Through an article on Harvard Business School, I learned about my negotiation style in four different aspects, creating value, claiming it, empathizing with others, and asserting yourself, through a questionnaire. The questionnaire can be accessed here.
The results of my negotiating style are that I create value and that i have a tendency to empathise with the people I'm negotiating with.
Creating and claiming value:
In negotiation, there is an inherent tension between creating value (expanding the pie so that there is more potential value to distribute) and claiming it (securing as big a share as possible, whether the pie is large or small). Here’s how you compare with other test takers on these two scales:
There is nothing good or bad about where you stand. What’s important is making sure that your approach serves your broader objectives.
A style that helps you in one situation can hurt you in another. For example, if most of your transactions are price-driven, then it’s fine to lean toward the value-claiming end of the spectrum. But that’s not where you want to be if you handle a lot of multi-issue deals (which usually have value-creating potential). Below, double check your responses to questions 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Look at the options you didn’t select, and experiment with one or two of them in your next negotiation. They may pay off for you.
Alternatively, if your most important negotiations are with colleagues or long-time customers and vendors, it’s fine to lean toward value-creating — unless the bottom line is paramount. In that case, take a cue from value claimers. Don’t discard your entire approach, but try being a bit bolder in what you ask for.
Empathizing with others and asserting yourself:
Negotiators also have to balance the other side’s feelings with their own circumstances. Empathizing with others and asserting yourself shouldn’t be thought of as opposites. Success at one doesn't mean failure at the other. Nevertheless, research shows that many people wrongly feel they can't excel at both.
The best negotiators avoid that trap. They advocate for themselves without disrespecting others. And they have concern for others without selling themselves short.
Here’s how you compare with other test takers on both dimensions:
Wherever you are on these scales, try to stretch yourself in both directions by being simultaneously more empathetic and more assertive. Review questions 1, 2, 4, and 9 below. Try one or two new moves in your next negotiation — and make sure to really do it. You’ll be doubly rewarded. Strengthening your interpersonal skills leads to better outcomes.
My Responses to questions:
Now let’s look at how you answered each question and consider how you might adapt your approach to meet different goals.
1. Your place or mine?
Your answer: It makes no difference to me where I negotiate.
Sometimes (in salary negotiations, for example) the venue isn’t even up for discussion. But conventional wisdom says that when you do have a choice, you want to meet on your own turf to maintain a power advantage. To a point, that can work. If you’re selling a product or a service, for instance, introducing customers or clients to the team who will be fulfilling the contract may seal the deal.
But meeting at their office can show flexibility and a willingness to go the extra mile, which can be equally important if you are wooing a prospective customer or investor. You may even gain an edge by being at their place, because you’re likely to learn a lot more about who they are. And if you have a tense relationship, it’s easier to walk out of someone else’s office than to storm out of your own.
2. Outnumber the other side?
Your answer: I feel at a disadvantage if the other side brings a larger team to the table.
Yes, there can be strength in numbers, especially if different members of your negotiating team have special expertise or they all will play a role in implementation. Bringing an impressive team to the table can also signal your commitment to the deal. And for complex transactions, it’s helpful to have colleagues who can coach you during private caucuses.
But with a larger team, you must have a clear plan for managing the process. And it’s essential to resolve any internal differences about the deal beforehand. You don’t want to invite the other side to play “divide and conquer.”
Small, well-prepared teams are usually more agile, provided they have been given the discretion to craft creative solutions. In today’s fast-moving world, the ability to respond quickly to new proposals is a definite advantage at the bargaining table.
3. Make the first offer?
Your answer: It usually doesn’t matter to me who makes the first offer.
Street wisdom says never to make the first offer, because doing so signals weakness. Plus, the other side might surprise you by offering you a better deal than you would have asked for.
But there can be good reasons for going first. Studies show that initial demands strongly influence counter-offers. Working from your number is advantageous if you can provide a plausible reason for what you put forth. In short, where you begin often affects where you end up.
4. Your approach in the beginning?
Your answer: I state my position strongly early on but may become more flexible if my counterpart seems trustworthy.
