Author – Deepak Malhotra and Max Bazerman
Moneyball → MLB manager autobiography
Robert Cialdini → social psychologist pioneer
Negotiating rationally → Bazerman, Neale
Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in
→ How do I get the best possible deal for my side?
→ Negotiation preparation, common negotiator mistakes, whether to make the first offer, responding to offers from the other party, structuring your initial offer, finding out how far you can push the other party, strategies for haggling effectively, and how to maximize not only your outcome but also the satisfaction of both parties.
💡 Value is whatever people find useful or desirable. You may measure value in dollars, utility, happiness, or a variety of other metrics.
five-step pre-negotiation framework
‘What will you do if the current negotiation ends in a no-deal?’
Common Negotiator Mistakes
💡 Should you make the first offer?
→ When made prematurely, a first offer can be extremely costly.
→ Whether you should make the first offer or not depends upon how much information you have.
→ protect yourself from being overly influenced by the other side’s anchor.
Shift the conversation to an entirely different topic that allows you to reassert control of the discussion.
influence only: as you know, there are other companies with whom we do business. We have spoken with them. As a result, we think your initial offer is low. We would like you to increase it to y amount.
Understand the difference between substantive information and reiterations of what you already know; phraseology.
“Well, based on your offer, which was unexpected, it looks like we have a lot of work ahead of us. From our perspective, a fair price would be closer to X. I will explain to you how we are valuing this deal, but it appears to me that if we are to reach any agreement, we will both have to work together to make it happen.”
When reacting to very extreme offers, your foremost goal should be to re-anchor successfully, not to convey your outrage. And re-anchoring successfully often means helping the other side find a way to retract earlier demands and arguments.
Make an offer that falls outside the ZOPA; one that you know the other side will not accept.
The idea is to force the other party to negotiate their way into the ZOPA.
‘What is the most aggressive offer that I can justify?’
High aspirations serve as self-fulfilling prophecies; they motivate the kinds of behaviors that help us achieve aggressive targets.
How can you obtain information that will help you estimate their RV with greater accuracy?
Step 1: Exhaust all pre-negotiation sources of information.
In any negotiation, once you know what you do not know, it is important to seek out all potential sources of information.
Information also helps you to avoid being manipulated or lied to during the negotiation. If the other party perceives that you have done your homework, their willingness to deceive you decreases.
Step 2: Identify your assumptions prior to the negotiation.
Wise negotiators create a comprehensive list of what they are assuming and what they do not know prior to negotiation.
You need to identify and be aware of all of the assumptions that underlie your planned course of action.
Step 3: Ask questions that challenge your assumption.
The wrong way to approach a negotiation is to start bargaining as if your assumptions are correct.
‘If the land is used for commercial development, that will make it quite valuable. With that in mind, let’s discuss some specifics. What are your plans for this excellent piece of real estate?’
This approach of anchoring, interrogating, and sounding sufficiently informed encapsulates all the characteristics of an effective approach in the face of uncertainty.
Step 4: Ask indirect questions.
What challenges does the client face?
What challenges does the company face?
What do they hope to accomplish in the next ten years?
What kinds of projects you might be able to help them with in the future?
How does this project fit with the client/company?
Step 5: Protect yourself from lies and uncertainty with contingency contracts.
Contingency contract: agreements that leave certain elements of the deal unresolved until the uncertainty is resolved in the future.
Strategy 1: Focus on the other party’s BATNA and reservation value
Those who focus on the other party’s BATNA(’What will they do without me?’) are paying attention to the amount of value they bring to the other party. These folks tend to set higher aspirations and capture more value in the deals they negotiate.
Strategy 2: Avoid making unilateral concessions
Negotiation geniuses are willing to make concessions, but they also demand reciprocity.
Luckily, a norm of reciprocity pervades most negotiation contexts: parties widely expect and understand that they will take turns making concessions.
If the other party violates this norm, you should rectify this problem immediately.
Strategy 3: Be comfortable with silence
The party that has made the offer will begin to qualify it, moderate it, or simply signal a greater willingness to concede.
Effective negotiators understand not only the power of silence but also the need to be comfortable with it.
Remind yourself that if you speak when it is their turn, you will be paying by the word.
Strategy 4: Label your concessions
Labeled concessions are hard to ignore, so it becomes difficult for recipients to justify nonreciprocity.
People are hardwired to feel obligated when someone has provided them with something of value, this norm of reciprocity is a powerful motivator of behavior.
