Abstract
Most experienced project managers have good project management technical skills such as preparing a schedule, managing project risks and handling a change request. Unfortunately technical skills alone will not ensure project success. The project environment today offers many diverse challenges such as clients expecting scope changes be handled with no impact to the project plan, team members with differing needs and expectations, and project stakeholders with conflicting requirements. Compounding the problem is doing projects in a global economy: international projects with team members located in different countries, vendors, suppliers, and contract personnel from different countries, and more project stakeholders originally from different countries. Navigating projects in a global economy requires the project manager to have excellent negotiation skills.
This presentation will discuss the key traits possessed by successful negotiators involved with international projects and/or international teams, along with the key activities that should be done when preparing for any important project negotiation. The presentation will then discuss the five types of negotiations a project manager must be able to successfully handle. Some common best practice techniques used by successful negotiators will also be discussed, including the use of initial demands, questioning techniques to uncover information, assumptions testing, providing skilled responses to questions, making concessions wisely, and the use of time during negotiations. Specific examples will be discussed based on the personal experiences of the presenter.
This talk should be of interest to experienced project managers looking for pointers on how to be more effective doing projects in a global economy, especially when dealing with different cultures.
Introduction
Negotiations are a fact of life. Everyone negotiates every day — with coworkers, supervisors, clients, vendors and family members. A negotiation is a means of getting what you want from another party. In an ideal world, all negotiations would be situations where participants try to understand the position of the other side, openly work together to problem solve and make decisions based on merit, and reach a mutually acceptable agreement. This is the premise for ‘principled negotiation’ (Fisher & Ury, 1991, p 10), and this problem-solving (cooperative) approach for negotiation should be used whenever possible. However, this approach requires trust between both sides in the negotiation. It can help having a connection, such as another client who is willing to serve as a reference that your company is trustworthy and great to work with. In relationship-oriented cultures around the world such as Japan, China and Brazil trust and connections are essential for business negotiations (Graham & Requejo, 2009, p 167).
Unfortunately, trust does not exist in many negotiating situations, and one side really is trying to get the better of the other. When this occurs, the negotiation is a compromise situation where what one party gains the other party loses. The key is for the negotiator to understand which situation will occur in a negotiation – cooperative or competitive.
In this paper the word ‘opponents’ is used to describe the two sides involved in a negotiation. Although it may be an unfortunate choice because it reinforces the notion of a negotiation being a situation with a definite winner and loser, there is not a better word to use since, in reality, all negotiations really are contests. We do suggest you remember the golden rule whenever you are involved in any negotiation: treat others as you want to be treated. Be polite and respectful, and use your listening skills to really try to understand the views of the other side.
The Key Traits of Successful Negotiators
What are the key traits of successful negotiators involved with international projects and/or international teams? Based on personal experiences, the four key traits shared by effective negotiators on a global stage are:
- Comfortable with conflict
- High aspiration level
- Well-developed negotiation skills
- Understand different cultures
Comfortable with Conflict
By definition, a negotiation involves getting what you want from another party. If both parties wanted exactly the same thing there would be no need for a negotiation! Therefore negotiations are about resolving differences, and that means the situation involves conflict, which is defined as a disagreement between two sides. Let's be honest – how many project managers enjoy conflict? Most people are uncomfortable dealing with conflict and avoid conflict situations. However, successful negotiators recognize that conflicts are inevitable when people interact, and negotiations are a mechanism to resolve conflict. Therefore, one key trait successful negotiators share is being comfortable in conflict situations.
High Aspiration Level
Aspiration is defined as a desire or ambition to achieve something, and successful negotiators always have a high level of aspiration. A negotiator with high aspiration levels will be more successful and win in a negotiation over a person with lower aspirations. Obviously, a person who is a trained and skilled negotiator, plus with a high aspiration level will be very successful in negotiations. However, if you have two people with high negotiating skills and high ambition, the probability of deadlock is high.