While you’re working out the substantive terms of a deal, you’re also implicitly negotiating how to negotiate. Will this interaction be an exercise in joint problem-solving, or will it be a hardball haggle?
You can’t unilaterally decide that question. Whoever sits across the table is likely to have opinions about what the issues are and how to handle them. And people’s approaches to negotiation differ. Some are collaborative. Others are not.
It’s always in your interest to elicit constructive behavior if you can. But doing so presents difficult choices. For instance, it’s unrealistic to expect other people to be more cooperative than you are — but being open and flexible may be misread as a sign of weakness.
Before committing to one relational approach or another, try to get a good read on the other party. Even when you’re working under a deadline, take some time to establish a positive atmosphere. Don’t jump to conclusions about your counterpart. What looks like hostility might really be defensiveness (or simply a bad day for the other party). Once you both get settled, try making a small concession and see if it is reciprocated. If it is, then you’re most likely headed in the right direction. If not, you may need to express yourself more firmly.
5. Address easy or hard issues first?
Your answer: I like to start with the hard issues, because others will be more willing to make concessions early on.
There are good arguments for all these options. But keep two important caveats in mind: First, you may not know which issues are going to be hard and which will be easy until you sit down to negotiate. So be prepared for surprises, pleasant and otherwise. Second, don’t fall into the trap of dealing with one issue at a time. Doing so might seem orderly, but it basically sets up a series of win-lose transactions. It’s far better to evaluate different packages of items in the aggregate, in order to enable value-creating give-and-take.
6. Show your cards or hide them?
Your answer: I usually give the other party a good sense of my priorities so that we can explore mutually beneficial trades.
If only one party knows the other’s preferences, he or she can both expand the value “pie” and capture most of it. The party in the dark may be left only with crumbs.
People understand this intuitively, which explains why many seemingly simple transactions are protracted. If no one reveals preferences, no one gets exploited. But potential value may be squandered, too. Taking the initiative to share information is usually wise, but do it carefully, step by step, to encourage reciprocity.
7. Start high or low?
Your answer: I try to propose a deal that would be fair to both of us.
Figuring out how much to ask for is like judging your driving speed as you hurry to a meeting. You probably can exceed the posted limit, but not by so much that you’re stopped by the police, given a ticket, and forced to reschedule your appointment.
In negotiation, there are two kinds of upper limits. You hit one of them if your demand is taken seriously and the other party walks away. You may try to lure them back, though doing so will make them skeptical about whatever demands you make going forward.
Here's the other upper limit: A bold offer may provoke an equally aggressive counteroffer. Perhaps both sides can back down by making concessions, inch by inch. But that kind of process can drive out value-creation.
The punch line? Research suggests that the higher your aspirations, the more you’re likely to get. That’s the good news. The bad news is that you’ll also be more likely to walk away empty-handed.
8. Increase your demands?
Your answer: I never do.
This tactic is straight out of the hard-bargaining playbook. It’s supposed to have two advantages. One, of course, is getting a better outcome on that particular issue. The other is signaling that tomorrow’s terms will be even worse if agreement isn’t reached today. It’s a high-risk move, though, as it forces the other party to relinquish something that they believed they’d already secured. It undermines trust.
Nevertheless, it’s sometimes appropriate. Let’s say that you’re negotiating a service contract and you’ve provisionally made certain concessions. If another provider subsequently offers more generous terms, you can reasonably ask the first candidate to match — or top — the competing bid.
It’s also both fair and wise to increase your demands when you and the other party are comparing ways to craft a deal. For example, a price that you said you would accept to nail down a five-year contract might not be justifiable for a shorter-term deal.
9. Closing style: Do you say your manager wants more at the very end?
Your answer: I rarely do that.
This is the classic used-car gambit. You and the salesperson ostensibly shake hands on a deal. But after conferring with the manager, he or she comes back shamefaced and says that you’ll have to pay $1,000 more. The salesperson hastens to add, “But we’ll give you luxury floor mats for free” — as if that somehow makes everything all right.
Be careful about using this technique, especially if you have ongoing relationships. People will quickly learn to leave themselves wiggle room, knowing that you’ll come back asking for more. Or worse, they’ll choose to do business with somebody who’s more straightforward.
Commenti