Strategy 5: Define what it means to reciprocate
Reciprocity is even more likely if you specify what you expect in return.
‘I understand that we are still thousands of dollars apart. I am willing to moderate my demands, though this will be very costly to me. I am making a concession with the understanding that you will reciprocate with concessions of a similar magnitude. This is the only way we will be able to reach an agreement we both can accept.’
Strategy 6: Make contingent concessions
You can phrase your concessions in a quid-pro-quo manner to clarify that you will only make them if the other party does their part.
‘I can pay a higher price if you can promise me early delivery.’
Contingent concessions should be used as needed, but not overused.
The more conditions you place on your concessions and your willingness to cooperate, the more difficult it may be to build trust and strengthen the relationship.
Strategy 7: Be aware of the effects of diminishing rates of concessions
Early concessions are larger in size than later concessions.
As a negotiator gets closer to his reservation value, there is less room for large concessions.
Satisfaction has less to do with how well someone actually negotiated and much more to do with how well they think they negotiated.
💡 Satisfaction has everything to do with how well you think you did, and often little to nothing to do with how well you actually did.
The people with whom you negotiate will be satisfied to the degree that they believe they got a good deal, the degree to which they felt respected, and the degree to which they felt the outcome was equitable.
If you really want the other side to feel satisfied with the negotiation, take more of their money!
Make a counteroffer and ask for additional concessions.
💡 You are negotiating not just the deal, but also the relationship.
If you have been given an opportunity to strengthen the relationship or enhance your reputation, and all you need to do is reciprocate in kind to a generous opening offer, it may be foolish to do otherwise.
If you are surprised by an offer, don’t celebrate, think!
It is critical to stop and ask yourself: “What do they know that I don’t?”
Those who set aggressive targets tend to capture more value.
Focus on your target during the negotiation; when it is over, shift your focus to your reservation value.
By doing so, you will negotiate effectively(thanks to your high aspirations) and still be satisfied with your outcome afterward(because now you are comparing it with your RV)
Strategies for value creation, a framework for negotiating efficient agreements, preparing for and executing complex negotiations, how and when to make concessions, how to learn about the other side’s real interests, and what to do after the deal is signed.
Look for opportunities to create value by making trades across multiple issues.
Logrolling → the act of trading across issues.
It requires knowing your own priorities AND the clients.
💡 If the client values something more than you do, you should give it to them in exchange for reciprocity on issues that are a higher priority for you.
Negotiators should seize every opportunity to create value.
If you create value, you have the opportunity to capture a portion of this created value for yourself.
If the other party values something more than you, let them have it; but don’t give it away, sell it.
A good negotiator plays the game well; a negotiation genius changes the nature of the game itself.
Identify and pursue opportunities for value creation that are not obvious.
The more issues you have to play with, the easier it will be to find opportunities for log rolling.
→ more issues = more currency
💡 The goal of negotiation is not to get the best possible outcome on any one issue, but to negotiate the best possible package deal based on a consideration of all of the issues.
Adding issues to the negotiation may be most critical when the deal is centered on one divisive issue and no one is willing to compromise.
In business negotiations, price is often a divisive issue.
Other negotiable issues:
Your goal should be to maximize value.
Pareto improvement – changes to a deal that make one person better off without making anyone worse off.
Always look for Pareto improvements until you reach Pareto efficiency.
Pareto efficient – until there is no way to make one party better off without hurting the other.
How well do you understand the concerns of the other side?
💡 Contingency contracts alert you to possible deception if there is an unwillingness to “put his money where his mouth is”.
→ It can create value by allowing negotiators to stop arguing about their different beliefs and instead leverage their differences through bets that both sides expect to win.
caveats to keep in mind:
Strategy 1: Identify your multiple interests
→ The goal is not to overwhelm the other party with demands but to give them a lot of different ways to compensate you and make you happy.
Strategy 2: Create a scoring system
→ Think about your relative priorities over the many issues.
List each issue and weigh it according to its importance.
Have a common metric for evaluating each issue.
Strategy 3: Identify the other party’s multiple interests
→ You will be in a position to give the client something that they value and get something of value in return.
Strategy 1: Negotiate multiple issues simultaneously
→ to create a non-zero-sum negotiation that allows for value creation.
The relative importance of each issue to each party only becomes apparent when the issues are discussed simultaneously.
Strategy 2: Make package offers
→ avoid reaching a final agreement on any one issue until you had the opportunity to discuss every issue.