A classic case of this occurred on a major road project in northern New Jersey. A large engineering company was in charge of overall project design, with some design being done by other specialized engineering firms. One specialty company was responsible for geotechnical and environmental engineering design, and the two companies really didn't like each other and were only working together because the client insisted on the arrangement. The project manager from the lead engineering firm (George) and the project manager from the sub-design firm (Joe) both had high aspirations and were skilled negotiators. On several occasions, scope changes arose and the negotiation was the same every time. Joe would state that it wasn't in the contract and was therefore a change, and George would claim it was in the contract (using a very generous interpretation of the contract wording). Joe would submit a change order with a large initial cost demand, and George would not approve it, claiming it wasn't a change. A deadlock occurred every time, resulting in a meeting with the principals from each company, and each time a compromise was reached to avoid engaging the client in the disagreement.
One point to remember is that a person's aspiration level can change over time, and is directly related to their location on Maslow's triangle on the hierarchy of needs. If a person is on the bottom rungs of the triangle, dealing with physiological, security, or social needs, his or her aspiration related to a negotiation will probably be low. If the person is at the top rungs of the triangle, which are self-esteem and self-actualization, his or her aspiration related to a negotiation will probably be high.
Well-Developed Negotiation Skills
Some people are natural negotiators, but most successful negotiators have participated in negotiation training. For example, most car sales personnel receive specific training on how to get the customer to buy a car. Negotiating skills obviously include how to use specific negotiation tactics such as concessions, questioning and time. But negotiating skills also include things such as planning and organizing, thinking clearly under stress and good communication skills (verbal, written and listening).
Skilled negotiators also know how to pick up clues that the opponent is under stress or may not be totally truthful. A sudden display of a single behavior listed below could be a potential sign that the person is experiencing some stress, but two or more behaviors suddenly occurring could be a signal the person is not being truthful. Here are some suspicious behaviors to watch for during a negotiation (Nemko, 2008, ¶4):
- Change in the voice's pitch
- Change in the rate of speech
- Sudden increase in the number of “ums” and “ahs”
- Change in eye contact (normally, one makes eye contact one-quarter to one-half of the time — if suddenly, at the convenient moment to lie, the person is staring at you or looking away, beware)
- Turning his or her body away from you, even if just slightly.
- Suddenly being able to see the white on the tops and bottoms of the person's eyes (not just the sides)
- Hand reaching, even if momentarily, to cover part of the face, especially the mouth
- Nervous movement of feet or legs
However, if the opponent is a skilled negotiator, most likely he or she won't conduct the suspicious behaviors described above – especially if he or she naturally doesn't show emotions or have considerable experience at not being truthful.
A recent example of negotiating skills occurred with a person, whom we'll call Tim, was laid off from his company in upstate New York. After being out of work for several months, he found a temporary contract job with an engineering company in New Jersey to manage one specific project. Tim did a good job and the project was successful. The engineering company decided to offer him a full-time position at a salary of US$105,000. Tim responded by asking for US$110,000 even though the job market in upstate New York was dismal at the time and he had no other offers on the table. The hiring manager immediately agreed to the higher amount. Tim was a skilled negotiator with high aspirations, but unfortunately the hiring manager was neither! A better response would have been for the hiring manager to tell Tim that a 6-month review would be done and at that point a salary adjustment would be considered.
One final point is that skilled negotiators take nothing personally. They are impervious to criticism, impossible to fluster and stay calm, and this can unnerve less-experienced opponents. If the opponent becomes angry, the skilled negotiator recognizes they now have the emotional advantage and use that to help close the deal to their advantage.
Understanding Different Cultures
People from different countries can have different values and principles that impact how a negotiation is conducted. For example, in the United States people tend to trust until given a reason not to. However, “in relationship-oriented cultures of Asia, Africa, Latin America and Southern Europe suspicion and distrust characterize negotiations with strangers,” and it is difficult to earn trust (Graham & Requejo, 2009, p 167). Therefore, trust must be transmitted using personal connections as references.
