poker-bluff.jpg
© Tyler Olson / Shutterstock.com

Dilemmas of a Negotiator - Part 2

Published: Jun 01 , 2017
Author:

The dilemmas continue in Part 2: Do we make the first proposal or respond? Do we bluff or not? And how do we define a good deal?

Propose or Respond

This is a source of much debate among negotiators. There is a view that those who hesitate longest, win. Making the first proposal is seen as a sign of weakness. While this may be true in some isolated situations, there is a general view supported by academic research that making the first proposal provides a number of distinct advantages. Making the first proposal allows you to set the agenda for the negotiation. It also allows you to effectively anchor the negotiation at your most favored price point within the bargaining arena. So forget the image of the Mississippi riverboat gamblers waiting for the other party to break first and seize the initiative in the negotiation by making the first proposal.


Bluff or Facts

All negotiations take place in the context of a relationship. In one-off transactions, there is little investment in the relationship and therefore your guide is, the law and your personal ethical framework. Typical transactions in this category are the sale of a motor vehicle and real estate. However, the majority of negotiations take place in the context of a wider relationship. In such relationships trust is important. It is essential to make relationships work. Anything you can do to build trust is good.

It is therefore important to resist the temptation to be loose with the truth in order to gain a short-term advantage. The best advice is to be honest but not naive. The test about whether to disclose information or not is whether such disclosure will move the other party towards your position or away from it.


Good versus Gold

It was Voltaire who first identified that the "excellent was the enemy of the good." Effective negotiators have a clear understanding of their objectives in a negotiation. They know when they have achieved an outcome that meets those objectives and where it is appropriate to agree. This does not mean that they immediately drop to their minimum acceptable position and are satisfied with that.

What it does mean is that in the prevailing market conditions they have done the best deal consistent with the other party being happy to implement that deal. They have not attempted to gain every last advantage at the expense of the implementation and the relationship. The law of diminishing returns applies here with additional time spent negotiating returning fewer benefits and potentially damaging the relationship. A common example is using aggressive negotiating to get a builder to agree to the cheapest possible price to build a house and then arguing constantly about quality and variations to the contract.

If you can successfully resolve these five dilemmas your negotiations should be more time efficient. More effective and their outcomes and provide the basis for deals that work and relationships that endure.

Keith Stacey

Click here if you missed the first blog.

 


SHARE

Latest Blog:

Warm Water

In his excellent book Homo Deus Yuval Harari describes an experiment conducted by Daniel Kahneman, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002. A group of volunteers were asked to take part in a ‘short’ experiment - they were to place one hand into a bowl of water at an exact 14C (cold enough to be quite unpleasant) for 60 seconds. The same group were also asked to take part in a ‘long’ experiment – to place their other hand in a bowl of water at 14C for 90 seconds. However, unknown to the volunteers, a small amount of warmer water was added to this bowl in the last 30 seconds which raised the temperature to a slightly warmer 15C. Some did the ‘short’ experiment first, others did the ‘long’ experiment first...

Latest Tweet:





United States
973.428.1991
usa@scotwork.com
Follow us
cpd.png
voty2016_sign_gold.png