
show that limited access to information makes people
wanting to get more information. Once obtained, they are
more favourable and more receptive. In other words, limited
information is more persuasive. By making our partners
believe that information is scarce, we can influence their
P
response.
A
G
If you make your availability seem scarce, your caller
E
automatically values more your time. Remember, you can
make information scarce, and information is an easily
marketable product. 318

SELF-ASSESSMENT SHEET
Yes Partly No
Did you start the meeting warmly?
Was there a purpose for the meeting?
Did you listen to each other without interrupting?
Did you check if both parties had the authority to

negotiate a settlement?
¿Did you explore interests before making offers?

P
Did you generate options? A
G
Did you discuss any objective criteria? E
¿Any specific deals were made, but flexible

enough to take into account your interests?
319
Do you regularly check abstracted areas of
agreement and disagreement?
Did you achieve a clear and specific agreement?

Did you express it in writing?
Will they say that the agreement will satisfy your

interests and that it was better than your
respective BATNAs?
Did you end the meeting positively?

In summary
It is essential to understand the difference between positions

and interests.
You cannot negotiate on values, beliefs or prejudices.
It is very difficult to solve globally a confrontation that is

dominated by emotional elements. You have to split it,
attacking the elements belonging to the rational level of the
mind.
Any negotiation must be prepared thoroughly. Rate seriously

P
the possibility of refusing to start negotiations if you are not
A
prepared.
G
E
We recommend you to be, as negotiator, in charge of the
agenda of negotiations.
320
It is important to try to understand -the best possible way- our
minimum and maximum and the negotiators one.
One must understand the difference between bargaining and

negotiation. Haggling has to do solely with positions. It can
be useful but only in a few specific cases.
Beware of the free concessions in a negotiation process. All

that is given requires a payback.
If you have to give, give something that has little value to you
but it is important for the opposite party.
You must master the skills of listening and empathy to

understand the motivations of the opposite party. If you

intend to negotiate on interests, first you must listen to the
opposite party.
Try to know what is the motivation level of your interlocutor.

Assume that it may be quite different from yours (Maslow
Herzberg).
A negotiation is NOT a cockfight. The most important thing

for you is the end result and you should never lose sight of it.
As happens in a game of tennis, you will get the best result if
you have more mental strength.
Be very clear about what strategy you will use. If you decide
P
to approach a negotiation with a "win-lose" strategy, you
A
have to be willing to deal with the consequences.
G
E
If you have to face a group, consider trying to split it.
The positions are an equalizer that refines the sound of the 321
interests.
You can choose any strategy depending on the situation.

However, it is vital that you are clear at all times what you're
using, why you're using and, above all, what are the
consequences of using it.
Before negotiating and as a fundamental part of your

preparation, determine what your BATNA (Best Alternative to
a Negotiated Agreement) is.
Negotiate with a group only if the opposite party agrees to

use a single voice.

Lateral thinking is a basic skill when imagining interests,
BATNA and Min-Max.
Apply creativity techniques to imagine the latent interests of

your partners.
Everything, or almost everything is negotiable
Negotiating is not equal to equalling positions
Past performance should not prejudge future negotiations
Negotiating is influencing the mind of the other person.

P
A
Concrete agreements to the maximum.
G
E
Clarify that the goal is to ensure the success of the
negotiation.
322
Clearly define the objective.
Be gentle on people and hard on the problem.
In every misfortune, an opportunity 85% of the negotiation

depends on the information we possess.
In a good negotiation no one ends up on his knees.
Quite often, the one that speaks the most loses (remember
the power of silence)

The leather jackets case. Motivation and
creativity
Once upon a time there was a merger-absorption between

two courier companies in the UK, a domestic one (the large
one) and an international one (much smaller and absorbed).
That led to the opening of negotiations about the social

working conditions in both companies, and the negotiation
very quickly appeared as blocked due to some strong
opposition from the employees of the target company.
P
This tends to happen quite often in such circumstances. In A
this case, the important-and surprising thing is that the G
conditions proposed without any cheating or hidden agenda E
by the acquiring firm were better than those applied in the
acquired.
323
This posed a totally bewildering situation and the purchasing
company retired to their offices to reflect on such a strange
matter.
A young executive of the acquiring firm eventually had a

creative idea that he later confirmed in a casual conversation
at the neighbouring pub -in Richmond to be exact- with some
folks from the acquired company.
He returned to his office and made a very creative proposal

to his superiors. They paid attention as they had reached an
impasse, and they were desperate, and open to any creative
initiative.