Successful negotiators understand these types of nuances and learn about the cultural aspects of their opponents before starting the negotiation. For example, some cultures approach negotiations assume trust is present and expect a principled negotiation, whereas other cultures enjoy a negotiation that involves hard bargaining and compromise. In some countries not being completely truthful in a negotiation is considered acceptable, but calling the person a liar is considered an insult. Projects today are done in a global environment and include international projects with team members located in different countries; vendors, suppliers, and contract personnel from different countries; or project stakeholders originally from different countries. Successful negotiators take the time to learn how to most effectively work with different cultures.
Types of Negotiations
The two types of negotiations that can be conducted between two parties are a problem solving (cooperative) or a compromise negotiation, and they are defined in the introduction section on the first page of this paper; however, three other types of negotiations that need to be considered are personal, stakeholder, and attitudinal.
Personal Negotiation
With any negotiation you need to decide on how much time and effort you are willing to invest. Personal negotiation means the negotiator needs to resolve any competing personal needs and goals associated with the negotiation, and decide on the approach to the negotiation that will result in the most satisfaction for the energy invested. For example, if you are on vacation in Cancun and are negotiating with a shopkeeper over the price of a piece of jewelry, your approach will probably be a compromise negotiation and you will only invest a limited amount of time negotiating before deciding to buy the jewelry or end the negotiation or walk away. If the negotiation is your starting salary for a job at a new company, you probably will invest considerable time researching job salaries for your type of work and job location, and will attempt to use a principled negotiation.
Stakeholder Negotiation
Stakeholders are the people from your organization with an interest in the goals for the negotiation and specifically the desired outcomes for the negotiation. The negotiator must reach an agreement with these stakeholders before the negotiation with the opponent can begin. Stakeholder negotiations can involve bargaining, especially when the stakeholders have different opinions on critical issues and what defines an acceptable outcome for the negotiation. In some cultures, getting stakeholder agreement can take significantly more time than the actual negotiation with the other party.
Attitudinal Negotiation
The final type of negotiation is attitudinal, which is the relationship, opinions and feelings between the two parties in the negotiation. The relationship type ideally should be mutual accommodations and/or open cooperation, but there can be situations where mild to extreme aggression exists by one or both parties. “A satisfactory negotiation cannot take place until both parties are willing to modify their attitudes sufficiently to engage in share-bargaining and problem-solving processes” (Karrass, 1992, p 131). Therefore, there may be some initial negotiations around attitudes that must be successfully conducted before even starting the main negotiation.
Preparing for a Negotiation
A negotiation consists of three phases: pre-meeting, the actual negotiation meeting, and the post-meeting. This section of the paper discusses the three phases of the negotiation process in more detail.
Pre-meeting
Before conducting a negotiation, it's important to have a plan. This is no different than trying to undertake a project without a plan! You need to develop your position based on fact-finding and analysis, and the logistics of the negotiation need to be planned. Prior to any negotiation, there are important strategic, administrative, and tactical planning considerations that need to be addressed.
Strategic planning addresses the goals for the negotiation. Part of strategic planning is learning about your opponent's needs and goals; along with the cultural aspects of the negotiation opponent. This can be accomplished by studying their business financial statements and public records, visiting their facility and asking questions, or checking with people who have dealt with them. Strategic planning also involves fact finding, financial analysis, and testing assumptions. If you are conducting a negotiation for your company, strategic planning often includes stakeholder bargaining as discussed in the prior section of this paper. The key pre-negotiation deliverables to agree upon are your
- Initial Offer – This is the first offer you will make at the appropriate point during the negotiation. It's important to have some data and justification to support this initial position or you risk losing credibility;
- Goal for Settlement – This is your desired outcome for the negotiation; and
- Walk-Away (No Deal) Point – This is the outcome where no deal is possible. For example, based on the stakeholder negotiations your company position is that the maximum price that will be paid for a service contract is US$100,000. When negotiating with the vendor, if their best and “final” offer is US$110,000, you should walk from the deal.