Begin with a discussion of each side’s perspective and preferred outcome on each issue.
Compare relative preferences across issues.
Exchange offers.
Strategy 3: Leverage Differences of all types to create value
→ differences in risk preferences | time preferences
When negotiating, rather than trying to ignore, reconcile, or overcome your differences with the other party, you should try to seek out differences, and then find ways to leverage them to create value.
Try to discover how much the other side values getting their way on this aspect of the deal.
→ If they value it sufficiently, they may be in a position to make the deal even sweeter for you by making other concessions in return for your flexibility.
Post-Settlement Settlement(PSS) → The recently signed agreement becomes the new BATNA for both parties.
This is a crucial point: you don’t want the other side to perceive the PSS as your attempt to renege or squeeze last-minute concessions out of them. On the contrary, you should present the idea of a PSS as an opportunity for both parties to benefit.
Step 1: Start by acknowledging the progress that was already made in reaching the initial agreement.
Step 2: Suggest that there are aspects of the deal that you wish could be improved; acknowledge that they probably feel similarly.
Step 3: Suggest that you may have already conceded everything that you can afford, but that you are willing to try to think “outside the box” if that will help the other party.
Step 4: State that it is important for both of you to realize that you are not looking for a new agreement, but for an improved agreement that both parties prefer to the current agreement.
💡 The task is to create value and increase the size of the pie.
Discover and leverage the interest, priorities, needs, and constraints of the other party—even when that party is reluctant or unwilling to share this information.
Investigative negotiation is both a mindset and a methodology. Investigative negotiators approach a crime scene: the goal is to learn as much as possible about the situation and the people involved.
Principle 1: Don’t ask what, ask why
→ too much focus on what people want distracts your attention from discovering why they want it.
Principle 2: Seek to reconcile interests, not demands
→ negotiation geniuses are not discouraged when the demands of each party seem incompatible. Instead, they probe deeper to find out each side’s real underlying interests. This strategy allows them to think more broadly and creatively about agreements that might satisfy the interests of both sides.
Principle 3: Create common ground with uncommon allies
Co-opetition → the mixed motives we often do(and should) have when engaging with those whom we view as our competitors. According to the principle of co-opetition, it is possible to simultaneously cooperate and compete with others.
Those who view their relationship with another side as one-dimensional(”He is my enemy”) forgo opportunities for value creation, whereas those who appreciate complex relationships and explore mutual interests are able to create common ground.
ex: he would pay even higher penalties than the buyer had demanded if the project was delayed, but the buyer would give the construction company a bonus if the project was completed earlier than scheduled.
Investigative negotiators confront demands the same way they confront any other statement from the other party: “What can I learn from this demand? What does it tell me about the other party’s needs and interests? How can I use this information to create and capture value?
Principle 4: Don’t dismiss anything as “their problem”
When the other party’s constraint destroys value, it is naïve to view these constraints as “their problem”
Principle 5: Don’t let negotiations end with a rejection of your offer
If you lose the deal, make one last call to the client.
Ask whether they would be willing to tell her why your offer had not been sufficient to win the deal. “This information could help me improve my product and service offerings in the future.”
Negotiations should never end with a “no”. Instead, they should either end with a “yes” or with an explanation as to “why not”.
“why not” is often as important a question as “why”.
💡 Never stop learning; not even when the deal is lost and they have been asked to leave the room.
Principle 6: Understand the difference between “selling” and “negotiating”
Effective negotiating requires active selling, but it also entails focusing on the other side’s interests, needs, priorities, constraints, and perspective.
They also understand that their ability to structure a deal that maximizes value often hinges not on their ability to persuade, but on their ability to listen.
Five strategies for eliciting information from reticent negotiators
This information may have been hard to obtain without the use of multiple simultaneous offers.
→ Cognitive biases
Even the brightest of executives fall victim to four critical, systematic errors on a regular basis: the fixed-pie bias, the vividness bias, the non-rational escalation of commitment, and the susceptibility to framing.
The Fixed-Pie Bias
Most negotiations involve more than one issue, including delivery, service, financing, bonuses, timing, and relationships.
The fixed-pie bias not only makes value creation difficult, but it can also lead to reactive devaluation.
💡 When approaching any important negotiation, enter the process with the goal of looking for areas in which you can create value. It is better to assume that you can enlarge the pie and later find out that you were wrong than to assume the pie is fixed and never find out you were wrong.
