The Naked Negotiator

To succeed as a negotiator you have to get inside the mind of your opponent.

But the question is; Does success come primarily from understanding the other side’s viewpoint? Or does it come from establishing deep emotional engagement?

In other words, does it pay to get into your opponent’s head or does it pay to get inside their heart?

The May 3 Economist shows research by Adan Galinsky of Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University has revealed “that it pays to get inside your opponents’ heads rather than hearts”.

First, the researchers defined the two different approaches negotiators used to understand opponents:

1. Perspective-taking

2. Empathy

Negotiators often use these terms interchangeably but they are different.

Perspective taking is the cognitive power to perceive the world from someone else’s viewpoint.

Empathy is the power to connect with others emotionally - to feel the world from their viewpoint.

The simulations using 150 MBA students showed:

1. That the groups who focused on the perspective of the other side were much more likely to strike a better deal - 76% closed their deal.

2. The empathisers, that is those who focused on the other sides feelings were far less successful -only 54% closed their deal.

3. The control group, who simply focused on the own role without regard to the other sides’ perspective or feelings were even less successful - just 39% closed their deal.

Not surprisingly, negotiations when both sides make an effort to understand the perspective of the other side yield the highest joint gains.

But, even with just one negotiator having perspective taking abilities, the odds of a better deal for both sides are good.

In essence, this breakthrough research shows that deal making is about satisfying your opponent’s interests while meeting your own needs. Too much empathy can stand in the way of truly creative deals.

Popularity: 22% [?]

An Aesop Fable on Fairness
Several animals find treasure and must decide how to divide it fairly. The lion speaks up and says, “First, we must carefully divide the treasure into four parts. The first part goes to me, since I am king of the beasts. The second part is mine, owing to my strength. The third part is mine because of my courage. As to the fourth part, anyone who cares to dispute it with me can do so, at his own risk.”

A Bitter Divorce
In 1997 Gary Wendt, the chief executive of GE Capital, divorced his fifty-four-year-old wife of thirty-two years, Lorna Wendt. Gary’s net worth was about $100 million. Lorna wanted a 50-50 split. In court, Gary argued that since it was his talents that accumulated virtually all of the wealth he was entitled to the bulk of the assets. The judge awarded Lorna $20 million. Divorce law in Connecticut calls for equitable not equal distribution of assets.

Principles of Fairness
Our notions of fairness are guided by three, often conflicting principles:

1. The principle of equality says that regardless of contribution, everyone is entitled to an equal share.
2. The principle of equity prescribes that rewards should be based on each person’s contribution.
3. The principle of need prescribes that benefits should be based on need.

Tips and Tactics

• When slicing up the cake, always ask to whom will the recipient(s) compare themselves. People often care more about how their slice compares to others than they do about the absolute size of the pie.

• Make sure the process is seen to be fair and equitable. Commitment to a deal increases when the process is viewed as just and transparent.

• Aim for simplicity, clarity, and justifiability. Perceptions of fairness increase when agreements are simple to follow, deliver clear outcomes and can be easily explained.

• Remember, our egos clash with our notions of fairness. People pay themselves far more than they are willing to pay others for the same job.

Popularity: 31% [?]

In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Polonius advises his son Laertes

“This above all, — to thine own self be true. And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.”

In one insightful quote, Shakespeare tells us what it is to be real — to be authentic. Shakespeare tells us there are two tests for authenticity

1. You have to be true to yourself
2. You must be what you say to others

Journalist Edward Murrow offered the same advice:

“To be persuasive we must be believable, to be believable we must be credible, to be credible, we must be truthful.”

When you lose your credibility everyone discounts what you say. The challenge is however, that lying in negotiation is widespread. One recent study found 28% of negotiators lied about a common interest during negotiations. Another study revealed that 100% of negotiators either failed to reveal a problem or actively lied about it during negotiations if they were not directly asked about the issue.

Omission or Commission

Lies of omission (not revealing information) are more common than lies of commission (actively misrepresenting information). Wharton researcher Maurice Schweitzer found negotiators lie about:

• Reservation prices. Virtually everyone lies when it comes to stating their bottomline or reservation price.
• Interests. Negotiators often mislead their counterparts over their real interests. For example, a negotiator may portray a common interest as a conflicting interest in order to win a concession.
• Intentions. Negotiators often try to bluff the other side by misrepresenting their intentions.
• Material facts. Intentional false statement about material facts can constitute fraud.

Popularity: 18% [?]

A friend of mine confronted me the other day with a challenge.

“Harry, you’ve written books on negotiation, sales, marketing and presentation. If you had to boil all the advice into one quick phrase what would it be?”

“KFC”, I replied.

“What do you mean KFC? I didn’t ask for nutrition advice.”

I explained, “KFC. The K stands for Know what you want. The F stands for Find out what you’re getting. The C stands for Change what you do until you get what you want.”

All great persuaders, sellers, negotiators, and marketers practice KFC. They know that knowing what you want is the first critical step in persuasion. The second step is to pay attention to the feedback. Feedback is not called the breakfast of champions for nothing.

If what you tried isn’t working you change what you are doing until you get what you set out to get in the first place.

So remember - KFC:

Know what you want

Find out what you’re getting

Change what you’re doing

Popularity: 25% [?]

I have always been fascinated by how experts make decisions. Take chess. After a quick glance at a chess board, chess masters (who have 50,000 patterns stored in their memory) can play fast “blitz chess” with minimal loss of performance.

When we first learn a skill such as chess, we are novices, we learn by rules. Experts see things that are invisible to novices.

They notice:

• Patterns
• Anomalies
• The big picture
• Opportunities
• Differences too small for novices to detect
• Their own limitations

Experts, it seems, can rely on intuition because years of experience has given them the abilities to look for the “patterns” of whatever game they are playing.

As a result, when we teach negotiators, in our seminars we are always teaching to read the patterns.

We’ve found showing learners how to “read the patterns” dramatically accelerates negotiators learning and mastery.

Popularity: 11% [?]