Tactical planning refers to determining the approach and techniques to use during the negotiation to obtain the best possible result. This includes deciding whether the negotiation is a cooperative problem-solving situation or an adversarial situation where compromise will be the outcome. If the negotiation is cooperative there should be open sharing of information and no gamesmanship.
However, with a compromise negotiation multiple techniques may be deployed to gain tactical advantage during the negotiation. Specific techniques can include use of good guy-bad guy, data jumble, escalating approval, trial balloons, and leaks. However, a discussion of these techniques is beyond the scope of this paper. Tactical planning is very important in a compromise negotiation, since a good strategy can be weakened by poor tactics during the negotiation. Conversely, good tactics can compensate for a poor strategy.
Administrative planning deals with managing the pre-meeting activities, ensuring that all necessary information is gathered and all negotiation logistics are resolved. This includes defining:
- Who will be involved in the negotiation
- What will be covered in the negotiation (what can be discussed and what won't be discussed) including the agenda
- Where the negotiation will be held
- When the negotiations will be held (date, time)
- Why – which gets into what are the desired outcomes from the negotiation
Meeting
The negotiation meeting typically consists of three phases: the opening, hard bargaining, and the closure, which hopefully results in an agreement, but can be a deadlock.
During the Opening Phase, the rules and agenda for the negotiation are covered, along with the items to be negotiated. The opening phase may include “verbal fireworks” if the negotiation is between two antagonists. For example, in negotiations over a large change order on a major fixed-price construction project, both sides may start with verbal fireworks as a means of presenting their position. The owner team may complain about safety violations by the contractor, and the contractor may complain about the unexpected site conditions and owner delays. The outcome of the opening phase should be a clear understanding of the problems and issues that need to be addressed.
In the Hard Bargaining Phase, both sides may employ various tactics while they discuss the problems and issues, explore possible resolutions, and make decisions. If this is a problem-solving (principled) negotiation, then both parties will try to resolve the problems and issues of the other side and will openly work together to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. If this is a compromise negotiation, then both parties will probably employ multiple tactics in an attempt to gain advantage and achieve a favorable outcome.
By the Closure Phase, agreements have been reached and the negotiation is coming to a conclusion. Typically, the agreements are reviewed and a final document signed to verify what has been agreed upon. For example, the closure phase for a new car purchase includes signing the contract (and any loan papers).
Post-Meeting
After the negotiation there are typically follow-up activities. It's important to note that negotiations are not really over just because the negotiation meeting ends. The negotiator may need to go back and inform the stakeholders of the outcome and obtain their final agreement and acceptance. Agreement elaboration may be needed after the negotiation, which might entail the actual writing of a legal agreement for final signatures. This can become complicated in global negotiations, because the language used for the agreement may be foreign for one party and the specific words used and their definition may take time to adequately resolve to the satisfaction of both parties.
A recent example of this is a redevelopment project in a town along the New Jersey coast. The developer presented his plan for the redevelopment of five blocks in the center of town. After the presentation and over two hours of discussion, the Town Board finally approved the plan with some modifications. However, it took another three months for the lawyers to prepare the zoning agreement document for signature due to disputes over what was agreed to at the meeting.
Negotiation Techniques – Best Practices
Unfortunately, most people are not good negotiators and end up with results that are really not optimal. Listed below are nine negotiation best practices that can help make your negotiation more successful. This list is not in any particular order, and a more detailed description of each item follows.
- Preparing an agenda
- Making initial demands
- Questioning techniques
- Assumptions testing
- Responding to questions
- Making concessions
- Handling threats and deadlock
- Using and dealing with power
- Using time
#1 – Preparing an Agenda
Preparing an agenda is part of administrative planning, the pre-meeting phase of a negotiation. An agenda helps to ensure you will cover all important aspects of the negotiation, and no issues are overlooked. You should take the initiative to prepare an agenda since it provides you more control over the actual negotiation. However, the agenda should be shared with your opponent well before the negotiation meeting, and request feedback on the proposed agenda. The preferred method is to show start and end times for the proposed agenda items, but be aware that most negotiations don't follow a nice script and agenda item time periods will likely require some adjustments during the negotiation. However, that's still preferable to starting the negotiation with no agenda and letting the discussion just wander – probably with no resolution.