Vividness bias: paying too much attention to vivid features of the offers and overlooking others that could have a greater impact on their satisfaction.
Create a scoring system.
Separate information from influence.
Understanding the effects of framing and reference points.
Identify and avoid potential motivational biases, and see the world through a more objective and realistic lens.
Critical for negotiators to anticipate and resolve the conflict between what they want to do versus what they think they should do in advance of an actual negotiation.
💡 External attributions for failure inhibit learning from experience.
Overcoming your own biases and leveraging the biases of others.
Identify when it is in your best interest to help the other side be less biased.
3 powerful strategies to confront and manage your own biases:
Confronting the biases of others:
Strategies of influence that will increase the likelihood that others will accept your requests, demands, offers, and proposals.
Defense strategies that will defuse their attempts to manipulate your preferences and interests.
Negotiation success is typically more a function of how well we listen than how well we talk.
Defense strategies:
When you frame the exact same set of information as a loss, it will be more influential in negotiation than when you frame it as a gain.
Ways to leverage the power of loss aversion in negotiation:
The use of loss frames should be strategic and targeted, not pervasive. It may be best to reserve the use of loss frames for summarizing your argument or making your ‘final pitch’ statement.
Aggregate their losses
→ Aim for rejection, then moderate your demand is appropriate when your goal is to make your key demand reasonable.
→ When the exact same proposal was preceded by an extreme demand that was sure to be rejected, three times as many people said yes.
💡 When the person making the request moderates his demands(and asks for something less extreme), the other side views this as a concession that must be reciprocated.
Contrast effect → our tendency to judge the size of something based on the context in which it is situated.
If you want something, ask for more than you want(or expect), and be prepared to make concessions.
Rejection is not necessarily a bad thing.
💡 Once someone has agreed to an initial request, they are more psychologically committed to seeing the process through to its end.
→ Thus, willingness to agree with one request leads to an increased commitment to agree with additional requests that naturally follow from the initial request.
→ People have to justify past decisions and preserve consistency between their statements and actions.
Don’t let your offer “speak for itself” provide a justification for your demand and then tell a story that legitimizes your justification.
Even a low-cost concession(a token) may be sufficient to induce reciprocity, compliance, or agreement.
Examples of token concessions:
Defending yourself against strategies of influence:
Carefully evaluate interests and priorities prior to entering talks.
Everything that the other side says is part information and part influence.
→ Specific advice on how to broaden your focus to ensure that you consider all of the elements that might come into play as you negotiate.
Negotiators often overlook:
Winner’s curse → situations in which a bidder gets a prize, but only by paying more than the item is worth, due to his failure to consider the information advantage of the other party.
How to avoid the winner’s curse:
Effective negotiators must begin to think more broadly about what it means to collect “relevant” information.
→ What might motivate someone to lie in a negotiation?
→ What are some of the strategic costs of lying?
→ How can you tell if someone is lying?
→ How can you deter people from lying to you?
→ What should you do if you catch someone in a lie?
→ If you are interested in telling the truth but don’t want to lose your shirt at the bargaining table, what are some smart alternatives to lying?
Pre-empting lies and deception
Reveal information that makes you somewhat vulnerable.
In other words, reveal something that the other side recognizes is somewhat costly to you.
“I know that there is a lot at stake in this relationship and that this is likely to make everyone more guarded and skeptical. But I also know that the more open and honest we are with each other from the start, the easier it will be for us to develop a mutually rewarding long-term relationship. With that in mind, I would like to share with you some information related to our cost structure.”
Lie detection tactics:
After catching a lie:
Warn script: “You mentioned that the cost of these materials is 1.05𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡.𝐼𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑦𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑡𝑜𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎.𝑊𝑒ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑠1.05perunit.Ithinkthatyoumayneedtocheckyourdata.Wehavestrongtieswithanumberofsuppliersandarecertainthatthecostis0.90. Perhaps you are working with old data or were misinformed along the way. In any case, let’s try to be more careful about facts and figures as we go forward with this deal.” Confront script: “You mentioned that the cost of these materials is 1.05𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡.𝐼𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡,𝑢𝑛𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑠,𝑤𝑒ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑟𝑠.𝐵𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠,𝑤𝑒𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠.𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒,𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑓𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦1.05perunit.Ifeeltheneedtopointouttoyouthat,unlikesomeofyourothercustomers,wehavestrongtieswithanumberofsuppliers.Becauseofthis,weknowwhensomeoneisinflatingcosts.Forexample,thecostofthematerialsinquestionisactually0.90. We have been negotiating in good faith with you and are taking part in this negotiation to create value for both sides. But we are now a little uneasy about the way in which you have negotiated with us. Perhaps there is a simple explanation for the discrepancy in our numbers; perhaps you were misinformed. But I would just like to make you aware that we are disappointed with this exchange. Can you help us understand your perspective and suggest some way for us to overcome the anxiety we are now feeling?”