They decided to implement it in desperation, and to their
amazement, it worked perfectly.
This is what they suggested to the employees of the acquired

company:
You are going to have the same conditions as our employees

but you also shall wear a different and distinctive uniform.
Your uniform will be leather jackets (instead of simple

woollen jackets) and will shoulder a metal pin that will read
"international team".
P
The negotiations ended at the same instant, for total
A
satisfaction of both parties.
G
E
The story does not say what happened to the young creative,
although it is quite likely that his career was quickly rocketing
up (or not, sometimes creativity is not that much rewarded). 324
If we are splitting hairs, the acquiring company could have
gotten an even better outcome.
For example, preserving without any change at all the

existing conditions in the acquired company (remember that
they were less beneficial than they intended).
They did no such thing because in reality they were not

convinced with the approach of the young executive. That is,
they did not understand several things:
 the notion of interests vs positions

 "hidden" or "not specified" interests

 the "value" (for the Other) vs the "cost" (for me)
 the importance of applying creativity
Key sentence
Interests may sometimes be murky even for

the opposite party. You have to research and
think laterally
P
A
F Remember: Look at nature and think about this metaphor. G
E
At sea all living creatures suffer from hunger.
In many places you can generate a situation 325
of great tension if we match an eel (it can eat
an octopus) with an octopus (it can eat a
lobster) and a lobster (which can eat an eel).
What happens is counterintuitive: nothing!
Eating involves being eaten and, more

importantly, not eating means NOT be eaten.
Maintaining long-term relationships (if you

want to survive) is more profitable than
"attacking" full blast.

P
A
BIBLIOGRAPHY G
E
326

Bacow, Lawrence and Michael Wheeler. Environmental
Dispute Resolution. New York: Plenum Publishing Co.,
1984.
Bazerman, Max H. and Margaret A. Neale, Negotiating Ra-

tionally. New York: Free Press, 1992.
Brinkman, Rick and Rick Kirschner. Dealing with People

You Can't Stand. New York: McGraw Hill, 1994
Carpenter, Susan and W.J.D. Kennedy, Managing Public

Disputes, San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1988.
P
A
Carpenter, Susan. Solving Community Problems by Con-
G
sensus. Washington, DC: Program for Community Problem
E
Solving, 1990.
Fisher, Roger and Danny Ertel, Getting Ready to Negoti- 327

ate: The Getting to YES Workbook. New York: Penguin
Books, 1995.
Fisher, Roger and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating

Agreement Without Giving In (2nd Edition). New York: Pen-
guin Books, 1991.
Fisher, Roger and Scott Brown, Getting Together - Build-

ing Relationships as We Negotiate. New York. Penguin
Books, 1989.
Gray, Barbara, Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for

Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossey Bass,1989.

Herrman, Margaret S., ed., Resolving Conflict: Strategies
for Local Government. Washington DC: International
City/County Management Association, 1994.
Huelsberg, Nancy A. and William F. Lincoln, ed., Success-

ful Negotiation in Local Government. Washington, DC: Inter-
national City Management Association, 1985.
Kolb, Deborah M. and Judith Williams, The Shadow Nego-

tiation: How Women Can Master the Hidden Agendas that
Determine Bargaining Success. New York: Simon & Schus-
ter, 2000.
P
Lavinia Hall (ed.), Negotiation: Strategies for Mutual Gain.
A
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1993.
G
E
Lincoln, William F., et a/, The Course in Collaborative Ne-
gotiations, Tacoma, WA: National Center Associates, 1986.
328
MacRae, Norman. John Von Neuman: The Scientific Ge-
nius Who Pioneered the Modern Computer, Game Theory,
Nuclear Deterrence, and Much More. New York: Pantheon
Books,1999.
Marcus, Phillip A., "A Procedure for Assessing Environmen-

tal Disputes" in Philip A. Marcus and Wendy M. Emrich, eds.,
Environmental Conflict Management: Working Paper Series,
Council on Environmental Quality, 1981.
Meeks, Jr., Gordon, Managing Environmental and Public

Policy Conflicts: A Legislator's Guide. Denver, CO: National
Conference of State Legislators, 1985.