#2 – Making Initial Demands
A skilled negotiator will either reveal no initial position or make large initial demands. There are differing schools of thought on this, and many people believe you should not be the first person in the negotiation to state their position. By letting the opponent show their hand first you theoretically have an advantage. However, some research has shown that “the result of a negotiation is often closer to what the first mover proposed than to the number the other party had in mind; the first number uttered in a negotiation (as long as it is not ridiculous) has the effect of anchoring the conversation” (Hofman, 2011, ¶4) .”
Making initial demands ties into the person's aspiration level and skill. For example, in a sparse job market, a job applicant might think she has little power to negotiate and if an unskilled negotiator she may make a low or no initial demand. A recent example is a person accepting a job at a new company with only two weeks of vacation. In his or her previous job, the person had four weeks of vacation but didn't negotiate the point, accepted the job offer, and then complained bitterly about the “lost” vacation time. What could have been done differently? It doesn't hurt to negotiate in such a situation — it's highly unlikely that an employer would pull a job offer because you ask for something. At worst they may say “no,” and more likely they may offer a compromise
#3 –Questioning Techniques
Ask questions of the person you are negotiating with to learn about their needs and goals. You'll be surprised how much people will tell you if asked! For example, when buying a car, ask the salesperson how business is going, whether there is a sales goal for the month, and how close the dealership is to the goal. If you are providing a quote for work, ask the client who else is bidding the work and what selection criteria will be used to evaluate the bids. What's the worst that will happen – the person may say it's none of your business. Be careful not to use an “interrogation” technique because that puts the person on the defensive. Also be aware that some cultures find multiple questions intrusive so be conversational and work the questions into the first part of the negotiation where there typically is some casual talk.
#4 –Assumptions Testing
An assumption is something that is believed to be true without proof. People typically make assumptions related to a negotiation and this can be harmful to their position. Treat assumptions with skepticism and work on the basis that your assumption may be wrong! The best way to test assumptions is to ask your opponent questions, which is best practice #3. You may not get a response, or at worst the person may lie, but surprisingly, most times your opponent will give you the information you need to determine whether the assumption is valid. An example of this is assuming the most important item for a client project is meeting a not-to-exceed budget. But testing this assumption may result in discovery that early schedule completion for the new product is more important even if it means exceeding the project budget.
#5 – Responding to Questions
This is the flip side of asking questions. In a principled negotiation there is trust on both sides and you would respond to questions completely and accurately. However, in a compromise negotiation, be careful not to provide information that can help your opponent! Lying or providing misinformation is never recommended – that's unethical. However, there is nothing wrong with not answering questions, pretending you didn't hear the question or telling your opponent that “I don't think that's something I want to share with you at this time.”
For example, a car salesperson will probably ask you questions about how long you have been looking, why you need the car, and what other manufacturers you have considered. The salesperson does this to define his or her negotiation position and the tactics that will be employed so a sale can be made. The worst approach is for you or anyone with you to tell the salesperson how much you love the car. That's way too much information and severely impacts your negotiating position! Another example of providing too much information is telling a client your company is having a bad year or just lost a major contract. This tells the client you need the deal and will be willing to make concessions.
#6 – Making Concessions
The person who makes the first concession and/or the largest concession typically ends up on the losing end of the negotiation (Karrass, 1992, p 19). In making concessions, leave plenty of room to negotiate from your initial position to your desired outcome. The skilled negotiator will make only infrequent and small concessions during the negotiation, which is intended to avoid raising the expectations of the other party. In making concessions, also be wary of “tit for tat,” which can be manipulative. The key is to not lose track of your goals when making concessions. Remember that each concession has an effect on the aspiration level of the opponent and is also a reflection of the negotiator's resolve to meet his or her objectives. Encourage your opponent to open up first and put their demands on the table. When you do make a concession, make your opponent work for it and get something in return. Also remember that “I‘ll consider it” is a concession and one you can easily back away from later. Finally, don't be ashamed to walk away from a bad concession. Remember that everything is open for negotiation and nothing is “settled” until the deal is signed!