→ Provide an opportunity for the other side to save face. This is critical if you have already decided that you wish to continue the negotiation/relationship.
💡 Lies are not only potentially unethical; they are also very often poor strategies.
Negotiate honestly without disadvantage:
→ Thinking more carefully and comprehensively about maintaining integrity.
Bounded ethicality → the systematic and predictable psychological processes that lead people to engage in ethically questionable behaviors that are inconsistent with even their own preferred ethics.
Discard the assumption that the seemingly unethical behavior you observe suggests that the other party lacks your high ethical standards, or that they have consciously chosen self-rewarding behavior over what they believe to be right.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
💡 Confront your intentional biases, but also seek to understand your implicit preferences.
Parasitic value creation → what occurs when negotiators create value by taking value away from parties who are not at the bargaining table.
Prisoners’ dilemma → players are individually better off playing a noncooperative strategy, but collectively better off playing a cooperative strategy.
In order to avoid parasitic value creation:
If you want to diminish the tendency of your group or team members to overclaim credit or contribution, one way to do so is to get them to focus not only on what they have done but on what each individual, considered one at a time, has done as well.
Practicing ethicality:
3 guidelines for leveraging your knowledge:
→ How to effectively negotiate when you lack power, and how you might be able to upset the balance of power so that you move from a position of weakness to a position of strength.
Take the agent out of the game.
Educate your customers between deals.
when you make it clear that you have no intention of fighting or negotiating aggressively, others may also soften their stance.
→ Dealing with Irrationality, Distrust, Anger, Threats, and Ego
→ How do you negotiate when the other side appears to be entirely irrational?
→ How do you negotiate when trust has been lost and another party is unwilling to come to the table?
→ How can you defuse hardball tactics such as ultimatums and threats?
→ How should you deal with a party that is angry or one that is too proud to admit that its strategy was flawed?
Dealing with irrationality: be very careful before labeling someone “irrational”. Almost always this is not the case.
Dealing with anger
To aid in sidestepping the emotion:
Help them focus on their true underlying interests → Help shift attention away.
Dealing with threats & ultimatums:
Ignore the threat
Consider the following ultimatum: “This is our final offer: take it or leave it.” Response:
Neutralize any additional threats they might be tempted to make
If you don’t find the threat to be credible, let them know
Some ways to help this counterpart save face: • “I’m glad I was able to find ways to compensate you for a lower price because I know you could not have lowered it otherwise.” • “I realize that you are doing me a favor by reducing the price beyond what is normally possible, and I greatly appreciate it.” • “We’re fortunate that we were able to get past the discussion of price, in which you had already conceded all you could. Instead, we were able to focus on creating a package deal that pleased us both.”
→ Distinguish between the times when you should be playing the negotiation game and the times when you should be changing the game.
Slow down.
→ Recognize that the “softer” aspects of what you have learned (listening, understanding, empathizing, and so on) are some of the most widely applicable tools you can leverage, especially in sensitive situations where adrenaline-driven tactics might only make matters worse.
Negotiation may not be the best option when:
💡 We are often tempted to underestimate the value of our time because we are misapplying seemingly reasonable advice.
💡 It is often possible to make rational decisions and at the same time avoid unpleasant trade-offs if one has prepared effectively in advance.
When your BATNA stinks, their BATNA is fine, and all of this information is common knowledge, you may want to simply say yes in the negotiation and then change the game.
“I fully trust you to help make my transition into this new role both successful and mutually rewarding.”
💡 You will generally benefit by taking a long-term perspective that entails building a reputation for fairness and for contributing to the well-being of your negotiation counterparts.
When you don’t know something, try to learn it.
When “no deal” is the best outcome:
→ Which mindset will maximize your ability to put your learning into practice?
→ What habits will you want to cultivate in the weeks and months ahead?
→ What expectations should you have of yourself and others?
→ How might you help others in your organization negotiate more effectively?
From reading to actually negotiating:
We share our thoughts, ideas, and projects for all to learn and grow as we embark own our venture to gain FFF.