Menkel-Meadow, Carrie, Michael Wheeler, What's Fair:
Ethics For Negotiators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004.
Mnookin, Robert H., Scott R. Peppet and Andrew S. Tu-

lumello. Beyond Winning: Negotiating to Create Value in
Deals and Disputes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 2000.
O'Hare, Michael, Lawrence Bacow, and Debra Sander-

son, Facility Siting and Public Opposition. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold, 1983.
Ozawa, Connie P., Recasting Science: Consensual Proce-

P
dures in Public Policy Making. Boulder, CO: Westview Press,
A
1991.
G
E
Potapchuk, William and Chris Carlson, 'Using Conflict
Analysis to Determine Intervention Techniques". Mediation
Quarterly, No 16, Summer 1987. 329
Poundstone, William, Prisoner’s Dilemma. New York: Dou-
ble Day, 1992.
Raiffa, Howard, The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cam-

bridge, M: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982.
Raiffa, Howard, Negotiation Analysis: The Art and Science

of Collaborative Decision Making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press. 2002.
Sebenius, James K., Six Habits of Merely Effective Negotia-

tors. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Cor-
poration, 2002.

Shell, G. Richard, Bargaining for Advantage—Negotiations
Strategies for Reasonable People. New York: Penguin
Books, 2006.
Stark, Peter and Jane Flaherty, The Only Negotiating

Guide You'll Ever Need. New York: Broadway Books, 2002.
Ury, William L., Jeanne M. Brett, and Stephen B. Gold-

berg, Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut
the Costs of Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988
Wondolleck, Julia M., Public Lands Conflict and Resolution:

Managing National Forest Disputes. New York: Plenum
P
Press, 1988.
A
G
E
330

Negotation

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Negotation

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Table of Contents

What is negotiation and what is the best strategy to follow 12

Do´s & Don’ts in successful negotiation processes

Do´s & Don’ts in successful negotiation processes

Those fears are certainly very respectable. However we are

We don't want to hint at that negotiation techniques don't

Do´s & Don’ts in successful negotiation processes

But even so this remains a significant percentage.

This negotiation for primary needs is soon followed by others

In addition, negotiating is an activity that is very important

Do´s & Don’ts in successful negotiation processes

And why do we negotiate? Basically because the opposite

The most desirable goal is not to win at all costs - because

However, in some types of negotiation, for example, at work

Von Clausewitz wrote it in his classic book "Vom Kriege"

Do´s & Don’ts in successful negotiation processes

And no need to think of an armed conflict. Imagine that I am

At that time, the balance of power has shifted completely and

One of the explanations for such situations comes from the

Do´s & Don’ts in successful negotiation processes

So what stance adopt in a negotiation? In our view, there are

The negotiation that best meets the three criteria is called

This method is used to resolve issues, questions or problems

Do´s & Don’ts in successful negotiation processes

It is also true that, on many occasions, the parties claim to

That "something" mysterious, in many cases, has to do with

Our personal experience is that if, on the other hand, we

As an aside, we have seen fit to give you later some

With no ambiguity whatsoever, in this book we work on the

Anyway, everything we share in this book, much to our

Do´s & Don’ts in successful negotiation processes

For that reason we have included some anecdotal elements

To end this introduction we want to emphasize one aspect

In fact, preparation is an intrinsic part of the negotiating

Preparing your negotiations will help you plan in advance

Do´s & Don’ts in successful negotiation processes

We suggest, dear reader, that you always reflect on the

We hope this book will supply the keys to go to these

Do´s & Don’ts in successful negotiation processes

“All the involved parties got something and

Maurice Hayes (about the Stortmont treaty that put and

Do´s & Don’ts in successful negotiation processes

Do´s & Don’ts in successful negotiation processes

“Negotiating is a communicative interaction between two or

The above definition emphasizes two main aspects: first,

The goal of negotiation is not always to agree. Because the

Do´s & Don’ts in successful negotiation processes

Strategy is the fulcrum to lean on during negotiation in order

Any negotiator without a strategy or a broad framework for

Obviously, the main strategy is to "win", but we should also

It is worth bearing in mind that all negotiations involves

After analysing our situation, we can begin negotiating with a

Do´s & Don’ts in successful negotiation processes

The "Win - Win" strategy

This is a rational and emotionally positive strategy. Ultimately,

The cooperative strategy tries to reach agreements by

Do´s & Don’ts in successful negotiation processes

Now this may not be a crippling obstacle; don´t be

It is true however that some authors recommend that the

Do´s & Don’ts in successful negotiation processes

This is certainly another possible strategy but a myopic one,

This is usually the most common strategy at the beginning of

Negotiation, in those cases, is understood as a competition,

The negotiator focuses on what he wants to gain and not