A key rule when negotiating is not to use a range of values, such as a selling price between US$5,000 and US$8,000. Use of a range and the word ‘between’ is tantamount to making a concession, since a skilled negotiator will immediately fixate on the lower price of US$5,000 and continue the negotiation from that point. In other words, using a range and saying the word ‘between’ means you have made a concession without extracting anything in return.
Also remember that things can happen quickly in a negotiation, so it's important to maintain focus on your goals throughout the process. Having a plan for the negotiation and sticking to it can help ensure this. A recent example is that of a partner in an engineering firm that was negotiating pricing for a series of change orders with a client. One of the change orders was for a study on an endangered species found on the project site. The engineering firm was going to do some of the work, but the bulk of the work required the use of a specialty consultant. The client kept insisting the price of the study was too high and repeatedly demanded a lower price. The partner first erred in not having the technical manager involved in the negotiation to explain the costs to the client, and then furthered his mistake by finally agreeing to a price concession which was below what the engineering firm had to pay the specialty consultant! The partner obviously lost his focus in this negotiation.
If you see yourself about to make a concession which may not be wise, simply stand up and state you need a short break. Another good tactic is silence, which is uncomfortable for many people. A skilled negotiator was involved in negotiating a change order price with a contractor on a construction project. The contractor at one point stated that the price was the absolute lowest he could go and if not accepted he would stop work and file a lawsuit. The skilled negotiator just sat silently for almost a minute looking at the contractor, who then blurted “all right – what if I lower it another 10%?”
#7 – Using and Dealing with Power
Power is defined as the ability of a negotiator to influence the behavior of an opponent. It's important to remember that power may be real or assumed. For example, your opponent may assume you have the decision-making power in a negotiation, but when the agreement is finally reached, you state that your management team will have to review and approve the final deal. Also remember that power exists only to the extent that it is accepted, and that using power always entails risk. For example, your boss has the power of authority, but you can always say “I quit,” which eliminates his/her power over you. Finally, keep in mind that power relationships can change over time. You may be the boss today, but the person working for you may end up being your boss at some future point!
There are different types of power related to negotiations:
- Ability to reward or punish – An example of this is dealing with your boss, who has the ability to make decisions that impact you such as raises, promotions, and maybe whether to terminate your employment. Obviously in a negotiation this gives an advantage to your boss, but it's not absolute. If you have a key skill needed by the company, the power balance shifts more in your favor.
- Authority – Being President of a country, Chief Executive Officer of a company, or a General in the military are examples of authority. If you are in a negotiation and it's been made clear to all participants that you are the decision maker this gives your power legitimacy. A good example of the use of authority is Ulysses S. Grant, General-in-Chief of the Union army in the Civil War. In February 1862 he attacked Fort Donelson. When the Confederate commander asked for terms, Grant replied, “No terms except an unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted.” Grant knew he had the troops, the firepower, and the authority, and no negotiation was needed – the Confederates surrendered. However, Grant also used his power in negotiations wisely. When Robert E. Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House effectively ending the Civil War, Grant wrote out magnanimous terms of surrender that allowed the Confederates to keep their horses and guns.
- Knowledge – To be effective in a negotiation, you need to have knowledge regarding the subject area being negotiated, along with the culture of the opponent. If you are buying a new car, the more information you have regarding the cars under consideration makes you more knowledgeable in the negotiation with the car dealer. A lack of knowledge can result in a flawed negotiation. After World War I, the victors came up with new borders for many countries in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Unfortunately, they didn't have a good knowledge and understanding of the ethnic groups in the region and drew borders that resulted much later in conflicts and the break-up of counties such as Yugoslavia.
- Ability to tolerate uncertainty – Most people like certainty in their life, and negotiations are all about uncertainty. You don't know where you'll end up when you start the negotiation, so the uncertainty is high at the beginning and drops as the negotiation points get resolved. If you have the ability to handle uncertainty, this can be a source of power in a negotiation, unless the other party in the negotiation has the same ability.
- Time – Many Americans tend to be impatient. In the haste to reach a conclusion, the impatient person may start with an initial offer too close to his or her real desired outcome, and may be too quick to make concessions. Other cultures tend to be more patient in a negotiation, and this is a source of power.
- Negotiation Skills – A person who has the training and experience as a negotiator has a source of power over the opponent. A good example of this is car salespeople, who receive detailed negotiation training to help close deals with potential customers.
In conclusion, the key point is to be judicious in your use of power in a negotiation. You can force a decision in your favor, but it may lead to unintended consequences down the road. A good example is the peace treaty imposed on the Germans at the end of World War I. The onerous terms and harsh conditions planted the seeds for the rise of Adolph Hitler and the advent of World War II.
8 – Handling Threats and Deadlock
A threat is the expression that something unpleasant is going to happen unless certain conditions are met. This is related to power as discussed in the previous section, and is usually the ability to reward or punish. For example, an opponent may state that unless you meet their price demand, your company will never receive another order. This is where a skilled negotiator who has done a thorough job of pre-meeting planning will understand the opponent's needs and goals and the relative power position of both sides, and know just how real the threat is. Many times the threat is without merit, but a skilled negotiator will delicately maneuver the discussion so that the other party can withdraw the threat without losing respect. On the other hand, a skilled negotiator will avoid the use of threats, since it backs the opponent into a corner and can lead to unintended consequences.
A deadlock is a situation where the two parties cannot reach agreement. Negotiators with high aspirations will deadlock more often compared to negotiators with low aspirations. A deadlock situation is a test of strength and resolve and may result in no deal being reached. However, a deadlock is an effective tactic for a skilled negotiator since it does reduce aspirations and can result in both sides being more apt to make concessions. A skilled negotiator presented with a deadlock by the opponent will use various win-win tactics to break the deadlock. This includes using ‘what-if’ scenarios, introducing new information, finding common ground on a personal level, or even offering some minor concessions.
#9 – Using Time
Unfortunately, many people in a negotiation are impatient. For example, Americans have a reputation of being impatient, whereas the Chinese are known for being patient. “Chinese delaying tactics lead to great frustrations and concessions on the part of American negotiators.” (Lee, Yang, & Graham, 2006, p 626)
Skilled negotiators understand how different cultures view time, and will manipulate time to their advantage. If possible, create a situation in which your opponent is anxious to finalize the negotiation. For example, creating a deadline will cause time pressure if the deadline is believed. Skilled negotiators will also try for a quick settlement when dealing with an unskilled and impatient negotiator.
Surprise is also a timing tactic where the skilled negotiator will suddenly inject some new and unexpected information into the negotiation. An example of this is the negotiator stating that the price agreed to earlier in the negotiation is a special price that will expire at the end of the week if a final agreement is not reached. Another timing technique is replacing the negotiator right after making a concession, with the intent for the opponent to interpret the action as a signal that the concession made wasn't a good one and further concessions may not be expected.
One phrase associated with time that should not be used is “I think we're close” since that signals to the other side you want to settle the remaining few details and complete the negotiation. A skilled negotiator will use this moment as an opportunity to stall the negotiation and attempt to get further concessions. A better phase is something like “I‘m encouraged by the progress we have made” because it gives no indication that you expect a conclusion in the near future.
Conclusion
Practice makes perfect, and that statement applies to negotiators. Review the list of key traits of successful negotiators and work to improve your skills. If possible, find opportunities to conduct practice negotiations. Make sure you invest the time to properly prepare for important negotiations, including strategic, tactical and administrative planning. Finally, follow the suggestions and best practices covered in this paper, which will help make you a more effective negotiator.